Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How can a union really raise wages without force?

Rate this topic


Dentist85
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure how strong the labor unions are outside the suburban-Chicago-area where I live, but they are extremely strong here in the building trades. About eight years ago, my parents, owners of a construction and concrete company, were forced into the union. I witnessed thugs slicing truck tires, smashing in windows, and fist-fighting with my dad's workers. All while the businesses that supplied us with materials like concrete were, again, forced to stop dealing with us. We soon gave in and are now union.

My question is: How can a union really raise wages without force? ( I know that some might say that they can't because of supply and demand in regards to wages and workers, but I feel that to be over-simplified and untrue in regard to local areas.) I feel like I need a better answer.

And also, what are, if any, the benefits of a union (what value can a union actually provide), of course without initiating physical force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: How can a union really raise wages without force? ( I know that some might say that they can't because of supply and demand in regards to wages and workers, but I feel that to be over-simplified and untrue in regard to local areas.) I feel like I need a better answer.

By negotiation. Labor is a commodity just like pork bellies, and when demand is high and supply is low, the cost (wages) goes up. If in some town there are 50 people who know how to perform service X and a demand for 40 of these people, if you can persuade enough of the 50 to temporary not take jobs doing X, the law of supply and demand will result in higher wages. Obviously a far from foolproof system, for myriad reasons.

And also, what are, if any, the benefits of a union (what value can a union actually provide), of course without initiating physical force?

In newly industrialised nations, they can serve as an educational tool, to remind the employer that they want something from the employee and that they have to negotiate. In a modern country like the US with very high wages, there is no benefit.

Edited by softwareNerd
Fixed quote citation to reflect new member-name
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also, what are, if any, the benefits of a union (what value can a union actually provide), of course without initiating physical force?

Unions can also be what used to be called a "benevolent association" -- an organization which administers various benefit plans such as pension plans, health insurance, accident insurance, and also educates and certifies people in certain trades. In many industries, like the building trades, skilled workers typically work for many different employers and can't count on employer-based benefits, so they band together to get good group rates and hire professional plan administrators.

(I know this because I created custom benefit plan software for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and for the Taxicab Industry Funds in New York City.)

Edited by softwareNerd
Fixed quote citation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also, what are, if any, the benefits of a union (what value can a union actually provide), of course without initiating physical force?

If unions could not use force: 20 men at a company would like raises, they form a union and say they will walk off the job unless they get it. If 1 man were to do this he would likely get fired, but if many men do this, and if they are skilled, it is hard to find replacements for skilled workers, and this pressures the employer to raise their wages. All of it is done through bargaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question is a good one. Without force, and not just the thugery of union members, but the force of the state to look the other way and to force employers into accepting unions, a union could not exist in anything like the form we know today.

In a free labor market all workers can do to attempt to raise their price is the same thing companies can do, which is collude. Collusion is, however, highly ineffective as it succumbs to cheating as soon as the price goes up. But in the case of employed workers another risk is present in a free labor market, the employer can merely fire the colluding workers and hire others. Now this is impossible as it is illegal to fire people on the basis of their trying to form a union and in some locals firms are forced into all sorts of odd arrangements, like not being able to do business with a firm whose workers are on strike, etc.

But the force of the state is what is essential for the success of a union with any real "power" because otherwise you would have situations where companies would just call out the police, or if the cops are sympathetic to the unions, call out the army or private security (Pinkertons) to prevent vandalism and trespassing. This is what typified attempts of people to strike in the 19th century. Especially against large firms like Carnegie's US Steel, where he could afford to lock the workers out of a plant until they gave in or went away (as they would starve without jobs eventually). If the workers want an association in the form Betsy referred to, a mutual aid society where they chip in money to help out a guy who gets injured or provide a pension to a widow, that's one thing, but forming a union to force employers to deal with you is unjust in the extreme, it's reverse slavery almost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If unions could not use force:  20 men at a company would like raises, they form a union and say they will walk off the job unless they get it. If 1 man were to do this he would likely get fired, but if many men do this, and if they are skilled, it is hard to find replacements for skilled workers, and this pressures the employer to raise their wages. All of it is done through bargaining.

