Heinz Ketchup Warns Employees of "Workplace Threats and Violence"
- Thread starter Bud Helms
- Start date
Well, I got a snail mail reply. 'Goes like this:
*************************
Heinz U.S.A.
1062 Progress Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5990
telephone 412-237-5757
May 22, 2000
Dear Mr. Helms,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your concerns about references to semi-automatic firearms in our workplace safety training manuals. I believe the information shared with you has been taken out of context and I appreciate the chance to clarify it for you.
First and foremost, please know that Heinz does not take a company position on gun ownership or specific types of guns. It is our number one priority, however, to provide a safe workplace for our employees. We take that commitment to our employees very seriously. Unfortunately, workplace violence is a fact of life these days, and it is our obligation as a responsible employer to ensure that our supervisory personnel are prepared not only to deal with workplace violence, but more importantly to prevent it before it happens.
In order to meet that responsibility, we provide training, both in a classroom format and through printed materials, for our managers and supervisors. The training in (sic) based on the extensive body of research and writing on this important topic to employers. It includes information on behaviors that can lead to violence. One of the behaviors cited is a fascination with the impact a semi-automatic weapon can have on a human being. There is no reference to ownership of a semi-automatic weapon as an indicator of potential violent behavior.
I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at 412-237-5796.
Sincerely,
Deborah G. Bolding
General Manager-Communications
*******************
Of course, Ms. Bolding misspelled my first name and the city in which I reside. Heh, heh. I'm so shocked!
Note, " ... Heinz does not take a company position on gun ownership or specific types of guns." vs "One of the behaviors cited" (by) "the extensive body of research and writing on this important topic" ... "is a fascination with the impact a semi-auto weapon can have on a human being." Impact? On a human being? More than one meaning here? Or is the meaning of "the impact a semi-auto weapon can have on a human being" a foregone conclusion? As in, having a preconception of what that impact is? That's a dead giveaway.
As to the "extensive body of research and writing on this important topic ..." (violence in the workplace?), It is interesting to note that "it includes information on behaviors that can lead to violence." Duh.
It's obvious she doesn't perceive the ramifications of Heinz's policy. The presumption of the evil effect (impact?) of semi-auto weapons will stand out to the readers of this post.
She did sign the letter, though. In RED ink! Well, I have never received a personally signed letter from the GM - Communications of my own employer, another Fortune 500 company. A lost, clueless soul.
[This message has been edited by sensop (edited June 06, 2000).]
*************************
Heinz U.S.A.
1062 Progress Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5990
telephone 412-237-5757
May 22, 2000
Dear Mr. Helms,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your concerns about references to semi-automatic firearms in our workplace safety training manuals. I believe the information shared with you has been taken out of context and I appreciate the chance to clarify it for you.
First and foremost, please know that Heinz does not take a company position on gun ownership or specific types of guns. It is our number one priority, however, to provide a safe workplace for our employees. We take that commitment to our employees very seriously. Unfortunately, workplace violence is a fact of life these days, and it is our obligation as a responsible employer to ensure that our supervisory personnel are prepared not only to deal with workplace violence, but more importantly to prevent it before it happens.
In order to meet that responsibility, we provide training, both in a classroom format and through printed materials, for our managers and supervisors. The training in (sic) based on the extensive body of research and writing on this important topic to employers. It includes information on behaviors that can lead to violence. One of the behaviors cited is a fascination with the impact a semi-automatic weapon can have on a human being. There is no reference to ownership of a semi-automatic weapon as an indicator of potential violent behavior.
I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at 412-237-5796.
Sincerely,
Deborah G. Bolding
General Manager-Communications
*******************
Of course, Ms. Bolding misspelled my first name and the city in which I reside. Heh, heh. I'm so shocked!
Note, " ... Heinz does not take a company position on gun ownership or specific types of guns." vs "One of the behaviors cited" (by) "the extensive body of research and writing on this important topic" ... "is a fascination with the impact a semi-auto weapon can have on a human being." Impact? On a human being? More than one meaning here? Or is the meaning of "the impact a semi-auto weapon can have on a human being" a foregone conclusion? As in, having a preconception of what that impact is? That's a dead giveaway.
As to the "extensive body of research and writing on this important topic ..." (violence in the workplace?), It is interesting to note that "it includes information on behaviors that can lead to violence." Duh.
It's obvious she doesn't perceive the ramifications of Heinz's policy. The presumption of the evil effect (impact?) of semi-auto weapons will stand out to the readers of this post.
She did sign the letter, though. In RED ink! Well, I have never received a personally signed letter from the GM - Communications of my own employer, another Fortune 500 company. A lost, clueless soul.
[This message has been edited by sensop (edited June 06, 2000).]
Gopher a 45
New member
So if someone drones on about what their single-shot Contender in .223 will do to a person, that's perfectly okey-dokey? That doesn't square real well with their "not [taking] a company position on gun ownership or specific type of guns." 
[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited June 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited June 06, 2000).]
mzanghetti
New member
A company such as Heinz has a responsibilty to each of his employees and I am not sure that the way the poster as you describe was out of line. An employee that fits that description MIGHT be at risk for violence. I work on a college Campus and weapons of any kind are completely BANNED (even pocket Knives). Until the legal system calms down most companies are going to have policies that reduce legal liability as much as possible. Thats really what this whole conversation is about. Heinz is taking action to reduce it's corporate liability if anything ever does happen.
------------------
A Life Well Lived Is The Best Revenge!
------------------
A Life Well Lived Is The Best Revenge!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
People who talk incessantly about the actual killing impact of weapons and their uses are worth taking a look at.
Talking about guns in general, RKBA, hunting - nah.
