Pliny Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Read this... http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work Before you dismiss it as partisan organized labour rhetoric,understand that the cites come from the US Dept. of Labour,not the AFL/CIO... And this is from 2001... I wonder what that gap is now 10 years and a serious recession later??? There you go Scott. Unions are entirely responsible for amazing wages and benefits. Now Unions are trying to hide the fact they have those amazing wages and benefits over the private sector and the private sector is doing better than the unionized public sector if we mix it in with the un-unionized professional public sector and compare education levels because education levels mean you are supposed to be compensated for differently in the pirvate sector than in the public union sector. The private sector, I guess, pays it's less educated employees as much as the more educated public employees. But....but....nevermind. See study posted by Michael Hardner. Apparently when everything is factored in, Jack the public employee isn't doing quite as well as the the private sector employee. The big question that you need to answer Jack is how you squeezed those amazing wages and benefits out of stone. If they aren't there you will never get them no matter how much collective bargaining you may do. There has to be production to pay for them and production is something that is never asked of the Union employee, in fact it is expected that production be highly discouraged as it only tends to increase corporate profit. Excellent logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Really ? What does that mean ? If I can convince GM to hire me at a lower wage I can work there ? "A closed shop is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to only hire union members" IS the difference that several different unions need to be represented with one employer, or maybe that employers can hire non-union for some positions ? 1.If you went to work for GM,a condition of employment would be that you a atcitly agreeing that CAW Local ??? would be the sole bargaining agent for the membership.I don't work there,however,it's my guess you would start at a probationary rate ujntil you had served that time and become a full member of that local... How the Agency Shop situation works is,say you had made the union at GM but for whatever reason you did'nt want to be a member of that union.You would deignate your dues to go to a charity of your choice,and that would be it.This would be done under the expres knowledge that you are declining representation AND if you got inot any sort of trouble you were on your own and the Local could not be sued for misrepresentation. You can have diferent union locals working for the same employer... Ex.When I worked for the Port Weller Dry Docks,we were represented by the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (Local 680).The electricians that worked there were represented by the IBEW( I can't remember the Local #).They bargained their contract seperately from ours,although the time limits on it were the same... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) There you go Scott. Unions are entirely responsible for amazing wages and benefits. Now Unions are trying to hide the fact they have those amazing wages and benefits over the private sector and the private sector is doing better than the unionized public sector if we mix it in with the un-unionized professional public sector and compare education levels because education levels mean you are supposed to be compensated for differently in the pirvate sector than in the public union sector. The private sector, I guess, pays it's less educated employees as much as the more educated public employees. But....but....nevermind. See study posted by Michael Hardner. Apparently when everything is factored in, Jack the public employee isn't doing quite as well as the the private sector employee. The big question that you need to answer Jack is how you squeezed those amazing wages and benefits out of stone. If they aren't there you will never get them no matter how much collective bargaining you may do. There has to be production to pay for them and production is something that is never asked of the Union employee, in fact it is expected that production be highly discouraged as it only tends to increase corporate profit. Excellent logic. Actually... You've missed the point entirely... You've not seemed to grasp the fact that most union locals in Free Bargaining jurisdictions have made massive...Unheared of... concessions to save jobs.Look at the two-tier wage situation in the UAW/CAW shops at the Big 3 manufacturing facilities. Production is never asked of union employees?? I suppose you've never worked in a unionized production facility that had piece work provisions bargianed into the contract?? And the point of the link was to show how much of a wage disparity there is in RTW states,nevermind the unsafe work conditions,compared to Free Bargaining States... And those stats are from 10 years ago... Edited March 7, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 1.That's why we have things like proposal meettings,strike votes,ratification votes etc... It's called democracy...No one wants to go out on strike,however,sometimes one's hand is forced... Blacks in the South never got that democratic option.... What is your opinion of company lockouts like the one US Steel is perpetrating on its workforce in Hamilton,Ontario right now? The rest of your Jim Crow analogy is simply ridiculous.... And those black people's hands were forced by a democratically elected govt. That's why laws have been passed preventing that like RTW. Those companies have a right to run their businesses how they see fit, just as workers have a right to assemble. Jobs are a privelege not a right. However unions infringe upon freedom of association and freedom of security of person (attitude adjustments). Looks like unions similar to jim crow still stands! