It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

King Donald's Anti-Labor Secretary Begrudges "Overprotected" Workers' Breaks

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Tiger5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I think what's more disconcerting than his views on mandatory breaks is his views on automation. We are rapidly approaching a point where most jobs will be able to be performed by machines.

The manufacturing industry has had to deal with this for years now. We're now starting to see it not only with unskilled jobs like fast food workers but even specialized jobs like healthcare at becoming more and more automated.

So what good will it do to bring back businesses to the US if all the jobs will be taken by robots? Trump is supposed to be for the middle class but the views of his Labor Secretary are highly opposed to that claim.


Personally I would like to see Healthcare go the way of automation. Because of frivolous law suits, doctors have outrageous insurance payments, hospitals have taken plenty of hits from these as well. Cut out the possibility of an accident by a doctor that is forced to work 20+ hours straight and sometimes standing for 7+ hour surgeries. Doctors and nurses will always be needed as a robot can't make a split second decision on something if another part of the body fails while in surgery.

Automation of Healthcare services would likely drive costs of actual Healthcare down drastically.


OKAAy. ANd the Robots will be built in China or India. What about people who need to work??


Why would they build them? I worked with Google's Bot & Dolly on their systems and they were some of the most advanced robotics in the world....built right here in the US.


OK but that goes against the general grain because a lot of things seem to be more cheaply built away from the West. Can you guarantee that a profit seeking capitalist would not contract away from US production?
edit on 29-12-2016 by Tiger5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
as soon as I read the headline, I already knew the author. You just could no resist could you, dastardly mischievous sprite!


Ok so the Labor Department head is going to be a guy who dreams of fast food service fully automated with skeletal support/IT staff (haha, sounds like IT is going to be broke down into one of those cheap wage jobs. I read about that in this book "The World is Flat. I can say that would be a welcome reprieve. Conditions in some of these places like Chipotle can be brutal. Super high turnover is inevitable. Not many permanent positions are brought by these types of businesses.

I guess as far as the whole automated fast fod concept goes, I am torn 50/50. I really do enjoy interacting and meeting these people whenever I eat out. But with how much more stupiderer people are getting every year, it really kind of makes me beg for this model to go automated just for order accuracy. I used the kiosk at a McDonalds some time recently, and I double checked the screen and ticket that printed. It was spot on perfect, so I had good expectations. Nope, it was still delivered with a single error that conflicted with the clear print. And when the person went to correct it, they failed again. Tsk, tsk. It just means workers at multiple steps either did not care or were too stupid to do even the simplest of jobs in the market. its to the points where certain jobs are not being efficient more so based on hiring practice and plain old ignorance. As a consumer, I don't want to pay for apathy and an unpleasant experience.

I want to have an excellent guest experience, otherwise, WTF am I paying you for??? I will gladly hop to the next store and pay your competitor for a better guest experience.



You can't pay a bunch of overworked slaves a # wage at a job they probably hate to take it seriously. Especially when there's whiny customers bitching about simple errors.

I bet your one of Those People that throws up your hands and screams at the teenager in drive through windows, huh?

I'd pay good money to see most of the people bitching about wage-slave jobs actually go do them.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And what about every other job out there? There's very few jobs out there that couldn't be done more efficiently by a machine. Especially as time passes and technology advances. The greatest threat to the the middle class is the future of automation and our soon to be Secretary of Labor seems to have no issue with that because it's better for his bottom line. You don't have any kind of issue with that?


What about them? What are you typing on to make the posts you're making? Do you think human can create the circuits used to build the tech you're using? Sure tech is advancing and the natural progression is occurring to the point of automation. Is your proposal to stifle the advancement of technology to keep the work force viable?

I would instead propose that those wanting to work use their brains and figure out a way to do so, rather than complain when their job is automated. It is commonplace in all jobs markets for positions to become obsolete. It happens every year across the board in almost every industry, from military pilots to stenographers. It has been occurring since we'll before you and I were born. New processes and techniques and technology will always do this.

It is called progress.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tiger5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Tiger5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I think what's more disconcerting than his views on mandatory breaks is his views on automation. We are rapidly approaching a point where most jobs will be able to be performed by machines.

The manufacturing industry has had to deal with this for years now. We're now starting to see it not only with unskilled jobs like fast food workers but even specialized jobs like healthcare at becoming more and more automated.

So what good will it do to bring back businesses to the US if all the jobs will be taken by robots? Trump is supposed to be for the middle class but the views of his Labor Secretary are highly opposed to that claim.