This is entirely unnecessary at a well-managed company which will always strive to pay competitive wages, promote and reward competent and ambitious workers, and otherwise make their employees happy. If workers feel that a union is necessary to get what they want, they should probably really be looking for other work, i.e. they are working for a poorly managed company - and the end result of their efforts will likely be either to drive the company out of business or motivate it to undertake other efforts which in the long term will be detrimental to the workers (such as automatizing or out-sourcing or re-locating).

The irony is that, despite the liberal view that unions have been beneficial to workers, they probably on balance have been detrimental - and they certainly have been instrumental in putting many companies out of business, even seriously damaging entire industries,e.g the railroads. It is perhaps why workers have finally wised up about unions and they represent less than 15% of the workers now in the USA, with many of those gov't workers in monopolistic industries, such as the public schools or the postal service.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is entirely unnecessary at a well-managed company which will always strive to pay competitive wages, promote and reward competent and ambitious workers, and otherwise make their employees happy.
The wages would be increased with increased pressure on the company. Benefits the employees.

If workers feel that a union is necessary to get what they want, they should probably really be looking for other work, i.e. they are working for a poorly managed company - and the end result of their efforts will likely be either to drive the company out of business or motivate it to undertake other efforts which in the long term will be detrimental to the workers (such as automatizing or out-sourcing or re-locating).

Most of the time, at least within a decade range, that is not the case with skilled labourers, which I was talking about.

The irony is that, despite the liberal view that unions have been beneficial to workers, they probably on balance have been detrimental - and they certainly have been instrumental in putting many companies out of business, even seriously damaging entire industries,e.g the railroads. It is perhaps why workers have finally wised up about unions and they represent less than 15% of the workers now in the USA, with many of those gov't workers in monopolistic industries, such as the public schools or the postal service.

Fred Weiss

Even if the worker being part of a union is not good for the industry (ie raises prices to the consumers), the worker gets payed more which is in his self-interest.

Through this post you blame workers for trying to get wages they want on larger-scale economic woes. I thought we weren't pragmatists, but recognised people would work toward their self-interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wages would be increased with increased pressure on the company. Benefits the employees.

But it is not to the interest of employees to make their employer less profitable and uncompetitive.

Most of the time, at least within a decade range, that is not the case with skilled labourers, which I was talking about.
"Skilled laborers" have in fact been the group that has suffered the most from repeated strikes as it lead to accelerating the pace of automation and/or outsourcing. One example that comes to mind is newspaper typesetters. Granted in time they would have been let go eventually anyway but they succeeded in addition in closing down dozens, if not, 100's of newspapers.

Even if the worker being part of a union is not good for the industry (ie raises prices to the consumers), the worker gets payed more which is in his self-interest.

How is it to his self-interest if the company terminates his line of work or closes its door? What do you think got the Japanese car companies their break into the United States? They were able at first to produce lower priced cars. Then they got a reputation for better quality. Without tariff protection it is doubtful what would have been left of the highly unionized American auto industry.

Through this post you blame workers for trying to get wages they want on larger-scale economic woes. I thought we weren't pragmatists, but recognised people would work toward their self-interests.

But my point is that unions have not been in workers interest, often not even in the short-term, and certainly not the long term.

What is in workers interest is the same thing that is in all our interest - an unregulated, competitive free market. Trying to achieve higher wages, which the market itself would not otherwise pay, through collusion and blackmail is not consistent with such a system.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But my point is that unions have not been in workers interest, often not even in the short-term, and certainly not the long term.

I agree with fred on this point.

I think that (if supply and demand of workers is what determines the wages and if employers hire as many workers as they can afford) unions coaxing the wage higher will only increase the wages of the those with jobs, but an equal amount of unemployment will occur.

Take this example: A company can afford a payroll of $100/hr TOTAL. if workers are working for $10/hr, that's 10 jobs. But if a union demands a raise to $20, doesnt that mean that the company can only support now 5 workers? Am I going about this right?