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Ok, so the analogy is that following preposterous rules (which you may define) makes these the same ? The Union has the right, in some jurisdictions, to have a closed shop because that power provides a counter balance to the natural advantage of the employer. You should also have a right to charge whatever you want for your services right ? Well, actually you don't. If you collude to keep prices low and keep competition out then anti-competitive practices legislation kicks in. What about the employer's rights? Unless that employer is taking fundamental human rights, the employer can run his oufit as he sees fit. That employer is putting money in harms way (input costs needing a return) or trusted to spend taxpayers money as efficient as possible. If workers can assemble, the boss can fire them if boss feels necessary. Also who's colluding? I don't understand your last point (my apologies). who is there to collude with. Should unions be subject to ant-competitive practices legislation because they collude to keep prices high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) And those black people's hands were forced by a democratically elected govt. That's why laws have been passed preventing that like RTW. Keep digging. As was pointed out, there was nothing democratic in laws that excluded people on account of their skin colour. Those companies have a right to run their businesses how they see fit within limits set by law.Jobs are a privelege not a right. Yet you call union busting laws "right-to-work". Thanks for the inconsistency.However unions infringe upon freedom of association Yeah right.(...) and freedom of security of person (attitude adjustments).not nearly as much as the lower wage and lower worker protection that come with so call "right to work" legislation. You know, the laws that allegedly protect a right YOU say does not exist? Edited March 7, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Keep digging yourself into a even deeper and deeper whole. There is no comparison between segregation and union membership, and the claim that there is one is amongst the worse piles of m*nure I have seen here. what's next, will you compare mandatory union membership to the Nuremburg Laws? The obvious difference escaped you, and after reading your last two postings I do not wonder why. I was most definitely not comparing SSM with union rgihts. Rather, I was pointing how ridiculous the argument that mandatory union membership deprives someone from his/her right to work is by mentioning an equally ridiculous argument. You are the pot alright, and one with more holes than I have ever seen. So your entire rebuttal is "your argument is stupid because I said so" Outstanding!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 So your entire rebuttal is "your argument is stupid because I said so" Outstanding!! Nope, my entire rebuttal is that it is stupid to claim that mandatory union membership is akin to Jim Crow laws. And the more you make that claim, the more you demonstrate the stupidity of the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Keep digging. As was pointed out, there was nothing democratic in laws that excluded people on account of their skin colour. within limits set by law. Yet you call union busting laws "right-to-work". Thanks for the inconsistency. Yeah right. not nearly as much as the lower wage and lower worker protection that come with so call "right to work" legislation. You know, the laws that allegedly protect a right YOU say does not exist? Thanks!! You've said this better than I could... I read his post and laughed hysterically at its silliness... It's the reason I could'nt respond... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Thanks!! You've said this better than I could... I read his post and laughed hysterically at its silliness... It's the reason I could'nt respond... I must say that the "a job is not a right but it is a right to be protected from unions" is priceless. Not as much as the "unions are similar to Jim Crow" line though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I must say that the "a job is not a right but it is a right to be protected from unions" is priceless. Not as much as the "unions are similar to Jim Crow" line though. I agree... But his is the free market approach to business... His idea of Right to Work is,in reality,the "Rght to Work for Less" race to the bottom under the guise of "Personal Freedom"... But,at least he's consistent about his wealth redistribution excercise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I agree... But his is the free market approach to business... His idea of Right to Work is,in reality,the "Rght to Work for Less" race to the bottom under the guise of "Personal Freedom"... But,at least he's consistent about his wealth redistribution excercise... Mind you, he may have a point about segregation and "right to work". After all, Southern States, the most virulent pro-segregationist, are also at the forefront of the movement to protect a right that, according to him, does not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Mind you, he may have a point about segregation and "right to work". After all, Southern States, the most virulent pro-segregationist, are also at the forefront of the movement to protect a right that, according to him, does not exist. Well that poses an interesting question to our commmodity trading friend... If working is a "priviledge" and not a "right"...What is "Right to Work" all about??? uh...I have an an idea,or two.... Edited March 7, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Well that poses an interesting question to our commmodity trading friend... If working is a "priviledge" and not a "right"...What is "Right to Work" all about??? uh...I have an an idea,or two.... Rtw is a right to exercise a privelege offered by the employer (the job) without having been forced by a union to submit to union demands which could infringe on the right of association (not belonging to a union) and security of person (attitude adjustment). Since when is being fired an infringement of a person's rights? "Attitude adjustments" and forced membership are infringements of a person's rights just the same as rights being infringed upon african americans by white govts of southern states. Both barbaric. Understand? Outstanding! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Right to work is the right to not have unions shut out non-unionized labour. When the labour market is glutted, generally when the economy is in a recession and last hired-first laid off union members are losing jobs, it also means some of those laid off union members can find work if they are willing, like their private employee competitors, to work for a lower wage. This is why competition can gain ground and unionized labour loses ground. They aren't flexible. The higher overhead that unionized labour costs generally kills the host and allows competition to take over. In good times when economics and production is high good wages and benefits can be negotiated but those good times don't always last, due to changing markets and conmpetition, so those providing them may go the way of the dinosaur. Is that what you mean by a race to the bottom, Jack? It seems Unions contribute heavily to that. But trade and commerce, an economy per se, seems to continue under new leadership - even government bailouts to sve coroporations and thus union jobs are just a stalling tactic. I will say that this inflexibility is essentially the result of the current monetary system. Most people incur financial liabilities that dictate they maintain their financial status. Banks will more easily lend to union members because they have less chance of losing a job, as long as the economy is growing. One of the uncalculated benefits of having a public job is that governments don't fail as often as businesses and if the government fails it's thought that we're all in the soup anyway. It isn't a race to the bottom, Jack. Because all you know is job protection comes from Unions that is all you can believe in. No one, not even Unions can guarantee jobs and plenty of union shops have closed down among all the enterprises that fail. But you just go ahead and believe that only Unions can save jobs and gain amazing wages and benefits and that they are "rights" and not privileges. The economy doesn't really care what you think. The days of working for a corporation for a lifetime is over for the most part. And you despise corporations anyway - they are engaged in a race to the bottom - right? Most workers will find that out and have to move to non-union jobs anyway. I don't see why you and a few others here are being so obtuse about what right to work means. I'm sure you know full well. Edited March 7, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Actually... You've missed the point entirely... What more need be said then. oohhh.... You've not seemed to grasp the fact that most union locals in Free Bargaining jurisdictions have made massive...Unheared of... concessions to save jobs.Look at the two-tier wage situation in the UAW/CAW shops at the Big 3 manufacturing facilities. "Unheard of concessions" I believe. It must be difficult for you to say that. Are they at last waking up to where those amazing wages and benefits are coming from? Production is never asked of union employees?? I suppose you've never worked in a unionized production facility that had piece work provisions bargianed into the contract?? As long as those provisions mean as little work as possible with lots of breaks. Are you telling me that unions bargain to get their members to work harder for the same pay. They generally try to get amazing wages and benefits for doing the same or less work, don't they? You can't argue they try and increase the work load of union members for the same wagwes and benefits. And the point of the link was to show how much of a wage disparity there is in RTW states,nevermind the unsafe work conditions,compared to Free Bargaining States... And those stats are from 10 years ago... Yeah, Scott really wanted to see that. And Michael Hardner was trying to post a supposedly pro-union study that showed the public unions were not doing as well as the private sector. I have no doubt you are correct that unions improve wages and benefits for workers - with aboslutely no concept of how the economy, that is corporations and businesses, provides them. After all those corporations and businesses are in a race to the bottom. And they also must have no idea how they pay those wages and benefits. Edited March 7, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Rtw is a right to exercise a privelege offered by the employer (the job) without having been forced by a union to submit to union demands which could infringe on the right of association (not belonging to a union) and security of person (attitude adjustment). Since when is being fired an infringement of a person's rights? "Attitude adjustments" and forced membership are infringements of a person's rights just the same as rights being infringed upon african americans by white govts of southern states. Both barbaric. Understand? Outstanding! Wrong on both counts!!!! RTW is a plan hatched by the NAM(the National Association of Manufacturers) in the late '50's and forwarded by it's free market aparatchiks,The Citizens Alliance and the National Right to Work Committee,using the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 as convenient cover... It is a canard designed to play on peoples ideas of individual rights and freedoms to bust individual union local's financial backs by COMPULSORY representation of FREE RIDE employees. Once completed,one need only look at the wage disparity between RTW states and Free Bargaining states...One need only look at the disparity in benefit plans...One need only look at the time loss injury and occupational death rates between RTW states and Free Bargaining states... Interesting how they are always lower in the wage and benny area and the time loss injury/on the job death rate is 5 times worse... Wow!! How 'bout that type of "freedom",eh?The "freedom" to be poorer and dead! Since your such a champion of individual freedom,perhaps you could answer me this.. The National Association of Manufacturers is a group of like minded entities that has