Personally I would like to see Healthcare go the way of automation. Because of frivolous law suits, doctors have outrageous insurance payments, hospitals have taken plenty of hits from these as well. Cut out the possibility of an accident by a doctor that is forced to work 20+ hours straight and sometimes standing for 7+ hour surgeries. Doctors and nurses will always be needed as a robot can't make a split second decision on something if another part of the body fails while in surgery.

Automation of Healthcare services would likely drive costs of actual Healthcare down drastically.


OKAAy. ANd the Robots will be built in China or India. What about people who need to work??


Why would they build them? I worked with Google's Bot & Dolly on their systems and they were some of the most advanced robotics in the world....built right here in the US.


OK but that goes against the general grain because a lot of things seem to be more cheaply built away from the West. Can you guarantee that a profit seeking capitalist would not contract away from US production?


I personally can't, but the US government surely can.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
sorry, I am still stuck on the break bit.

I've read through quite a bit about the cal labor laws, and someone needs to show me where they are mandating that the employee has to take the break, or that these breaks have to be taken by everyone at the same time..
like some seem to be implying.

www.lexology.com...

as you read in the above article..
and employer must relieve the employee of all their duties for their breaks..
so, obviously not all employees are required by law to take their breaks at the same time. (although some businesses might find if more reasonable to shut down operation for their breaks thus taking the option away from the employee as to when he will take his break). so if you go into a restaurant and find all the employees sitting around and no one to serve you it's a sign of bad management, and has nothing to do with the laws requiring employers to give employees breaks.

nor do they seem to be overly concerned with weather or not you personally chose to take your break... (but again, your boss might be)...




In 2012, the California Supreme Court decided an important meal and rest break case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.

The question of whether employers must ensure breaks are taken or must simply provide breaks has been a source of significant litigation in both federal and state courts.

The California Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Brinker's favor on the most critical part of the decision – holding that employers do not have to ensure employees take their meal breaks. Once the meal period is provided, there is no duty to police meal breaks to ensure no work is being done.

www.calchamber.com...


as far as the automation part of what he said, he is spot on, I am more concerned about what he said about the breaks... or more importantly just how his feelings on the subject might affect workers across the country.
although there are many workers across the country that have jobs where it really wouldn't be that physically difficult to live without those breaks since they are doing nothing more than pushing papers across their desks and have the freedom to get up and walk around whenever they want... there are many others who are doing some major physical labor, or at stuck at one spot constantly, doing the same motion over and over again, who just might need those breaks. we don't all work in nice clean offices, or in restaurants.

and this guy is griping that he has to provide those breaks to his restaurant workers.
edit on 29-12-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I miss doing piece work. I used to have a job where I had to build six units in an eight hour shift. I got it down to where I could build six units in five hours. As long as they passed Quality Control I was good. I got it down to where I worked efficiently with no wasted effort. I had one of the top quality ratings in the company. As soon as QC passed my units I was out the door.

Mandatory unpaid breaks rob me of MY time. The only reason that California has them is because of their being in the back pocket of the unions. The mandatory breaks mean that extra people need to be hired to cover the breaks, hence more dues paying members.


every pro-labor law passed has a reason behind it, and usually a story of where the employer took advantage of the employee. if the "workers" of this country are SO WELL treated, why have their income been flat for decades?...while at the same time the wealthy at the top have vastly increase their personal incomes.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Agreed.
Personal responsibility and willingness to adapt is the key in my mind.
I've laughed lots of times at absolute rock bottom in life chuckling to myself like a crazy person that I've got stuff to fix...again lol

....always a choice



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Reminder, this is a daily domestic propaganda piece brought to you by the CTRL-left.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
The OP has become too partisan to function.

So we're going to have a Dept of Labor that isn't going to chase businesses out of the country with ridiculous regulations.

Oh nos, you means we's gonna have to do works at our jobs? That's racist!


Was that your attempt at under the table racism?
Comments like yours are the norm for GLP and stormfront members.

Let me put it in a way you may understand - Let's say CPS was hiring a new director and the person
they hired was a convicted child pedophile. Would you see a fundamental clash in interests?





posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Agreed.
Personal responsibility and willingness to adapt is the key in my mind.
I've laughed lots of times at absolute rock bottom in life chuckling to myself like a crazy person that I've got stuff to fix...again lol

....always a choice


Completely...and for me, rock bottom has come not only in the former of work, but family and spirituality and health and all kinds on manners. Each time teaching me something new and something about myself I did not understand and had to work at to make better myself.

I still struggle with what I call "negative logic" in my life, but nowhere near as much after a very distinct epiphany I had one night that I can actually pinpoint the very action and words I said which seemed to suddenly flip every single switch in my brain to what I call "positive logic".