The actual situation is more complex, though. Recently (if i have my facts straight) the concrete finisher's union recieved a HUGE raise of $8/ hour. Most of this ($6?) goes into their benifits (which they DO NOT RECIEVE more than 1/2 the time due to inadequate hours/month) . So they really see only $2 more, BUT just as an increase in apple price lowers consumption of apples, this should initiate an unemployment comparitive to the $8 raise, right?

I believe that much confusion exists on this subject due to the special name "wage" for the "price of labor"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that (if supply and demand of workers is what determines the wages and if employers hire as many workers as they can afford) unions coaxing the wage higher will only increase the wages of the those with jobs, but an equal amount of unemployment will occur.

There's a problem with your "if" -- employers won't (rationally) hire as many workers as they can afford. Rather, they will employ as few workers as they can to make as much money as possible. The ultimate goal is maximization of profit, not number of employees.

Take this example: A company can afford a payroll of $100/hr TOTAL. if workers are working for $10/hr, that's 10 jobs. But if a union demands a raise to $20, doesnt that mean that the company can only support now 5 workers? Am I going about this right?
If you dump unions from consideration entirely, this becomes easier to conceptualise. The companies ability to pay workers is not static: maybe by paying 20% higher wages, you get 40% higher productivity and correspondingly higher sales (ergo profits). If doubling a worker's pay manages to correspondingly increase their value to the company, the pay hike is no worse and possibly better than hiring twice as many cheaper employees. The issue shouldn't be framed in terms of what you pay per hour under the assumption that all worker output is the same. And you certainly shouldn't assume that workers who are paid at twice the rate give twice the output, though it might happen.

The actual situation is more complex, though. Recently (if i have my facts straight) the concrete finisher's union recieved a HUGE raise of $8/ hour. Most of this ($6?) goes into their benifits (which they DO NOT RECIEVE more than 1/2 the time due to inadequate hours/month) . So they really see only $2 more, BUT just as an increase in apple price lowers consumption of apples, this should initiate an unemployment comparitive to the $8 raise, right?

Well, an increase in gas prices has not substantially lowered gas consumption, so your assumption doesn't work automatically: you have to have a decrease in demand, not price. Many companies can afford a form of welfare in the form of keeping employees on the payroll beyond the point where they are absolutely necessary this very week. A company engaging in "generous over-employing" would be most likely to engage in larger cuts in workforce. An increase in wages does not necessarily mean a decrease in the number of people employed, since there may be an uncompressible core of employees, i.e. we need at least a pipe-fitter, a welder, an electrician... the nature of the business may well determine that it is not possible, or is at least highly impractical, to cut the number of employees in half. So doubling wages could lead to only a trivial reduction in the size of the work force, the remainder to be paid for by reducing the profit margin.

Edited by softwareNerd
Changed quote citation to reflect name-change
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this has been implied by several posters, let me add that the primary function of unions is to raise wages by excluding competitors (for their wages) with measures such as minimum wages, licensing, and anti-specialization regulations. In a free market, unions have no power to raise wages, for reasons that have been explained above. They can only exist in a mixed economy where the government grants monopoly privileges to various parties.

Given the tie of the very meaning of the word “labor union” to government coercion, I think that a more appropriate term for a group with the function of providing economy-of-scale benefits would be “professional organization” or “guild.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take this example: A company can afford a payroll of $100/hr TOTAL.

Unions (and Marxism, ultimately) are based on the zero-sum premise. You can't use this premise to support Capitalism (which depends on the opposite premise, i.e. wealth can be created and it can be destroyed).

Most companies are not in a position to want to hire as many people as possible, and no company has a fixed budget for salaries *regardless of productivity*. That latter premise sounds alot like a government agency.

In reality, companies sell products or services to their customers. Some of this money goes towards paying salaries. Any demand to pay a worker more than his productivity is not merely "objectionable" or "inconvenient". It is *impossible*.

