Hey it's nancy boy foaming at the mouth again! OK troll, let's set the record straight.
The video was a link on the old 284 union website, are you still following me or am I going too fast? As such the website specifically had the warning that it was a restricted site, and as such it was protected by federal wiretap and viewing laws, still with me nancy? So on that site there was a thread linking to the video, still there?
So for you managemnet hacks the only way for you to have gotten ahold of that video was to violate federal law!
The way the video was brought to the attention of the company was by one of the former, fab 5, mec's wife. Did she have access to the website? no, not by the definition of being a union member (wiretap law violated), now when the company accessed the link it was through the union website (federal law violated by the company).
To diferentiate between workplace violence and free speech you must ask yourself these questions:
1. what occured? a guy making a video with disclaimers and syncing the action with music shooting a company dvd (free speech).
2. Did the firing occure on company property? No (not workplace violence).
3. Did a violation of federal law occure with the firing of the weapon? No (legal in the state that it occured, not on company property;not work place violence).
4. Did he injure anyone on company property? no (not workplace violence).
Now follow along here troll and be a man and not a nancy boy and answer this question:
1. Was it not workplace violence when one of our schedulers, while being escorted off the property, put his fist through a wall in rage?
Bueller?? anyone??
C an't H elp I t P al, because you are who you are mole.