Text of letter mailed to Mr. Ivan G. Seidenberg,
CEO of Verizon Communications, on February
16, 2004.
----------------------------------------------
Carl W. Bussjaeger
Box 361
379 Amherst Street
Nashua, NH 03063
CWB@GBROnline.com
February 16, 2004
Verizon Communications
Mr. Ivan G. Seidenberg
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Seidenberg,
It has come to my attention that my friend, Jeffrey L. Jordan, a Verizon employee in New Hampshire, has not been reporting to work since his arrest in Ohio for an alleged firearms technicality. This concerns me greatly because I do not believe it is by his choice.
When I learned of Mr. Jordan's arrest, I headed up to New Hampshire (via
Ohio) as an observer and to provide moral support. So I'm in a position to
see some things which I can't explain, mainly because Mr. Jordan has
apparently been advised not speak about any aspect of his case that isn't
already public knowledge.
As I mentioned, one of the things I've noticed is that Mr. Jordan hasn't
been going to work since he returned from Ohio. From years of association
with him, I know that he is a long-time employee of Verizon. With
expensive legal actions in progress, it is unlikely that he would
voluntarily cut his income by simply neglecting to go to work. I've asked,
and he tells me there's nothing he's free to speak of regarding his
employment status.
This gives me pause to wonder: Some companies suspend or terminate
employees who have been convicted of violent crimes. Are you doing
something similar to Mr. Jordan? I sincerely hope not. Allow me to put
this in perspective. A private company may well be entitled to
suspend/terminate an employee whose danger to society or individuals has
been established by a court conviction; but this is not the case with Mr.
Jordan.
First, he isn't accused of a violent crime. As best the Ohio Highway
Patrol can determine, he may have violated a technical rule on licensed
carry. No one is claiming that anyone whomsoever was harmed or
threatened.
Second, there was no crime. Mr. Jordan was licensed to carry a firearm,
just as he was licensed to operate a truck. Ohio authorities arbitrarily
chose to acknowledge his driver's license but not the carry license. This
is an interesting take on the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US
Constitution (the very clause that causes states to accept one another's
driver's licenses, marriages, even Verizon's own corporate status).
Third, Mr. Jordan's trial has not even begun, much less brought (an
exceedingly unlikely) conviction.
Fourth, all this took place while Mr. Jordan was on vacation, hundreds of
miles away from work. It has no bearing on his performance as a Verizon
employee. You should not be altering a man's work-status on the basis of
off-duty activities.
I hope that you haven't terminated or suspended Mr. Jordan for an alleged
act which has not yet been questioned in court, much less proved. But why
else wouldn't he be going to work?
Which brings me to another question: Even though I accompanied Mr. Jordan
from Ohio to New Hampshire, I never saw him return to work at all. This
suggests to me that he was suspended/terminated by Verizon before he even
got back home. How did Verizon learn details of his legal situation even
before he came to work to inform the company? If public news reports were
your only source of information, then proceeding directly to
suspension/termination without a hearing is highly improper. Maybe Verizon
had a more direct channel for information to which the rest of us are not
privy. Which begs still more questions: A channel to whom? Is someone
giving Verizon insider information (or misinformation) on Mr. Jordan's
case on the sly; and if so, why? What information? Who? Is that legal?
This reeks. Does Verizon conduct "star chamber" personnel actions?
Would you do this to an employee accused of failing to register his
vehicle, not mowing his lawn, or forgetting to renew his driver's license
(all comparable to the offense of which Mr. Jordan is accused). Are you
singling out Mr. Jordan because his is a firearms-related case? If so, do
you remember what happened to CitiBank and Smith & Wesson, when they
angered a few million gun owners?
Verizon is a huge company, offering a wide variety of landline, long
distance, and wireless access services. Which means that you very likely
have a large number of America's estimated 100 million gun owners as
customers. Which, in turn, means that a total boycott by pro-defense gun
owners would hurt.
Mr. Jordan is not permitted to speak about this, so I invite you to do so.
Please confirm or deny my suspicions. If you have not suspended/fired Mr.
Jordan, just say so publicly, and I will publicly apologize. If you have
preemptively acted against Mr. Jordan, admit that, and explain why. In the
latter case, you can also tell us with whom the suspension/termination
idea originated, and its purpose.
I first asked these questions publicly on February 8, 2004, and forwarded them directly to Verizon at that time (some of my readers tell me that they also forwarded the questions to you). To date, your company has
failed to respond in any fashion. I offer you this opportunity to rectify
that error. In the absence of any answers, I believe an immediate boycott
will be in order.
Sincerely,
Carl Bussjaeger
Editor, North American Samizdat
CC:
Ezra D. Singer, Executive Vice President, Human Resources, Verizon
Communications
Mary Beth Bardin, Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and
Communication, Verizon Communications
Glenn Brackett, Business Manager, IBEW Local 2320
Joshua Macht, Managing Editor, Time Magazine
Allan Sloan, Wall Street Editor, Newsweek
Thomas L. Knapp, Editor, Rational Review
Ken Holder, Editor, The Libertarian Enterprise
Susan Callaway, Managing Editor, The Price of Liberty
Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America
Aaron Zelman, Executive Director, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership
Alan Gottlieb, Chairman, Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms
Stephen King, President, Gun Owners of New Hampshire
Sunni Maravillosa, Liberty Round Table
Mary Lou Seymour, Editor, Liberty Action of the Week
Ernest Hancock, Host, KFNX 1100 AM
Jim Dexter, Host, KTKK, 630 AM
David Brooks, Nashua Telegraph
Russ Kent, Mansfield News-Journal
CEO of Verizon Communications, on February
16, 2004.