a common goal.Most likely the profitability of its members (let's call it a union,of sorts)and ending any and all impediments to that? I assume that these "members" must pay a fee (lets call them dues) to remain "members" in good standing?I suspect the cumulative effect of these dues go to fund PAC's to "incentivise" sympathetic minded politicians to enact legislation that would forward the goals of this "association",nevermind the various free market think tanks that are out there? Why is collectivism OK for the "individual freedom" loving members of the NAM to forward its economic agenda,but not for the people they employ who might feel the need to collectively bargain with their employer?? And your canard about compulsory union membership is nothing but a canard,as well...As I have stated at least twice before... The only reason people such as yourself use these feeble,and easily shot down canards,is because you are constantly grasping at straws trying to forward your race to the bottom free market agenda.You obviously feel that it's time to take back from those who wrongfully took something you feel they never deserved.In the process,you can send that wealth upwards,into the hands of the few,concentrating it at the top...All under the guise of "personal freedom"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 What more need be said then. oohhh.... "Unheard of concessions" I believe. It must be difficult for you to say that. Are they at last waking up to where those amazing wages and benefits are coming from? As long as those provisions mean as little work as possible with lots of breaks. Are you telling me that unions bargain to get their members to work harder for the same pay. They generally try to get amazing wages and benefits for doing the same or less work, don't they? You can't argue they try and increase the work load of union members for the same wagwes and benefits. Yeah, Scott really wanted to see that. And Michael Hardner was trying to post a supposedly pro-union study that showed the public unions were not doing as well as the private sector. I have no doubt you are correct that unions improve wages and benefits for workers - with aboslutely no concept of how the economy, that is corporations and businesses, provides them. After all those corporations and businesses are in a race to the bottom. And they also must have no idea how they pay those wages and benefits. 1.Those concessions were made after giving in to two-tier wage plans.Those concessions were made because of the incompetence of management at at least 2 of the Big 3.Remember,it was the CEO's of these companies that went hat in hand to have the public bail out there porrly managed companies.The business plan of these companies was not the fault of the guy on the line putting the car together.In fact,the GM Oshawa plant was rated the most productive in North Amerca just before they workers were forced to take that hit!More productive thatn the non-union Toyota and Honda plants you folks like to hold up as the counter to union auto assembly facilities... 2.No...Union locals bargain to increase the standard of living of their members.And most companies bargian to increase their profitability...I assume you understand that? Of course,in a non-union situation,the employee is at the mercy of what his/her employer "thinks' is a "fair" wage and benefit plan...And let's not get into the health and safety aspect of non-union barns... 3.The cite I provided has nothing to do with whatever disparity there might be between the public and private sector in the US.What does show is the unmistakable disparity between wgaes,benefit plans,AND,time loss injury/death on the job instances between RTW states and Free Bargaining states. As it relates to labour costs,corporations ARE in a race to the bottom.This is the easiest way to increase the bottom line.And they use different buzzwords to accentuate that point... 1."Competativeness"...See drive wage and ancillary employee costs (see benefit plans and insurance claims down) 2."Personal Freedom"...The standard RTW canard...designed to keep busines "union free" or break the financial backs of individual union locals by allowing for legislated free ride employee representation. 3."Productivity"...See less people doing more work for less money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Rtw is a right to exercise a privelege offered by the employer (the job) without having been forced by a union to submit to union demands which could infringe on the right of association (not belonging to a union) and security of person (attitude adjustment). Since when is being fired an infringement of a person's rights? "Attitude adjustments" and forced membership are infringements of a person's rights just the same as rights being infringed upon african americans by white govts of southern states. Both barbaric. Understand? Outstanding! The freedom of association includes the right to belong to a union notwithstanding your contention. Secondly the labour offered to your enterprise in exchange for wages is anything but a privilege. While it may be the case the business owner provides the necessary capital (usually through financing) that business usually requires labour inputs to bring the product to market. Without such inputs the business wouldn't be viable. Your posts reflect a nineteenth century attitude centred on the idea of the master-servant relationship and is totally out of touch with modern contempary thought. You ask: "Since when is being fired an infringement of a person's rights?" As you may know in a unionized environment an employee has the capacity to challenge a dismissal through the grievance/arbitration procedure. This is a right offered through the collective bargaining process and such a right is defined within the concept of just cause. In such cases there are two stages in establishing the need, if any, for discipline. Here in Canada an arbitrator has the capacity to fully reinstate the individual or vary or sustain the penalty based upon the specific circumstances of the case. Remedies are also available through the courts, human rights and