Follow The Republic:
From: Ken Chandler
Received: Aug. 14
I must respond to Bob Hayes’ letter in the July 27 edition in which he chastises Mr. Sherlock and me. He disagrees with my July 17 Spotlight Letter in which I opined that a company such as Cummins Inc. should not take political sides on such divisive social issues as the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage/unions. I said this because Cummins is a family of employees, retirees, shareholders and customers with diverse opinions, all of which should be respected.
I wonder if Mr. Hayes either misinterpreted my letter or read something into it that’s not there. He seems to think that I disagree with Cummins’ position of offering benefits to domestic partners. I’ve re-read my letter several times and cannot find where that is stated or inferred. That is a completely separate discussion not addressed in my letter.
My objection is with Cummins taking political sides on a divisive non-operational social issue without Cummins family input. As a company, Cummins has already voiced its business decision by offering benefits to domestic partners, which shows Cummins stands for equal protection for all. I would have written the same letter if Cummins had condemned the court’s ruling.
Mr. Hayes says it is sad that I don’t understand the company’s position. Mr. Hayes should not make accusations unless he seeks out and knows the facts. Cummins senior management made a business decision in 2000 to offer domestic partner benefits.
My letter did not address that issue. I now inform Mr. Hayes that I served on the Cummins committee responsible for implementing the domestic partner benefits. I’m pleased to say that no one on that committee voiced their own personal opinion of whether or not they agreed with the new benefit policy. Cummins senior management made a business decision, several of us were charged with implementing the decision, and we did our job whether we agreed with it or not. Contrary to Mr. Hayes’ assertion, I do believe I understood the company’s position since I helped implement it.
Mr. Hayes invites me to take heart in the fact that certain companies spend millions in an effort to deny gays and lesbians those rights which the Constitution guarantees all of us. I decline as I don’t take heart in that.
I can’t connect the dots, however, from my letter’s opinion to companies spending millions to deny gays and lesbians rights. My opinion had to do with Cummins stating a company non-operational opinion without consulting the Cummins family members. My letter had nothing to do with whether or not a company should offer benefits to domestic partners. Maybe I should re-read my letter again. Maybe Mr. Hayes should as well. Mr. Hayes is welcome to point out to me the specific language or quote where I have made such an assertion.
I stand by my opinion in my letter. I’ve received numerous positive comments from current and former Cummins employees as well as non-Cummins affiliated people. Whether they agree with Cummins benefit policy or not, they all agreed with my opinion. They apparently understood the intent of my letter.
I’m sure there are people who disagree with my opinion but have remained silent. I respect their right to disagree.
I respect the right of Mr. Hayes to chastise me, even if it appears he didn’t understand the substance of my letter, but please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t say or infer. I don’t know Mr. Hayes, but I still like him. Whether he agrees with Mr. Sherlock and me or not, may he and his family be blessed.
Think your friends should see this? Share it with them!
Note: All comments left on our sites are first reviewed by an automated comment moderation system. Your comment may take up to 5 minutes to appear. If for any reason your comment can not be approved you will receive an email from this system with a detailed explanation.
All content copyright ©2013 The Republic, a division of Home News Enterprises unless otherwise noted.