Secondly, most companies have some sort of efficiency of scale. General Motors functions fairly with 60,000 employees and sales of $50B (I am guessing at the numbers here, but the principle is absolutely sound). It would do considerably worse with 50,000 workers and $40B sales, and would be defunct at 40,000 workers and $30B sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is not to the interest of employees to make their employer less profitable and uncompetitive.

"Skilled laborers" have in fact been the group that has suffered the most from repeated strikes as it lead to accelerating the pace of automation and/or outsourcing. One example that comes to mind is newspaper typesetters. Granted in time they would have been let go eventually anyway but they succeeded in addition in closing down dozens, if not, 100's of newspapers.

How is it to his self-interest if the company terminates his line of work or closes its door? What do you think got the Japanese car companies their break into the United States? They were able at first to produce lower priced cars. Then they got a reputation for better quality. Without tariff protection it is doubtful what would have been left of the highly unionized American auto industry.

Unions do not always cause a company failure, and evaluation could be made to ensure the group of workers would not drive the company completely under.

Take this example: A group of aircraft mechanics working for a major multi-billion dollar airline are in high demand and payed well already. They decide they want some flat screen tv's, so they band together and say they will walk off the job if they don't get a dollar increase per hour. This is stronger bargaining power than an individual employee, which helps them increase their wages. The risk of the company shutting down is little, same with outsourcing the jobs, and the benefits will be clearly evident to those workers.

Trying to achieve higher wages, which the market itself would not otherwise pay, through collusion and blackmail is not consistent with such a system.
Bargaining is not consistent with LFC?

While this has been implied by several posters, let me add that the primary function of unions is to raise wages by excluding competitors (for their wages) with measures such as minimum wages, licensing, and anti-specialization regulations. In a free market, unions have no power to raise wages, for reasons that have been explained above. They can only exist in a mixed economy where the government grants monopoly privileges to various parties.
How about the "group bargaining" like I outlined before, it contains no physical coercion of any matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions do not always cause a company failure, and evaluation could be made to ensure the group of workers would not drive the company completely under.

It is not my understanding that unions are particularly adept at grasping this issue - not judging from the history. But it is interesting to note that the number of strikes has dropped dramatically in recent decades as unions have become increasingly aware of their vulnerabilities. Though you wonder if some of them have their heads on straight - such as the airline unions which were striking right up to 9/11 with many of the airlines just barely able to stay in business under the best of circumstances.

Take this example: A group of aircraft mechanics working for a major multi-billion dollar airline are in high demand and payed well already. They decide they want some flat screen tv's, so they band together and say they will walk off the job if they don't get a dollar increase per hour. This is stronger bargaining power than an individual employee, which helps them increase their wages. The risk of the company shutting down is little, same with outsourcing the jobs, and the benefits will be clearly evident to those workers.

The risk of the company shutting down this week may be very little, but what resources will the company have during the next economic downturn? Successful non-unionized companies are notable for having huge cash reserves which can be applied to expansion (providing additional employment opportunities for their workers) or for weathering bad patches in their business climate (which can keep workers employed in such periods rather than laid-off).

Bargaining is not consistent with LFC? How about the "group bargaining" like I outlined before, it contains no physical coercion of any matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many companies can afford a form of welfare in the form of keeping employees on the payroll beyond the point where they are absolutely necessary this very week. A company engaging in "generous over-employing" would be most likely to engage in larger cuts in workforce.

Keeping employees on the payroll when they aren't strictly necessary right now can still be a sound business move. A company with large cash reserves might choose to retain some technically unnecessary employees through a downturn if they thought having them in place would leave them better positioned to reap additional profits in a future economic recovery, for example. That would be a gamble that might or might now pay off depending on the strength and timing of the recovery, but accurately projecting such future trends is one of the functions of good corporate management.

(Also, on the topic of it not being in the self-interest of employees to drive their employers into bankruptcy: employees often either don't know or don't care about this. Exhibit A is the way that some of the employee-owned airlines (Delta?) are effectively being driven out of business because the employee-owners are insisting on short-term economic security over badly-needed longer-term restructuring. They're so busy fighting over slices of a shrinking pie that none of them can see the future where they all starve to death.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I knew that supreme irrationality existed in the world, even in this fine country of ours. You can see it in churches and politics. Yet I never expected to come face to face with such stupidying idiocy as I have in the past few days.

