What point did the posting have other than (apparently) to claim that an employer's effort to keep the employer's property from being used for private purposes was somehow related to the ethnic background and skin color of the employer's several-times-removed supervisor? That was debunked in about the first two hours after it was originally made.
It would, as almost always, be interesting if the OP would indicate if he agreed or disagreed with the opinions expressed by whatever third party he is quoting. It would also be interesting if the usual suspects could address the issues rather than restrict their comments to ad hominum attacks.