said by FFH5:
And note that the Village Voice is NOT a mouthpiece for corporate dominance.
If anything, I thought that the Village Voice's article was a bit slanted toward the union.
That said, I too am curious about how long these workers spent waiting for the Vice President. Would they be allowed to have this count against their lunch break or any other mandated break during the day? If not, why?
I don't see their request to meet with the Vice President in question as unreasonable. I also don't see the person's delaying of granting the request as unreasonable. (Heck, I wouldn't see his/her refusal to meet with the employees as unreasonable either, depending upon the explanation that could be provided.)
While firing these employees does send a message, I fear it's the wrong one. Unless these folks had other work-related problems and warnings issued which were documented in their employment files, the company just opened itself up to larger problems. If those who were fired had previously documented work-related problems, then they very well may have caused their own problems and should look for work elsewhere.
The problem in this whole thing is that one can't fully trust what the company says and certainly can't accept what the union says as gospel truth either.