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


If you don't want the menial-labor workforce to be replaced by the noted kiosks (whose benefits are exactly what he describes over human labor), there should not be a concerted effort to overprice such unskilled jobs.


Kiosks will replace these jobs regardless of how many concessions workers take. It's only a matter of time and in this case, it's probably not going to be a very long span. It's lunacy to believe that accepting less compensation or increasingly worse working conditions will stop the continuous phasing out of human labor.


There are many things that are causing the business owner to look at automated options, and it's all because the cost of employing people in unskilled jobs is outpacing the rate at which businesses can keep the prices of their products acceptable to the public


What drives automation now is the same thing that has been driving automation since the days of the folk hero John Henry (the 1870s). I'm sure you remember his story right? Working himself to death to outperform the steam powered spike driver?

The primary reason for automation is the same as any other measure taken to reduce the requirement for human labor — a reduction in labor costs translates to increased profit at the same output. It's not an issue of "overprotected" workers or even corporate greed, businesses have and will continue to phase out as much human labor as they can because businesses operate for profit.


I realize now, since I'm a seasoned adult, that I was paid exactly what my "skills" were worth, and that was when the starting min. wage was $4.25/hr. Having a basic understanding of supply and demand allows me to realize and accept this truth.


Then you should understand that as labor demand decreases and labor supply increases, skills are worth ever less.


The people fighting for $15/hr, or the states that mandate a minimum wage above the federal level (like California, who will be at $10.50/hr starting in 3 days), are causing this kiosk issue. The rhetoric about how such a menial job should provide a "living wage" (which is subjective and changes as you move across the country) are causing this issue. The propensity of our collective society to sue employers for anything and everything is causing this issue. The amount of product waste because a human can't take an order correctly is causing this issue. Basically, everything that is a more expensive cost because of humans versus a kiosk is what is causing this, and there are plenty of examples.


That's certainly the sort of nonsense that some would have you believe. Just as there are those who have blamed collective bargaining despite the fact that it's a thesis easily disproved:



No gutting of labor laws, destruction of unions or other ostensibly "pro-business" measures championed by lobbyists will stop progress. At best, workers will experience diminishing compensation and poorer working conditions as they struggle futilely to stave off the demise of their jobs.

These are all distractions from the real issue which is technological progress. Don't get me wrong — technological progress isn't a bad thing. I have no problem with kiosks at fast food restaurants. I have no problem with AI's driving cars. In fact, I'm in the business of reducing the need for human labor (in a distribution environment) and my life would be SO much easier if we'd replace human workers with robots.

However, as a human being and a member of a society filled with other human beings, I'm also concerned with the future of employment. As a tax payer, I'm not keen on paying more and more into social welfare programs that have transitioned from safety nets to a means for keeping afloat a sinking ship.

We need to rethink the employment paradigm. We've done it before. Simply look at history through the IR until the labor movement organized to fight for things like overtime laws, safety regulations, child labor laws, etc. As wonderous as free market capitalism is at driving innovation, left to its own sociopathic devices, the welfare of the worker is hardly a consideration beyond giving folks the absolute minimum needed to keep them on the job which is under the worst circumstances, a tiny bit of money (and even then, when they could get away with it, companies have often compensated in things like company script).


It'd be nice to have a Sec. of Labor who understands this and doesn't fight the inevitable. We have computers that can drive cars without human beings inside of them--we should be able to order our food at kiosks and it not be such a "big f**king deal," to quote our current Veep.


Firstly, I find it strange how you alternate between acknowledging the inevitable and blaming workers for... the inevitable. Secondly, why is that nice? The Secretary of Labor runs a department which has this mission:


To foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.


Nobody should be more pro-labor than the Secretary of Labor ffs.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MagicCow

originally posted by: watchitburn
The OP has become too partisan to function.

So we're going to have a Dept of Labor that isn't going to chase businesses out of the country with ridiculous regulations.

Oh nos, you means we's gonna have to do works at our jobs? That's racist!


Was that your attempt at under the table racism?
Comments like yours are the norm for GLP and stormfront members.

Let me put it in a way you may understand - Let's say CPS was hiring a new director and the person
they hired was a convicted child pedophile. Would you see a fundamental clash in interests?




No idea on the comment, but I took it as trying to portray a low wage worker at a fast food restaurant and it is pretty accurate. The majority of the ones I've ordered from are not well spoken. If you look at the comment as racist because you personally are associating a specific race that you believe speaks like that then it would be your own racial bias you're imparting on the comment.

