Letters to the Editor

REI'S THIN VENEER

As a former employee of REI, I was unsurprised by Andy Ryan's revelations ["Who Owns REI?" June 18]. Among my experiences there was watching the floor selection change from outdoor gear to casual wear, dumping domestic manufacturers in favor of cheap, Chinese-made goods while prices stayed high or went up. I bore the brunt of the anger of longtime members: "What happened to the gear?" "Is there anything here that isn't made in China?" "Can you actually get people to pay so much for this (fleece/parka/hat)?" Some walked out. Some asked me to cut up their co-op card.

I saw unskilled floor staff fill the ranks as knowledgeable old-timers moved on. Wayne Colwell is worth every dime they pay him and the thousands they don't. Sadly, he is now an isolated exception, whereas the level of service he provides was once the rule. The days of going to REI both for gear and advice are over.

REI CEO Dennis Madsen's impatience with Ryan wasn't surprising. The bright light of a Weekly cover story can only reveal the authenticity he relies on to drive sales to undiscriminating yuppies as a paper-thin veneer for PR purposes. I saw a well-earned reputation for quality and knowledge being sold for short-term financial gain.

When I got to Seattle, the first thing I did was turn in an application at REI. I was jazzed when I was hired. I couldn't conceive of a better place to work and learn, especially in this outdoorsman's paradise. Imagine my disappointment when time revealed to me that the capitalists had gotten there first and sold Lloyd Anderson's dream, and my own, down the river.

W.E.S. Harman

Seattle

Andy Ryan's article ["Who Owns REI?" June 18] makes an important point about the direction of a major "cooperative," but it misses the central argument. CEO Dennis Madsen uses one theme to justify REI's business behaviorcompetition. Competition with whom? This is the central idea of a co-op: Since it's owned by its customers, it can rise above the rough-and-tumble of the competitive capitalist marketplace. A co-op should be able to ignore competitive forces, because its responsibility is to its customer-owners, not to shareholders with no explicit interest in the goods it sells. A co-op shouldn't need to compete with other vendors, because its customers are its owners; to the extent that customers choose to shop somewhere else, they are not members and are people whom the co-op doesn't need to satisfy.

Madsen and REI face a critical choice: Acknowledge that the cooperative model has failed and is basically unworkable in the current economic system, or make a difficult, critical re-examination of business practices, structure, and future direction.

Alex Rast

Seattle

Andy Ryan's feature on REI was of particular interest to me because I'm on the board of New Seattle Massage, a practitioner-owned co-op ["Who Owns REI?" June 18]. Co-ops are difficult to manage. They often fail because their structure makes adequate capitalization difficult. An important point the article overlooked is that co-op success depends on membership commitment and participation: a stake in the business financial, sweat equity, something. Ryan pointed out that most REI members are not very interested in co-op participation.

REI's board made decisions over the years that sacrificed co-op operating principles in favor of business efficiency and growth. It's hard to say if REI could have survived otherwise. But if REI isn't a "real" co-op anymore, blame members' lack of involvement in "their" business. At the very least, REI should be forthcoming about what kind of organization it is. If REI's not a true co-op and the majority of its members don't care and are satisfied with what they're getting, perhaps it doesn't matter.

Mary Ann Kae

Seattle

After reading Andy Ryan's "Who Owns REI?" [June 18], it is apparent that the only business venture either he or Professor Tom Jones have ever owned (or operated) is the one membership share of REI he claims to have sold. Companies that do not profit do not grow; as a result, they also do not hire or promote employment.

Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, and REI are filled with outdoor enthusiasts who struggle to balance work with play. The employees at REI don't just talk about a basement full of gear, they use the stuff. REI is a wonderful example of Seattle's outdoor, vibrant, and professional culture. It is sad Ryan's article attempts to taint that.

Jary Krauser

Seattle

Much ado was made in Philip Dawdy's article about the inappropriateness of SPD officers carrying AR-15 semiautomatic rifles at protests ["Make Their Day," June 18]. In my opinion, the carrying of such weapons is reasonable. It is accepted that officers carry handguns, because they need to be prepared in those rare cases when they, or innocent civilians, are faced with a deadly threat. AR-15s are an appropriate adjunct to handguns. They serve the same function but provide greater accuracy and "reach." Also, because officers on the front line of protests are occupied with shield, batons, and cumbersome equipment, they are less able to respond to, or even see, a gun in the crowd than the officer behind the line who is armed with a semiautomatic rifle. They are also less able to defend themselves or protesters against such a threat. Hopefully, the AR-15s will never be needed, but it would be ridiculous to say they're not needed merely because no such threat has yet presented itself at local protests.