[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Legality of video survaillence



Tom Gardner wrote:
> "Nick Markowitz" <nick-markowitz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:KiLMf.418$dj2.78@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>I get this problem from unions all the time. Unless they agree to it in
>>there negotiations they feel it is a contract violation. if the cameras
>>are
>>being used for safety and not criminal prosecuiton for thefts etc . is how
>>I
>>have gotten around the issue.
>>
>
>
> Well, the union signed-off the next day after I started considering going to
> monthly paychecks, mandatory overtime, swing shifts, daily exercise, daily
> random drug and booze tests...etc.  It appears I still have a little say
> about how I run my business.

Sure ya do.  Close it down, then start a new one, and hire only
non-union people.  That'll learn'em a thing or two about they
union-mantra "job security".


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0609-3, 03/03/2006
Tested on: 3/3/2006 7:53:35 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com





alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home