Unions Look For More Companies To Kill

E

EdwardATeller

Guest
Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
devour.

I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system. Pay
people more than they are worth, and those jobs will disappear. Why
would any employer continue to employ someone that costs him more
money that he produces in benefits? Oh wait, I forgot about
government. Stupid me.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070325/unions_future.html

<quote>
Unions Look to New Groups for Survival
Sunday March 25, 12:48 pm ET
By John Seewer, Associated Press Writer
Not Dead Yet: to Survive, Labor Union Leaders Look to Recruit New
Groups of Workers

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- Trying to stop the erosion of organized labor,
union leaders are looking beyond their core auto and steel industries
to recruit service workers making low wages and professionals worrying
about losing their health care.

The new faces of unions are immigrants working at construction sites,
hospital nurses, parking lot attendants, mechanics and casino dealers
-- all groups who are unlikely to lose their jobs to overseas workers.

"What's left anymore?" said Al Mixon, president of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 507 in Cleveland, which just finalized
a contract with American Red Cross employees in northern Ohio. "We're
all forced to look into new areas."

This may be just the beginning of the reshaping of unions at a time
when factory jobs are being sent overseas or lost to technological
changes.

"As we lose manufacturing jobs, we're going to move more into
nontraditional occupations," said UAW Ohio President Lloyd Mahaffey.
"The issues aren't different whether it's a health care facility or a
factory. It's about having a voice."

In the last year, the UAW signed up 2,500 new members in Ohio at auto
parts plants, county jails and a juvenile courthouse. The national
union last year voted to move $60 million from its strike fund into
recruiting new members.

"We had a good year," Mahaffey said. "But it wouldn't be fair to say
we're replacing everyone we lose."

Job losses at the Big Three automakers and at parts makers knocked
down UAW membership to below 600,000 members in 2005, from a high of
1.5 million in 1979.

Union membership has declined steadily nationwide over the last 50
years. Only about one in 10 workers belongs to a union compared with a
third of all workers in the 1950s.

"The question is have unions fallen so far and so fast that they can't
get up," said Gary Chaison, a labor specialist at Clark University in
Worcester, Mass. "I give them a 50-50 chance."

Unions likely need at least 500,000 new members each year just to make
up for their annual losses, he said.

"They don't have to look overseas for fertile fields," he said. "It's
all around them. They just have to use their imagination."

The Service Employees International Union has organized child-care
providers who work at home in Illinois and janitors who clean office
towers in Houston.

The union has doubled in size in a little over a decade, to 1.8
million members, and now is trying to unionize janitors in
Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Columbus.

"We need health care, we need better wages," Lauressie Tillman said at
an organizing rally in Cincinnati in March.

Tillman makes $6.85 an hour cleaning offices downtown to support her
family of four. She has diabetes and must pay for doctor visits. "I
don't have money for my medicine," she said.

One challenge in organizing new members is that many workers don't
value unions like they once did, forcing labor leaders to reintroduce
and redefine themselves.

They are pushing for more than better wages, telling workers that
access to health care and the ability to join unions are civil rights
-- not just bargaining chips.

And they are becoming less adversarial.

"Workers are looking for an organization that solves problems not one
that creates them," said Andy Stern, president of the Service
Employees union.

Too many labor leaders are concerned only about negotiating contracts
for their own members and aren't focused on solving problems facing
all workers such as the lack of an adequate health care system, he
said.

"For way too long, we've tried to stay the same and, in some cases,
stop change," Stern said. "That's a losing strategy."

Unions also are trying to become a bigger part of their members'
everyday lives. That means bringing back labor-sponsored family events
such as pumpkin patches and mother-daughter banquets.

"It's an old idea regenerated," said Bill Lichtenwald, president of
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 20 in Toledo. Its
membership has been cut in half since 1980 and now is down to 7,000.

The union offers casino bus trips and ballroom dancing lessons at
special rates.

And Teamsters are going into schools to talk with students about what
unions offer their members and how they have shaped the middle class.

"We're taking a lot of steps to re-educate," Lichtenwald said. "It
used to be that labor unions were respected. That reputation went
away."

David Weil, an associate professor of economics at Boston University,
expects that unions will look much different in the coming years. He
predicted that unions may offer more job training, serve as a third
party to resolve disputes or work more as a support organization for
immigrants.

There are unions now that don't fit the traditional mold.

The Freelancers Union, based in Brooklyn, N.Y., doesn't bargain wages
or benefits with employers. Instead, it offers low cost health care,
life insurance and networking for its 45,000 members who are writers,
artists and Web site designers.

