Can we not call it timeshift. Sounds way cooler than it really is.
I don't remember anyone saying "I'll use my VCR to timeshift all my viewing to a more convenient time".
I do. The original usage was for using a VCR to record a show that you watched later. Cable companies started misusing it to mean showing the same stuff at different times so they could claim you were getting more stuff than you actually were. Basically they were marketing to the 12:00 flashers.
" What I'd like to know is, whose job is it to put the magnets on?"
Whoever they are they aren't paid enough.
I always kept off site copies of my performance reviews. Asking for a copy of your HR file is also a good idea.
From the sounds of your problem description the negative statements are from an isolated individual so penalizing the whole organization is not professional. Most of the "leave immediately" advice is unprofessional, it may be legal but thats not the point.
Once you have done paragraph one and assuming paragraph two is correct, discuss the situation with the person, preferably with someone you trust and/or an HR rep present and explain how you interpreted what they said. Ask if you have misunderstood, take notes and or record the meeting. Once that is cleared up and assuming they still want you around, continue to do the best job you can and make sure you leave the company on as good terms as you can.
If you really want to slap the turkey then have their manager present as well. The sheer fact that the person said something that could be easily construed as blackmail is very serious and can only be dealt with when the people responsible for the person are involved. If I had a manger make such threats I would want to know immediately so that proper training and incentive could be provided to make sure they never do it again.
If you feel you need legal advice, see a lawyer.
Its not the CRTC that came up with this admittedly stupid idea, its Canadian "content" ( I.E ACTRA) producers that have come up with this.
Essentially they want more money given them for stuff that nobody is willing to pay them for in the first place. The idea is to somehow get money to produce so called Canadian content and throw it on a server in the hope that someone will actually request it.
One idea for getting the money is to get the ISPs to give money, which of course means all their customers are paying to produce something that only some will actually look at
But wait there's more, ISPs want to do traffic shaping to the benefit of content providers who have paid the ISPs for this benefit, much like radio and TV companies give benefits to advertisers. That means that in the case where the ISPs get to charge someone and keep the money they are broadcasters, when they have to give the collected money to someone else then they aren't.
Don't you love it when lawyers get involved with what should be a technical problem?
I don't understand the logic since there are no "broadcasters" on the internet, there are servers and clients. If people want to see the content then people will use their clients to request it from the servers. As far as I am concerned I am paying for a certain amount of bandwidth every month, what I do with it is my business and I don't want to subsidize something I'm not consuming.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.