----------------------------------------------
Carl W. Bussjaeger
Box 361
379 Amherst Street
Nashua, NH 03063
CWB@GBROnline.com
February 16, 2004
Verizon Communications
Mr. Ivan G. Seidenberg
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Seidenberg,
It has come to my attention that my friend, Jeffrey L. Jordan, a Verizon employee in New Hampshire, has not been reporting to work since his arrest in Ohio for an alleged firearms technicality. This concerns me greatly because I do not believe it is by his choice.
When I learned of Mr. Jordan's arrest, I headed up to New Hampshire (via
Ohio) as an observer and to provide moral support. So I'm in a position to
see some things which I can't explain, mainly because Mr. Jordan has
apparently been advised not speak about any aspect of his case that isn't
already public knowledge.
As I mentioned, one of the things I've noticed is that Mr. Jordan hasn't
been going to work since he returned from Ohio. From years of association
with him, I know that he is a long-time employee of Verizon. With
expensive legal actions in progress, it is unlikely that he would
voluntarily cut his income by simply neglecting to go to work. I've asked,
and he tells me there's nothing he's free to speak of regarding his
employment status.
This gives me pause to wonder: Some companies suspend or terminate
employees who have been convicted of violent crimes. Are you doing
something similar to Mr. Jordan? I sincerely hope not. Allow me to put
this in perspective. A private company may well be entitled to
suspend/terminate an employee whose danger to society or individuals has
been established by a court conviction; but this is not the case with Mr.
Jordan.
First, he isn't accused of a violent crime. As best the Ohio Highway
Patrol can determine, he may have violated a technical rule on licensed
carry. No one is claiming that anyone whomsoever was harmed or
threatened.
Second, there was no crime. Mr. Jordan was licensed to carry a firearm,
just as he was licensed to operate a truck. Ohio authorities arbitrarily
chose to acknowledge his driver's license but not the carry license. This
is an interesting take on the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US
Constitution (the very clause that causes states to accept one another's
driver's licenses, marriages, even Verizon's own corporate status).
Third, Mr. Jordan's trial has not even begun, much less brought (an
exceedingly unlikely) conviction.
Fourth, all this took place while Mr. Jordan was on vacation, hundreds of
miles away from work. It has no bearing on his performance as a Verizon
employee. You should not be altering a man's work-status on the basis of
off-duty activities.
I hope that you haven't terminated or suspended Mr. Jordan for an alleged
act which has not yet been questioned in court, much less proved. But why
else wouldn't he be going to work?
Which brings me to another question: Even though I accompanied Mr. Jordan
from Ohio to New Hampshire, I never saw him return to work at all. This
suggests to me that he was suspended/terminated by Verizon before he even
got back home. How did Verizon learn details of his legal situation even
before he came to work to inform the company? If public news reports were
your only source of information, then proceeding directly to
suspension/termination without a hearing is highly improper. Maybe Verizon
had a more direct channel for information to which the rest of us are not
privy. Which begs still more questions: A channel to whom? Is someone
giving Verizon insider information (or misinformation) on Mr. Jordan's
case on the sly; and if so, why? What information? Who? Is that legal?
This reeks. Does Verizon conduct "star chamber" personnel actions?
Would you do this to an employee accused of failing to register his
vehicle, not mowing his lawn, or forgetting to renew his driver's license
(all comparable to the offense of which Mr. Jordan is accused). Are you
singling out Mr. Jordan because his is a firearms-related case? If so, do
you remember what happened to CitiBank and Smith & Wesson, when they
angered a few million gun owners?
Verizon is a huge company, offering a wide variety of landline, long
distance, and wireless access services. Which means that you very likely
have a large number of America's estimated 100 million gun owners as
customers. Which, in turn, means that a total boycott by pro-defense gun
owners would hurt.
Mr. Jordan is not permitted to speak about this, so I invite you to do so.
Please confirm or deny my suspicions. If you have not suspended/fired Mr.
Jordan, just say so publicly, and I will publicly apologize. If you have
preemptively acted against Mr. Jordan, admit that, and explain why. In the
latter case, you can also tell us with whom the suspension/termination
idea originated, and its purpose.
I first asked these questions publicly on February 8, 2004, and forwarded them directly to Verizon at that time (some of my readers tell me that they also forwarded the questions to you). To date, your company has
failed to respond in any fashion. I offer you this opportunity to rectify
that error. In the absence of any answers, I believe an immediate boycott
will be in order.
Sincerely,
Carl Bussjaeger
Editor, North American Samizdat
CC:
Ezra D. Singer, Executive Vice President, Human Resources, Verizon
Communications
Mary Beth Bardin, Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and
Communication, Verizon Communications
Glenn Brackett, Business Manager, IBEW Local 2320
Joshua Macht, Managing Editor, Time Magazine
Allan Sloan, Wall Street Editor, Newsweek
Thomas L. Knapp, Editor, Rational Review
Ken Holder, Editor, The Libertarian Enterprise
Susan Callaway, Managing Editor, The Price of Liberty
Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America
Aaron Zelman, Executive Director, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership
Alan Gottlieb, Chairman, Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms
Stephen King, President, Gun Owners of New Hampshire
Sunni Maravillosa, Liberty Round Table
Mary Lou Seymour, Editor, Liberty Action of the Week
Ernest Hancock, Host, KFNX 1100 AM
Jim Dexter, Host, KTKK, 630 AM
David Brooks, Nashua Telegraph
Russ Kent, Mansfield News-Journal
posted by Mary Lou at
12:28 PM
|
0 comments