"The idea of a union conjures about so many images," said Sara
Horowitz, who founded the union in 2003. "The real answer is you have
to be helpful and provide something valuable."

Horowitz said that unions don't need to engage in collective
bargaining to grow.

"There are many structures that have helped workers from mutual aid
societies to guilds," she said. "The essence of a union is people
coming together to solve their problems."
</quote>
 
In news:1174848511.764804.310000@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
"EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
> best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system.


There's nothing inherently non-free market about unions.

In fact, only government action could prevent the formation of unions,
which is obviously anti-free market.

Of course, current conditions in the US have the government taking
actions that favor unions in many cases (and favor business in others),
which is obviously also anti-free market.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
 
EdwardATeller wrote:

> Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
> auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
> devour.
>
> I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
> best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system. Pay
> people more than they are worth, and those jobs will disappear. Why
> would any employer continue to employ someone that costs him more
> money that he produces in benefits? Oh wait, I forgot about
> government. Stupid me.


You are so correct. CEO's need the 600 times the average workers salary
to make a company run well.

You're a management suckup.

Without the workers, the managers have nothing to manage. Without the
managers, the workers won't have a company. I see nothing wrong with
workers getting a decent wage and safe working conditions.

You on the other hand, being a suckup, want exploitation.
 
On Mar 25, 2:48 pm, "EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_em...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
> auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
> devour.
>
> I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
> best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system. Pay
> people more than they are worth, and those jobs will disappear. Why
> would any employer continue to employ someone that costs him more
> money that he produces in benefits? Oh wait, I forgot about
> government. Stupid me.


Employer's have always done that.
Whuch is actually why the moron
U.S. Post Office invented the pony express
for the Calitucky morons.

Since it's not only air mail, it's
moron Wal-Mart mail.





>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070325/unions_future.html
>
> <quote>
> Unions Look to New Groups for Survival
> Sunday March 25, 12:48 pm ET
> By John Seewer, Associated Press Writer
> Not Dead Yet: to Survive, Labor Union Leaders Look to Recruit New
> Groups of Workers
>
> TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- Trying to stop the erosion of organized labor,
> union leaders are looking beyond their core auto and steel industries
> to recruit service workers making low wages and professionals worrying
> about losing their health care.
>
> The new faces of unions are immigrants working at construction sites,
> hospital nurses, parking lot attendants, mechanics and casino dealers
> -- all groups who are unlikely to lose their jobs to overseas workers.
>
> "What's left anymore?" said Al Mixon, president of the International
> Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 507 in Cleveland, which just finalized
> a contract with American Red Cross employees in northern Ohio. "We're
> all forced to look into new areas."
>
> This may be just the beginning of the reshaping of unions at a time
> when factory jobs are being sent overseas or lost to technological
> changes.
>
> "As we lose manufacturing jobs, we're going to move more into
> nontraditional occupations," said UAW Ohio President Lloyd Mahaffey.
> "The issues aren't different whether it's a health care facility or a
> factory. It's about having a voice."
>
> In the last year, the UAW signed up 2,500 new members in Ohio at auto
> parts plants, county jails and a juvenile courthouse. The national
> union last year voted to move $60 million from its strike fund into
> recruiting new members.
>
> "We had a good year," Mahaffey said. "But it wouldn't be fair to say
> we're replacing everyone we lose."
>
> Job losses at the Big Three automakers and at parts makers knocked
> down UAW membership to below 600,000 members in 2005, from a high of
> 1.5 million in 1979.
>
> Union membership has declined steadily nationwide over the last 50
> years. Only about one in 10 workers belongs to a union compared with a
> third of all workers in the 1950s.
>
> "The question is have unions fallen so far and so fast that they can't
> get up," said Gary Chaison, a labor specialist at Clark University in
> Worcester, Mass. "I give them a 50-50 chance."
>
> Unions likely need at least 500,000 new members each year just to make
> up for their annual losses, he said.
>
> "They don't have to look overseas for fertile fields," he said. "It's
> all around them. They just have to use their imagination."
>
> The Service Employees International Union has organized child-care
> providers who work at home in Illinois and janitors who clean office
> towers in Houston.
>
> The union has doubled in size in a little over a decade, to 1.8
> million members, and now is trying to unionize janitors in
> Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Columbus.
>
> "We need health care, we need better wages," Lauressie Tillman said at
> an organizing rally in Cincinnati in March.
>
> Tillman makes $6.85 an hour cleaning offices downtown to support her
> family of four. She has diabetes and must pay for doctor visits. "I
> don't have money for my medicine," she said.
>
> One challenge in organizing new members is that many workers don't
> value unions like they once did, forcing labor leaders to reintroduce
> and redefine themselves.
>
> They are pushing for more than better wages, telling workers that
> access to health care and the ability to join unions are civil rights
> -- not just bargaining chips.
>
> And they are becoming less adversarial.
>
> "Workers are looking for an organization that solves problems not one
> that creates them," said Andy Stern, president of the Service
> Employees union.
>
> Too many labor leaders are concerned only about negotiating contracts
> for their own members and aren't focused on solving problems facing
> all workers such as the lack of an adequate health care system, he
> said.
>
> "For way too long, we've tried to stay the same and, in some cases,
> stop change," Stern said. "That's a losing strategy."
>
> Unions also are trying to become a bigger part of their members'
> everyday lives. That means bringing back labor-sponsored family events
> such as pumpkin patches and mother-daughter banquets.
>
> "It's an old idea regenerated," said Bill Lichtenwald, president of
> the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 20 in Toledo. Its
> membership has been cut in half since 1980 and now is down to 7,000.
>
> The union offers casino bus trips and ballroom dancing lessons at
> special rates.
>
> And Teamsters are going into schools to talk with students about what
> unions offer their members and how they have shaped the middle class.
>
> "We're taking a lot of steps to re-educate," Lichtenwald said. "It
> used to be that labor unions were respected. That reputation went
> away."
>
> David Weil, an associate professor of economics at Boston University,
> expects that unions will look much different in the coming years. He
> predicted that unions may offer more job training, serve as a third
> party to resolve disputes or work more as a support organization for
> immigrants.
>
> There are unions now that don't fit the traditional mold.
>
> The Freelancers Union, based in Brooklyn, N.Y., doesn't bargain wages
> or benefits with employers. Instead, it offers low cost health care,
> life insurance and networking for its 45,000 members who are writers,
> artists and Web site designers.
>
> "The idea of a union conjures about so many images," said Sara
> Horowitz, who founded the union in 2003. "The real answer is you have
> to be helpful and provide something valuable."
>
> Horowitz said that unions don't need to engage in collective
> bargaining to grow.
>
> "There are many structures that have helped workers from mutual aid
> societies to guilds," she said. "The essence of a union is people
> coming together to solve their problems."
> </quote>
 
"EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174848511.764804.310000@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
> auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
> devour.
>
> I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
> best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system. Pay
> people more than they are worth, and those jobs will disappear. Why
> would any employer continue to employ someone that costs him more
> money that he produces in benefits? Oh wait, I forgot about
> government. Stupid me.
>


Organized labor is a free market force. Nothing about free market
proscribes labor talent from pooling their capital (investment in skill) in
the same way small monetary capital pools their resources in corporate
structures to increase power and strength.

It wasn't unions that killed the steel industry but lack of vision and
willingness to invest in new technologies. The unions, capital, and a
dinosaur government all failed to keep up with the competition. Together
they killed any chance the needed investments would be made.

Other countries allow immediate write off for investment capital like this,
not to mention outright subsidy. Even poor quality steel produced by then
communist nations was produced cheaper (including expensive shipping
charges) than our old worn out mills could produce it...so we lost market
share.

Congress and our Executive Branch chased after the quick lobby money rather
than develop a long term vision to compete with emerging producers of steel.
THAT was the direct result of the voters not paying attention and letting it
happen. Superficial people like to blame the government for
everything....but the government always represents the will of the
people....even when the people are too cowardly to demand more than
dictatorships...especially in those cases.

We lost steel because we were weak as an economic force in that industry.
Countries with a stronger will to prevail ran us over. That is the way of
things in capitalism....even capital investments made by communist nations
can beat free market forces when the people of those markets refuse to
recognize or deal with the realities of competition. Capital invested in
the means of production (when done right) will beat capital not invested
nearly every time. It doesn't matter if that capital comes from a free
market private pool or collective source...visionary capital investment
will lower the cost of production, increase quality and eventually capture
market share. Such winning capital investment will increase the value of
the labor applied to it in terms of profit for distribution to both capital
partners and labor partners as well.

Historically, collective capital decisions are usually not as efficient as
private capital decisions. However, it is the quality of capital investment
that determines which producer wins....not the manner in which it was made.
A wise collective decision will trump a foolish private capital decision and
win in the market competition. The market doesn't care! It responds to
price, quality, and efficiency of the product meeting the demands for it.
PERIOD.