On Monday, I began a six-month college co-op at a major American corporation. I'm working in the executive department, helping to support roughly 700 scientists and biochemical engineers. My immediate coworkers, as well as the huge staff of aforementioned researchers, are a delightfully efficient, intelligent group of people. But then I hit a brick wall. Five, actually. They were the Unions.

I would explain by theory, but it makes my head spin, so I will instead rant by example. A senior scientist needed to move his computer from one office to another, just across the hallway. Total displacement was about twenty feet, no kidding. However, he cannot move his computer. Nor can I. In fact, I must place no less than two week-long work orders to have Unionized pricks move the computer. One union member (a technician) unplugs the computer from the wall. The next union member (a mover) physically carries the PC to the adjacent office. Finally, the first union member (the technician) reconnects said PC to the power and the ethernet jack. And of course, if I demand such services to be rendered in less than one week, the union will charge overtime (despite the work actually being done mid-afternoon).

I was barred from relocating a ROLLING swivel desk chair ten yards down a hallway, from a storage area to a new office. No, no, I have to put in a work order to have some entitled schmuck ROLL the goddamn chair down the hallway, into the office. I was similarly disallowed from screwing a freaking dry-erase markerboard into the wall; I have to put in a work order to the Carpenter's Union for that. I wasn't even allowed to relocate some poor engineer's keyboard desk tray; again, place an order with the union folks! :huh:

I cannot, as a mere manager, unplug a computer, move a desk, or a chair. I cannot even think about touching a bolt or screw. I can't swiffer off a goddamn desk. Prohibited from cleaning anything, fixing anything. Nope, because the union(s) demand that their workers be entitled to such tasks (but of course, not a damn thing besides. It's not in their contracts you know).

What the hell is this country coming to? I mean, I don't even know what to say! Holy shit! It is absolutely ridiculous!!!!!! Has anyone else had any similar experience? why do companies hire union at all? What is all of this horseshit about anyway?

I really didn't think it was so bad before this week. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is commonly called by economists, "featherbedding," unions do it all the time when they write out the employment contract to creat and preserve as many idiotic jobs and tasks in the hands of a set group of people, even when this number of employees is absurdly high. You're not the only one who has to deal with it, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've indeed discovered how unions operate, though the situation at your company sounds worse than most. You give a good and vivid description of what a terrible joke union work rules are. Quite disgusting. You could find many people who could tell you similar stories to what you've observed.

(I once worked in a company that was mostly unionized, though my job was not, nor were the jobs of most people I worked with. On the factory floor, I'd see union guys sleeping, reading comic books, and sitting around for hours. And they were quite unwilling to do anything at all that wasn't in their "job description". Can you imagine going through life this way? I can't.)

The classic case of "featherbedding" is in the railroad industry. Years ago, when railroads used steam locomotives, there were two men in the cab: the engineer, who ran the controls of the engine, and the fireman, whose job it was to shovel coal into the firebox. This was a necessary job, and hard work. But then, along came diesel locomotives. There's no coal to shovel, since they burn oil! So, there was no need of the fireman. But, due to union rules, the railroads had to have a fireman in the cab anyway.

Why do companies put up with this, you ask?

The main reason is that there is legislation (mostly passed in the 1930's) that gives unions a privileged position that they would not have in a free market. For example:

- If a union signs up 30% of workers in a "bargaining unit", the company is required to negotiate with that union.

- There are restrictions on what management can do to keep unions out. You cannot do things like offer workers better pay if they don't join a union, and in some cases, companies have to be very careful what they say if a union election is coming up. Saying the wrong thing is an "unfair labor practice". Yes, this is a gross violation of the right of free speech, but it's the law.

- Union organizers may come onto a company's property, and in general the owners may not interfere with their activities. (Though in some companies, the workers themselves who are the target of the union's "efforts" have been known to be quite hostile to union organizers.)

