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

Re: Legality of video survaillence

Subject: Re: Legality of video survaillence
From: "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:54:12 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <SSIMf.61397$PL5.47792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ZpJMf.36652$UD1.19975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <eQKMf.15716$rL5.10383@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <KiLMf.418$dj2.78@trndny04>

"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.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Legality of video survaillence
  - From: Matt Ion
- Re: Legality of video survaillence
  - From: Robert L Bass
- Re: Legality of video survaillence
  - From: Bob Worthy

Prev by Message: Re: Sprinklers in elevator Shafts
Next by Message: Re: Important news for Bob LaLonde
Previous by thread: Re: lets put 2 and 2 together
Next by thread: Re: Legality of video survaillence
Index(es):
- Message
- Thread

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