other such legislation. The point I am making is that there are a variety of rights available that mitigate against unjust dismissals. Edited March 7, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Right to work is the right to not have unions shut out non-unionized labour. When the labour market is glutted, generally when the economy is in a recession and last hired-first laid off union members are losing jobs, it also means some of those laid off union members can find work if they are willing, like their private employee competitors, to work for a lower wage. This is why competition can gain ground and unionized labour loses ground. They aren't flexible. The higher overhead that unionized labour costs generally kills the host and allows competition to take over. In good times when economics and production is high good wages and benefits can be negotiated but those good times don't always last, due to changing markets and conmpetition, so those providing them may go the way of the dinosaur. Is that what you mean by a race to the bottom, Jack? It seems Unions contribute heavily to that. But trade and commerce, an economy per se, seems to continue under new leadership - even government bailouts to sve coroporations and thus union jobs are just a stalling tactic. I will say that this inflexibility is essentially the result of the current monetary system. Most people incur financial liabilities that dictate they maintain their financial status. Banks will more easily lend to union members because they have less chance of losing a job, as long as the economy is growing. One of the uncalculated benefits of having a public job is that governments don't fail as often as businesses and if the government fails it's thought that we're all in the soup anyway. It isn't a race to the bottom, Jack. Because all you know is job protection comes from Unions that is all you can believe in. No one, not even Unions can guarantee jobs and plenty of union shops have closed down among all the enterprises that fail. But you just go ahead and believe that only Unions can save jobs and gain amazing wages and benefits and that they are "rights" and not privileges. The economy doesn't really care what you think. The days of working for a corporation for a lifetime is over for the most part. And you despise corporations anyway - they are engaged in a race to the bottom - right? Most workers will find that out and have to move to non-union jobs anyway. I don't see why you and a few others here are being so obtuse about what right to work means. I'm sure you know full well. Right to work legislation is designed to neuter unions. Statistics show such legislation results in diminshed earning capacity for those so affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 "How the Agency Shop situation works is,say you had made the union at GM but for whatever reason you did'nt want to be a member of that union.You would deignate your dues to go to a charity of your choice,and that would be it.This would be done under the expres knowledge that you are declining representation AND if you got inot any sort of trouble you were on your own and the Local could not be sued for misrepresentation." If a person is working in Ontario the only exemption is based upon religon. See Section 52(1) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The burden of proof rests with the person asserting a religious belief. Here is a link to an article addressing this issue. http://www.employmentlawtoday.com/articleprint.aspx?articleid=828 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Rtw is a right to exercise a privelege offered by the employer (the job) without having been forced by a union to submit to union demands which could infringe on the right of association (not belonging to a union) and security of person (attitude adjustment).I wonder whtat is the most amazing. That you can write something so lacking in logic, or that you believe in it. "Attitude adjustments" and forced membership are infringements of a person's rights just the same as rights being infringed upon african americans by white govts of southern states. Both barbaric. Keep digging. Edited March 7, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 And those black people's hands were forced by a democratically elected govt. That's why laws have been passed preventing that like RTW. Those companies have a right to run their businesses how they see fit, just as workers have a right to assemble. Jobs are a privelege not a right. However unions infringe upon freedom of association and freedom of security of person (attitude adjustments). Looks like unions similar to jim crow still stands! It doesn't still stand, because it never stood, because you invented it, and because it's one of the worst analogies I've ever seen. My friendly advice is to drop the idiotic analogy before people start thinking we've got another Mr. Canada on board. (Yes, it's that bad.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Rtw is a right to exercise a privelege offered by the employer (the job) without having been forced by a union to submit to union demands which could infringe on the right of association (not belonging to a union) and security of person (attitude adjustment). Since when is being fired an infringement of a person's rights? "Attitude adjustments" and forced membership are infringements of a person's rights just the same as rights being infringed upon african americans by white govts of southern states. Both barbaric. Understand? Outstanding! The point is that you are (selectively, of course) conflating "right" and "privelege"...words you have zero trouble differentiating elsewhere, but suddenly develop a peculiar blind spot when convenient for your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 It doesn't still stand, because it never stood, because you invented it, and because it's one of the worst analogies I've ever seen. My friendly advice is to drop the idiotic analogy before people start thinking we've got another Mr. Canada on board. (Yes, it's that bad.) Correction. It's worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.