- Firing an employee for union membership (which should be a company's right) is of course out of the question.

In addition to these specific laws, there is the general fact that union violence is often unpunished; the police don't do anything about it. During strikes that I'm

familiar with, the striking union workers have shot at managers, beaten up

and intimmidated replacement workers, destroyed company property (for instance, cutting wires in telephone switching equipment, or ruining truck engines), and nobody was ever prosecuted, let alone sent to jail.

Faced with this, many companies just give in. But companies could still resist unions, but they often don't because of lazy management. For example, union employees are promoted generally by seniority: it doesn't matter how well they can do the job. If a manager is lazy, this makes his job easier, since he doesn't then have to decide who gets promoted.

The good news is that in the private sector, the percentage of union employees is way down from say the 1950's. Unionized companies are stuck with (as you've seen) wasteful work rules, and expensive workforces whose lethargic members have an "entitlement" mentality, so this makes them far less competitive.

Companies in fast-changing industries in particular are usually not very unionized, if at all. The computer industry comes to mind; I believe most if not all major makers of computers are not unionized. That's because if such a company were to accept a union, it would never be able to react fast enough to the changes in technology that occur so fast - the company would be gone in a few years.

And at many companies, the workers themselves hate unions and wouldn't think of having one "represent" them.

So although the situation with unions is bad, it is easy for the rational man to find a non-union company to work for. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only way to go for somebody who wants to work hard and achieve something, and wants the best for himself in his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
Would the world be better without them? Have they succeded in gaining good working conditions? If not, who has and how?
The world would be better off without them. They have not caused any improvement in conditions for the working guy. Wages and benefits did improve in the past 100 or so years, but this is due to improvements in the economy and improvements in workers themselves. Businesses are more profitable, and labor has become more valuable, so wages and benefits have increased correspondingly. However, unions also demand increases in wages and benefits when businesses become less profitable and thus less able to meet those demands, and when workers becomes possibly less valuable (i.e. less competent). They also demand highly inefficient practices, of hiring unnecesary people (which is a waste of money). Since they are no good, and some harm, we would be better off without them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment I'm watching the trade union congress on television. What are people's views on trade unions? Would the world be better without them? Have they succeded in gaining good working conditions? If not, who has and how?

What kind of question is that to ask? What concern is it to a rational individual what "the world" would be better off with or without?

Unions, as a whole, are a neutral subject. They may either be organized to help the individual or as a racketeering gig in order to make profit for leaders who do not work at all, except to extort money from its members and from businesses that hire them.

Unless the trade unions have gotten legislation passed that makes it mandatory to hire people of a certain qualification (journeyman, master, etc) from the trade unions, then they can be evaluated as either moral or immoral, depending on how exactly they function. If they have, however,then they are obviously immoral.

I don't know any specific trade unions except for the dock workers' union in San Francisco - utterly corrupt, incompetant, and there only to punish anyone who does their job well. Obviously, immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of question is that to ask? What concern is it to a rational individual what "the world" would be better off with or without?

Since I live in the world I rather care about what happens in it. For someone who asks what kind of question it is to ask, you certainly haven't given a short reply :dough: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with unions as long as one isn't forced to join or pay dues. Closed shops should not be allowed. On the other hand, if a group of workers wants to band together and pursue collective bargaining, they should have that right. They should also be aware that there is a world market for labor. Businesses will move their operations overseas if labor costs make them uncompetitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with unions as long as one isn't forced to join or pay dues. Closed shops should not be allowed. On the other hand, if a group of workers wants to band together and pursue collective bargaining, they should have that right. They should also be aware that there is a world market for labor. Businesses will move their operations overseas if labor costs make them uncompetitive.
Then I think you've mentioned at least one reason why you should have a problem with unions. There's a difference between not outlawing voluntary unions (which no Objectivist would advocate) and not recognising that they really are a problem on various grounds. It's like saying that you don't have a problem with suicide, as long as it's voluntary. I don't have a problem with monterey jack cheese, though I would not ever seek it out. I do have a problem with sado-masochism, although I don't think it should be regulated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...