As far as your example....you're comparing a business tycoon (who wants technological advancement in an industry known for poor performance by its employees, who complain they want more money despite poor performance) to a pedophile? How is that logical? And I would say that comparison is more distasteful than your claiming the other poster is a racist.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for letting us know how AMAZING Donald Trump really is.

I mean, he ins't even president yet, but he has accomplished so much. By your post alone, he has done more than Blowbama did in 8 years. Stock Market is up, Dollar is strong, Americans are looking forward to tomorrow.

You are doing a great job! Keep those busy little fingers out of your nose and on that keyboard!
edit on 29-12-2016 by network dude because: bad spler



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Paid or not, a break is a physically & psychologically necessary breather, regardless of industry and labor type. Even when my husband worked on an oil rig, they made damned sure the workers got a breather. As he said, "otherwise, it's a recipe for clinical exhaustion, even if you're just a paper pusher"

This prick would fekking loathe the company my husband works for now -- they put a massive emphasis on "healthy & happy employees make the best revenue". They work 12 hour shifts, get 3 breaks per shift (every 3 hours) No excuses. Doesn't matter what's on what press and when it needs to hit the dock, you take that break and chillax a bit. Even the CEO himself pushes that hard (hell, the guy gives 2 s#s about his employees enough to call them on off days and make sure they're doing ok after stressful runs at work) Pudner or whatever his name is could stand to learn a thing or 2 from this guy about giving a f#.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theantediluvian

This is garbage, even by your standards.

Many employees would indeed prefer to work and get paid instead of taking a mandatory UNPAID break.

Kiosks have been replacing employees for quite some time, how many self-checkout stands do basically all grocery stores have nowadays? It's an issue NOW all the sudden? Why, because Trump is president? Are you really that bitter about it?


Yes, kiosks have been replacing humans in service jobs for some time now and they will continue to do so. Do you see it as a good thing that progress is being used as a threat against working class people by executives interested in squeezing out the last drops of profit before replacing workers with kiosks?

At what point do we acknowledge the reality of our changing circumstances and work out a solution?

Perhaps you could argue the rationale beyond preserving a system that only works for a small percentage of the population while a larger percentage is getting left out in the cold?

It's funny that a lot of Trump supporters voted for Trump because he promised not only jobs, but a return of healthy employment — good jobs for regular people — and yet I'm the bad guy for pointing out that his Labor Secretary appointment is a douche bag who couldn't gaf about jobs.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
Paid or not, a break is a physically & psychologically necessary breather, regardless of industry and labor type. Even when my husband worked on an oil rig, they made damned sure the workers got a breather. As he said, "otherwise, it's a recipe for clinical exhaustion, even if you're just a paper pusher"

This prick would fekking loathe the company my husband works for now -- they put a massive emphasis on "healthy & happy employees make the best revenue". They work 12 hour shifts, get 3 breaks per shift (every 3 hours) No excuses. Doesn't matter what's on what press and when it needs to hit the dock, you take that break and chillax a bit. Even the CEO himself pushes that hard (hell, the guy gives 2 s#s about his employees enough to call them on off days and make sure they're doing ok after stressful runs at work) Pudner or whatever his name is could stand to learn a thing or 2 from this guy about giving a f#.


Sure, breaks are a good thing. They do help with productivity and happiness. I have worked fast food before, from the age of 13-15 or so. I can't ever recall a day when I was so exhausted from taking orders and making sandwiches that I needed a break though. Sure I needed one to eat and got one to do so.

Comparing oil riggers to fast food workers and their needs for a break is a bit over the top.

And if you don't even know the guys name, how are you informed enough to comment on his stance. Outside of the OP, what do you know about him or his business practices or his views? Is is just what the OP quoted and that he is now appointed by Trump that has you so upset?



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: MagicCow

originally posted by: watchitburn
The OP has become too partisan to function.

So we're going to have a Dept of Labor that isn't going to chase businesses out of the country with ridiculous regulations.

Oh nos, you means we's gonna have to do works at our jobs? That's racist!


Was that your attempt at under the table racism?
Comments like yours are the norm for GLP and stormfront members.

Let me put it in a way you may understand - Let's say CPS was hiring a new director and the person
they hired was a convicted child pedophile. Would you see a fundamental clash in interests?




No idea on the comment, but I took it as trying to portray a low wage worker at a fast food restaurant and it is pretty accurate. The majority of the ones I've ordered from are not well spoken. If you look at the comment as racist because you personally are associating a specific race that you believe speaks like that then it would be your own racial bias you're imparting on the comment.

As far as your example....you're comparing a business tycoon (who wants technological advancement in an industry known for poor performance by its employees, who complain they want more money despite poor performance) to a pedophile? How is that logical? And I would say that comparison is more distasteful than your claiming the other poster is a racist.