Blaming the loss on a single market component like labor is just a
continuation of the same kind of ignorance and weakness that lost the steel
battle in the first place. It's just whine!

Randy R. Cox
 
Randy Cox wrote:

> "EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1174848511.764804.310000@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
>>auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
>>devour.
>>
>>I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
>>best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system. Pay
>>people more than they are worth, and those jobs will disappear. Why
>>would any employer continue to employ someone that costs him more
>>money that he produces in benefits? Oh wait, I forgot about
>>government. Stupid me.

>
> Organized labor is a free market force. Nothing about free market
> proscribes labor talent from pooling their capital (investment in skill) in
> the same way small monetary capital pools their resources in corporate
> structures to increase power and strength.
>
> It wasn't unions that killed the steel industry but lack of vision and
> willingness to invest in new technologies. The unions, capital, and a
> dinosaur government all failed to keep up with the competition. Together
> they killed any chance the needed investments would be made.
>
> Other countries allow immediate write off for investment capital like this,
> not to mention outright subsidy. Even poor quality steel produced by then
> communist nations was produced cheaper (including expensive shipping
> charges) than our old worn out mills could produce it...so we lost market
> share.
>
> Congress and our Executive Branch chased after the quick lobby money rather
> than develop a long term vision to compete with emerging producers of steel.
> THAT was the direct result of the voters not paying attention and letting it
> happen. Superficial people like to blame the government for
> everything....but the government always represents the will of the
> people....even when the people are too cowardly to demand more than
> dictatorships...especially in those cases.
>
> We lost steel because we were weak as an economic force in that industry.
> Countries with a stronger will to prevail ran us over. That is the way of
> things in capitalism....even capital investments made by communist nations
> can beat free market forces when the people of those markets refuse to
> recognize or deal with the realities of competition. Capital invested in
> the means of production (when done right) will beat capital not invested
> nearly every time. It doesn't matter if that capital comes from a free
> market private pool or collective source...visionary capital investment
> will lower the cost of production, increase quality and eventually capture
> market share. Such winning capital investment will increase the value of
> the labor applied to it in terms of profit for distribution to both capital
> partners and labor partners as well.
>
> Historically, collective capital decisions are usually not as efficient as
> private capital decisions. However, it is the quality of capital investment
> that determines which producer wins....not the manner in which it was made.
> A wise collective decision will trump a foolish private capital decision and
> win in the market competition. The market doesn't care! It responds to
> price, quality, and efficiency of the product meeting the demands for it.
> PERIOD.
>
> Blaming the loss on a single market component like labor is just a
> continuation of the same kind of ignorance and weakness that lost the steel
> battle in the first place. It's just whine!
>
> Randy R. Cox
>

Interesting comments.

I like the "Capital invested in the means of production (when done
right) will beat capital not invested nearly every time." comment. This
can be reviewed in real time with the car manufacturers too.
 
salad wrote:

> Randy Cox wrote:
>
>> "EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1174848511.764804.310000@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
>>> auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
>>> devour.
>>>
>>> I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
>>> best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system. Pay
>>> people more than they are worth, and those jobs will disappear. Why
>>> would any employer continue to employ someone that costs him more
>>> money that he produces in benefits? Oh wait, I forgot about
>>> government. Stupid me.

>>
>>
>> Organized labor is a free market force. Nothing about free market
>> proscribes labor talent from pooling their capital (investment in
>> skill) in the same way small monetary capital pools their resources in
>> corporate structures to increase power and strength.
>>
>> It wasn't unions that killed the steel industry but lack of vision and
>> willingness to invest in new technologies. The unions, capital, and a
>> dinosaur government all failed to keep up with the competition.
>> Together they killed any chance the needed investments would be made.
>>
>> Other countries allow immediate write off for investment capital like
>> this, not to mention outright subsidy. Even poor quality steel
>> produced by then communist nations was produced cheaper (including
>> expensive shipping charges) than our old worn out mills could produce
>> it...so we lost market share.
>>
>> Congress and our Executive Branch chased after the quick lobby money
>> rather than develop a long term vision to compete with emerging
>> producers of steel. THAT was the direct result of the voters not
>> paying attention and letting it happen. Superficial people like to
>> blame the government for everything....but the government always
>> represents the will of the people....even when the people are too
>> cowardly to demand more than dictatorships...especially in those cases.
>>
>> We lost steel because we were weak as an economic force in that
>> industry. Countries with a stronger will to prevail ran us over. That
>> is the way of things in capitalism....even capital investments made by
>> communist nations can beat free market forces when the people of
>> those markets refuse to recognize or deal with the realities of
>> competition. Capital invested in the means of production (when done
>> right) will beat capital not invested nearly every time. It doesn't
>> matter if that capital comes from a free market private pool or
>> collective source...visionary capital investment will lower the cost
>> of production, increase quality and eventually capture market share.
>> Such winning capital investment will increase the value of the labor
>> applied to it in terms of profit for distribution to both capital
>> partners and labor partners as well.
>>
>> Historically, collective capital decisions are usually not as
>> efficient as private capital decisions. However, it is the quality of
>> capital investment that determines which producer wins....not the
>> manner in which it was made. A wise collective decision will trump a
>> foolish private capital decision and win in the market competition.
>> The market doesn't care! It responds to price, quality, and
>> efficiency of the product meeting the demands for it. PERIOD.
>>
>> Blaming the loss on a single market component like labor is just a
>> continuation of the same kind of ignorance and weakness that lost the
>> steel battle in the first place. It's just whine!
>>
>> Randy R. Cox

