3M plant lays off 17 employees

Friday, August 28, 2009 | 4:52 p.m. CDT; updated 5:33 p.m. CDT, Friday, August 28, 2009

COLUMBIA — Seventeen employees of the 3M manufacturing plant in Columbia were laid off today. Plant Manager David Robinson said the decision to lay off the workers was due to a combination of factors.

The plant is losing its cable assembly production operation, and there continues to be a weak demand for electronic interconnect products, Robinson said in a follow-up e-mail.

“For 39 years, 3M Columbia has offered great jobs to great people, but we must size our workforce to match our business needs if we are to remain competitive,” Robinson said in his e-mail.

As previously reported by the Missourian, the 3M plant in Columbia has laid off workers before, including 124 employees in September 2003, 46 employees in November 2006 and around 240 workers in September 2007.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Charles Dudley Jr August 28, 2009 | 6:17 p.m.

You can thank Bush for allowing the outsourcing of all of those jobs.

Just another issue the current President must deal with.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 28, 2009 | 7:57 p.m.

Chuck, just how can you pin the blame on Bush? Is the secretly the CEO of 3M? Do you think there should be a law that a private company can't fill a job wherever they like? Let's see some evidence for that claim.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr August 29, 2009 | 2:35 a.m.

John Schultz Bush allowed those corporations tax breaks for outsourcing over seas alot of their work they were doing here in the states.

When those jobs left our unemployment started going up and businesses started shutting down. It was the beginning of the end alot of people saw just like the writing in the sand.

Read all about it. Too many links to post all of them so here it is in one link to them all. He is even quoted as blessing outsourcing of jobs from America.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking August 29, 2009 | 3:37 a.m.

Chuck, outsourcing benefits consumers in the short term, by giving them cheaper products. It obviously has it's problems in the longer term. I doubt anyone allowed tax breaks for outsourcing specifically - can you show evidence for this?


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr August 29, 2009 | 4:45 a.m.

Mark it is all in the link above.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking August 29, 2009 | 5:16 a.m.

Chuck, all I'm really seeing there are partisan articles with agendas. I've seen no mention of tax breaks. A lot of industries get tax breaks because of what they do, but I've never heard of a company getting a tax credit for sending manufacturing overseas.

A global economy has a global labor market. If workers in countries like China and India are willing to do the same job as an American worker for far less money, then a lot of businesses are going to take them up on that. US labor, especially union labor, has been pricing itself out of the market for years.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr August 29, 2009 | 9:11 a.m.

Mark Foecking and all I am saying is the info can be found off that link I provided and also researched through that same link by cross searching. If people are to lazy to do as such they deserve to live in the dark which is exactly where the GOP wants you to be.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 29, 2009 | 3:42 p.m.

Chuck, why don't you point us to a specific article rather than a Google search with 4.5 million results? I don't think you will because you can't prove your allegation.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr August 29, 2009 | 4:45 p.m.

Here John since you cannot obviously understand how to review search results and to cross reference those results is the info one more time:

And another:

You too John Schultz Chairman of the Libertarian Party o Boone County can actually do the research yourself.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking August 29, 2009 | 7:13 p.m.

Chuck, we assume *you* had done the research to some up with your claim. Please post specifics - the Google searches you reference have a lot of partisan articles in them.

I read like the wind. I certainly don't live in the dark, Chuck. But I expect someone that makes a charge like "You can thank Bush for allowing the outsourcing of all of those jobs" to post evidence of why they think so.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr August 30, 2009 | 4:51 a.m.

Mark Foecking I guess I should not assume some readers nor posters here have the actual intellect to go and do the reading and researching themselves if they do not believe anything that anybody might post here including the Missourian staff.

Silly members what did you learn in school? Your mom and dad gave you books and pencils and all you wanted to do was go to recess.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 30, 2009 | 10:21 p.m.

What I learned in school Chuck, is to call people when they claim facts not in existence, or who have not done their own research. Now, please do tell us how this link (from one of the filtered-down searches you provided) doesn't prove your original assertion baseless?

which reads in part:

"We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas."

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr August 31, 2009 | 5:15 a.m.

John explain to us all why Bush did not put a stop to this practice of outsourcing of American jobs that were and still are needed at home?

By doing nothing he condoned it and by condoning it kept the cycle going and has brought us to the point we are at now.

Think farther John than off the point of your nose.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 31, 2009 | 10:06 a.m.

No Chuckles, you explain why you claim Bush outsourced jobs when that legislation was passed prior to his term. You made a claim and it was proven wrong, don't try to whitewash it and pin something on me.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr August 31, 2009 | 3:07 p.m.

No John Schultz you explain why he didn't stop it and while you are at it explain to all of us who read here why the Libertarians did not radically protest this as well.

The answer to both is because the GOP and the Libertarians as a whole are only out for themselves and filling their own retirement coffers and screw everybody else.

That is the correct answer.

(Report Comment)
pauly smith August 31, 2009 | 5:08 p.m.

The tax breaks were part of NAFTA. Clinton signed it after years of taking beatings over it so the GOPee could reward their daddy warbucks friends and allow them to get out of paying US taxes for "trade cooperation" that gave them a chance to move jobs overseas into cheaper labor markets. Those products get shipped back here and are half the price. So now American workers who either have no jobs or who must work for less have to make a decision of whether to buy the cheap stuff because it fits their new reduced budgets or pay more because that fits with their values and the cycle begins anew.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 31, 2009 | 9:23 p.m.

Chuckles, you admit you were wrong first about your allegations regarding Bush's non-existent outsourcing tax breaks and maybe I'll answer your question (of course, I never said anything about Bush not stopping the tax breaks or that he should - you're just trying to dodge the fact you were Wrongly McWrongerson). But I'll give you this morsel of information - the US has one of the highest tax rates in the world for businesses. Did ya ever think that might drive some businesses overseas? Bet ya didn't. I'm for lower business (and personal) taxes as it will bring investment dollars to the US and also provide an impetus for spend-happy Washington to cut outlays that are not mandated by the Constitution.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 31, 2009 | 9:24 p.m.

Oh, and if we go back to your original (wrong) comment, I guess you are saying you want Obama to raise taxes on businesses? Right?

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.