I don't care how you took it - I know the root place it came from.
You may not visit those sites or maybe you do - but those comments are the order of the day.
The comment you know damn well where it comes from in that phonetic and you trying to blanket it
shows me more about you than the poster I commented on.
The other poster is racist - defend him as you might it doesn't change. it.


I'm comparing for his sake so his understands what conflict of interest is.
We're trying to bring jobs back to the United States and you're more interested in defending
a "tycoon" that's only interested in automating them.
Go wash your mouth out if you don't like the truth.

There are plenty of sites that will cater to your echo chamber needs.




posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What drives automation now is the same thing that has been driving automation since the days of the folk hero John Henry (the 1870s). I'm sure you remember his story right? Working himself to death to outperform the steam powered spike driver?



Sure do...I remember it from my younger days, and from just two days ago watching the Disney animated short with my daughter.


The primary reason for automation is the same as any other measure taken to reduce the requirement for human labor — a reduction in labor costs translates to increased profit at the same output. It's not an issue of "overprotected" workers or even corporate greed, businesses have and will continue to phase out as much human labor as they can because businesses operate for profit.


And as a nice byproduct, if not a main goal in and of itself, the product slowly (or quickly, if you look at computers) becomes cheaper as the quality of the product and cost of production becomes cheaper.

But, there is a problem with the "overprotected worker," because in many instances, the unions and such who create this coddled-worker environment are the organizations that make firing bad workers nearly impossible, and fight for more and more fringe benefits at higher cost to the employer, and fight tooth-and-nail for increased wages for their members. This is an ingredient in the recipe, even if it may not be the primary source of the problem.


Then you should understand that as labor demand decreases and labor supply increases, skills are worth ever less.


I do understand that--in fact, that was my exact point.



That's certainly the sort of nonsense that some would have you believe. Just as there are those who have blamed collective bargaining despite the fact that it's a thesis easily disproved:




Without scouring the source of the data for that graph, all that I can say is that correlation does not equal causation, but I'm glad to see the decline in union memberships--I don't have all unions, but I do think that they've outlived their purpose and are nothing now but a political lobbying organization that raises money, for the most part, for liberal/progressive causes.


However, as a human being and a member of a society filled with other human beings, I'm also concerned with the future of employment. As a tax payer, I'm not keen on paying more and more into social welfare programs that have transitioned from safety nets to a means for keeping afloat a sinking ship.


I'm not keen on paying more for social welfare, either, but the reality is that the soup of variables that creates a decline in both jobs and people starting up new businesses and corporations will not be fixed by the Department of Labor. The mission statement of the DoL says nothing about artificially propping up existing jobs for the sake of employment. If they really wanted to foster the right environment for jobs, they'd actively fight for a different tax system--an income tax is one of the worst things that minimizes the wage of the average American worker. I'd be interested to see what your solution is to this issue.



Firstly, I find it strange how you alternate between acknowledging the inevitable and blaming workers for... the inevitable.


That comment sounds like my 13-year-old, who can't figure out how his own actions get him in trouble and it's not just me be a dick of a parent. All of the things that I listed as being additives to the cause of job loss is accurate, but even if something (kiosks, in this instance) is inevitable, it doesn't mean that the American worker can't have a hand in expediting its inevitability. That's the point of what I said.



Nobody should be more pro-labor than the Secretary of Labor ffs.


The term "pro-labor" is subjective, because it depends on which policies and actions you believe will be best for the labor market and the individual laborer. I think that we may disagree on the best course of action in this regard, but that's okay...and no, I don't have the time or energy to enumerate a plan of action that I think would be best for this situation.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

As of right now I don't know if there is a solution. I now some countries have been talking about paying all of their citizens a cost of living stipend. Whether that would actually be viable though remains to be seen.

That said, is it really best to have a Secretary of Labor who clearly cares more about his own bottom line at such a crucial juncture in human development?
edit on 12/29/2016 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Ummm...well I certainly won't attempt to interpret what another member's thought matrix behind their writing was...as I'm not privy to that...

All that aside...each person in every position makes a decision to be exactly where they are at any time in their life...
Every moment of every day we all make choices...we all determine our own fate...

Now then...I suppose the CEO or IT professional or illustrator...writer or designer...or engineer...etc...aren't actually working in your mind...because there was no heavy lifting on their feet all day...

I really like entrepreneurial minded individuals...I like those who create...(not that I don't have compassion for the heavy lifters)

Again...these are all choices and decisions made daily by those to whom differing work venues apply...it really is as simple as that...




YouSir



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join