>
> Interesting comments.
>
> I like the "Capital invested in the means of production (when done
> right) will beat capital not invested nearly every time." comment. This
> can be reviewed in real time with the car manufacturers too.


US car companies I meant.
 
On Mar 25, 10:48 am, "EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_em...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
> auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
> devour.


You are misinformative..
The reason for the decline in viable US mills is not unionizations..
but the neocon ploy of removing tariffs and quotas safeguarding US
jobs and companies.

Bush removed the last of the tariffs just a few months ago. Go google
it.

So don't complain to the US worker that he is the cause of the
destruction of his own job...
Not when globalist neocons are the true reason.
 
"EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174848511.764804.310000@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
> auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
> devour.


Corrupt delusion noted.

>
> I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
> best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system. Pay
> people more than they are worth, and those jobs will disappear. Why
> would any employer continue to employ someone that costs him more
> money that he produces in benefits? Oh wait, I forgot about
> government. Stupid me.


The "free market" is not free when the government financially supports big
business.
Why would any stock holders pay outrageous prices for CEOs who either strip
the company bare, or ruin it?

"Pay people more than they are worth and those jobs will disappear"?
Funny, we still have multimillioin dollar executives.

The only thing you seem to have a grip on is your own stupidity.
 
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:49:42 GMT, "ZenIsWhen" <hereslooking@you.com> wrote:

>
>"EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1174848511.764804.310000@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
>> auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
>> devour.

>
>Corrupt delusion noted.
>
>>
>> I am not sure when we our society will realize the free market is the
>> best way to allocate jobs and pay, not a corrupt union system. Pay
>> people more than they are worth, and those jobs will disappear. Why
>> would any employer continue to employ someone that costs him more
>> money that he produces in benefits? Oh wait, I forgot about
>> government. Stupid me.

>
>The "free market" is not free when the government financially supports big
>business.
>Why would any stock holders pay outrageous prices for CEOs who either strip
>the company bare, or ruin it?
>
>"Pay people more than they are worth and those jobs will disappear"?
>Funny, we still have multimillioin dollar executives.
>
>The only thing you seem to have a grip on is your own stupidity.


Indeed.

Subject line corrected.
 
<lorad474@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1174887352.935848.116640@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 10:48 am, "EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_em...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
> > auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
> > devour.

>
> You are misinformative..
> The reason for the decline in viable US mills is not unionizations..
> but the neocon ploy of removing tariffs and quotas safeguarding US
> jobs and companies.
>
>

NOPE. The real problem is that the tariffs and quotas provided the mills
with excuses not to upgrade and improve.
 
Before you shoot off your stupid semi-literate mouth, learn a little
economics and a little history. Unions did not kill off the old line
basic-open hearth steel industry. Greedy execs did.

Greedy because they found it cheaper in the 1960s and 70s to buy politicians
to provide protection from more efficient foreign competitors who were using
the Basic Oxygen Process.

It was a matter of choices and the steel industry took the cheaper approach
which subsequently resulted in abandoned steel mills all over the rust belt.
Nothing stopped Big Steel from retooling into the Basic Oxygen Process like
Japanese and European producers, but it was a lot cheaper to buy a few
politicians. to help raise steel tariffs.

--
Lubow
"EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174848511.764804.310000@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Having killed a few steel companies and slowly bleeding the Big Three
> auto companies to death, the union parasite needs more victims to
> devour.
>
 
Back
Top