Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Just got this email:
I sent them a reply:
If you write to Mr. Gilbert at [email protected], please keep to polite, practical suggestions. Utility and ethics would make better input than appeals to the Second Amendment guarantees.
Dear Mr. Volk:
I am the head of Human Resources for Canon U.S.A., and your recent email to Mr. Ishizuka has been referred to me for reply.
The statement to which you refer was previously distributed to new Canon employees in Irving, Texas, however, this is no longer being done. The statement is not included in our current employee handbook, nor was it ever included in the previous employee handbook which was superseded many years ago.
In light of recent national events, Canon is currently reviewing its policies regarding workplace safety, which includes, amongst other things, possession of firearms on Company premises and while on Company business.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for being a loyal Canon customer.
Sincerely,
William E. Gilbert
Vice President and General Manager
Human Resources Division
I sent them a reply:
Dear Mr. Gilbert,
Thank you very much for your reply. As you may have observed from the discussions on the web, a number of people are contemplating a boycott of Canon products. Since I am quite happy with the gear and with CPS support, I am glad that it would be unnecessary for me to do so.
In the light of the recent and not so recent events, I'd like to offer for your consideration that -- especially in restrictive California -- people who legally wear sidearms are almost invariably more law-abiding in all areas of their lives than the average population. They already passed numerous background checks and so pose no threat to their co-workers.
Conversely, the psychopaths who do pose a threat tend to be attracted to the locations where laws and/or workplace policies guarantee them a pool of disarmed targets. The threat of job termination doesn't impress people who come ready to murder and suicide.
With those considerations, I would recommend making no policy either restricting or encouraging discreet carry of sidearms for self-defense. The wearing of arms is no more a company matter than having air bags in vehicles: both go bang and have life-saving potential for the individual employees, neither impinges on the company interests.
If the decision makers would like additional input into this matter, I would happily arrange contacts with professional firearms use and safety trainers, including gratis admission to the courses required for California carry license or to general handgun use and safety classes. Having experience with the devices which are far simpler -- and equally morally neutral -- as any Canon camera, may prove helpful to the policy discussions.
Oleg Volk
If you write to Mr. Gilbert at [email protected], please keep to polite, practical suggestions. Utility and ethics would make better input than appeals to the Second Amendment guarantees.