It's a fine line, but guys who are disgruntled and talk blood, gore and threats - well ...
Talking about guns in general, RKBA, hunting - nah.
It's a fine line, but guys who are disgruntled and talk blood, gore and threats - well ...
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There are other indicators also.
Professionals will know some of them.
You can research this yourself.
I am totally opposed to mindless antigun policies but there is legitimate safety work and research out there.
Professionals will know some of them.
You can research this yourself.
I am totally opposed to mindless antigun policies but there is legitimate safety work and research out there.
That poster could have just been recommended by their lawyer types as a safeguard against liability issues, just like having a bulletin board with OSHA info. However, I'd be interested to know if they also briefed suicide prevention, warning signs of alcoholism, sexual harassment policy, etc...
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Take care of the employees, watch it - someone will call you part of a socialist conspiracy.
HA HA
many
Seriously, I agree with you. I've had crappy jobs with some bosses who were not pleasant and enjoyed their power.
HA HA
many
Seriously, I agree with you. I've had crappy jobs with some bosses who were not pleasant and enjoyed their power.
There are currently a few companies out there who are putting on seminars for companies on how best to prevent liability from violence in the workplace. Seems that Hines has been a victum of this.
As an officer of a public company I received a call from a salesman on one of these safety seminars. I asked him what their position was on allowing employees to have guns at work. I was told that they recommend a no gun policy. He started in with his speal that it would help to protect you from lawsuits etc. I then asked him.... ok you have denied me my right to defend myself... if I am killed at work by a disgrunteled employee does that mean that my wife can then sue the company for failing to protect me? He told me that they had not thought about that... Ended up I told them that I don't think that we would be interested in learning from someone who has not thought out all the possiblities. Shut him up real quick.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
As an officer of a public company I received a call from a salesman on one of these safety seminars. I asked him what their position was on allowing employees to have guns at work. I was told that they recommend a no gun policy. He started in with his speal that it would help to protect you from lawsuits etc. I then asked him.... ok you have denied me my right to defend myself... if I am killed at work by a disgrunteled employee does that mean that my wife can then sue the company for failing to protect me? He told me that they had not thought about that... Ended up I told them that I don't think that we would be interested in learning from someone who has not thought out all the possiblities. Shut him up real quick.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
Jeff Thomas
New member
I still think the 'semi-automatic' term is humorously ignorant ... sounds like it was just inserted as a buzz word by someone who has no clue.
I concur with the other thoughts above that a true fascination with firearms violence and human suffering would be reasonable cause for concern. But, I would have framed it just that way ... a fascination with violence. Would those bozo's feel better if one of their employees daydreamed about the effect of chain saws on innocent human beings?
Regards from AZ
I concur with the other thoughts above that a true fascination with firearms violence and human suffering would be reasonable cause for concern. But, I would have framed it just that way ... a fascination with violence. Would those bozo's feel better if one of their employees daydreamed about the effect of chain saws on innocent human beings?
Regards from AZ
I agree with the effort to eliminate unnecessary potential for physical harm to the work staff by an employer, even this Heinz safety poster is not bad in its intent, really. My problem with it is the way it continues to blur the difference between semi-auto and auto weapons.
To single out "semi-auto" is the problem I have. You know, we complain about the antis not being factual and blurring the difference between semi-auto and full auto, among other bothersome facts. Well, here I see the right words technically, but the dangers warned against are either appropriate for all guns or for full auto weapons only.
I mean, why semi-auto? I have an opinion ... <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>It's seen as the most dangerous type weapon the guy on the street can own and <LI>It's the next logical target of the gun-banners, especially if they can associate it with the type of destructive fire power of a full auto weapon. </UL>The word "auto" is the thrust here. Semi-, full-, whatever, it's dangerous, don't you know!
After consideration, I don't feel threatened by Heinz's Safety Program, their intent being to insure safety of their work force. It was the use of "semi-auto" that got me. Of course, the quality and content of the letter was not worthy of a General Manager, IMHO. But it was probably considered by her to be quite good enough for a "gun nut".
To single out "semi-auto" is the problem I have. You know, we complain about the antis not being factual and blurring the difference between semi-auto and full auto, among other bothersome facts. Well, here I see the right words technically, but the dangers warned against are either appropriate for all guns or for full auto weapons only.
I mean, why semi-auto? I have an opinion ... <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>It's seen as the most dangerous type weapon the guy on the street can own and <LI>It's the next logical target of the gun-banners, especially if they can associate it with the type of destructive fire power of a full auto weapon. </UL>The word "auto" is the thrust here. Semi-, full-, whatever, it's dangerous, don't you know!
After consideration, I don't feel threatened by Heinz's Safety Program, their intent being to insure safety of their work force. It was the use of "semi-auto" that got me. Of course, the quality and content of the letter was not worthy of a General Manager, IMHO. But it was probably considered by her to be quite good enough for a "gun nut".
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
People who talk incessantly about the actual killing impact of weapons and their uses are worth taking a look at.[/quote]
Would talking about hollowpoint expansion, performance in ballistic gelatin, etc., qualify? I sincerely hope not.
------------------
"There's not much comfort in the fact that crime is down 6 percent. So instead of 100 criminals targeting you, now there are only 94. Whoop-dee-doo." -- Paxton Quigley
People who talk incessantly about the actual killing impact of weapons and their uses are worth taking a look at.[/quote]
Would talking about hollowpoint expansion, performance in ballistic gelatin, etc., qualify? I sincerely hope not.
------------------
"There's not much comfort in the fact that crime is down 6 percent. So instead of 100 criminals targeting you, now there are only 94. Whoop-dee-doo." -- Paxton Quigley