Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Jan. 11, 2013 | 2:01 a.m.
We all know what “right-to-work state” means. It means on average, workers earn 10 percent less and unemployment is 10 percent lower. Indiana passed such a law, and the Michigan governor has been using that law as a model. If the model is designed for employees to work for less if they want a job, then there is nothing on the horizon for the American worker. Indiana, by the way, has no empirical evidence to support the success of the new law, but that won’t stop the Michigan governor from using the line. Remember the Romney campaign adviser saying they were ...
What Dave Starr omits is that unions tried and failed to pass prop 2 in Michigan. It was rejected by the Michigan voters. According to Dave Starr's logic, all Michigan voters must be CEO's or have big salaries.
"The most obvious example was the passage of a right-to-work law last week in Michigan, the birthplace of the United Auto Workers union.
This was retaliation for a failed power grab by both the UAW and public sector unions -- Proposition 2, which would have enshrined collective bargaining in the state constitution.
Michigan voters defeated Prop 2 last month by a 58 to 42 percent margin. It won in the two counties that include the effectively bankrupt cities of Detroit and Flint. It lost in the other 81 counties.
Right-to-work means that no one can be forced to join a union. The law also stops the automatic deduction of union dues from public employees' paychecks -- which is to say, taxpayer funding of the public employee unions that have driven costs and pensions on an unsustainable path.
Gov. Rick Snyder was initially reluctant to push right-to-work. But he saw that neighboring Indiana was attracting new jobs after it passed right-to-work last winter, while Michigan was losing jobs."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...
Dave lsaying "We all know what "right-to-work state" means. It means on average, workers earn 10 percent less and unemployment is 10 percent lower."
Dave is wrong about lower wages-- but right about lower unemployment
Right to work states have much stronger economies: strong growth, lower unemployment, higher blue collar wages,
---
What does right to work Really mean:
Simply that the worker does not have to pay skim (a portion of his salary) every week to the Union Bosses in order to work
----
This union argument is so tied to human nature.
Initially, we had companies that abused workers and did not pay them well (human nature at work).
Then came unions as a response and workers were treated better and paid more (human nature at work).
Then unions went overboard with wages and benefits and contributed to making some private companies noncompetitive and those companies failed (human nature again).
Then, having lost traction in the private sector, unions moved into a public sector (human nature again).
Then unions went overboard with wages and benefits and contributed to governments not being able to pay all their bills (human nature again).
Now the governments and the public in some states are beginning to try to reign in union overreach by enacting right to work laws (human nature again).
First it was companies and management being greedy and unfair. Then it was unions doing the same. Now the pendulum is swinging again. It would be nice if everybody was a little less greedy, but I guess that's too much to ask.... of human beings.
Michael
If unions result in higher wages across the board for all workers, then prices go up for the goods and services provided to these workers. Higher wages and incomes drive up prices for the same products and services. I would argue that it is better to have the lower worker wages and the concommitant lower prices for goods and services. Rather than higher and higher union wages with higher and higher prices of goods and services. Still putting the union workers in a shortfall position for standard of spending and living.
CarmineD
If your envious of CEOs become one. Don't blame them when you go on strike and cripple the company and your wife dies like that wussy steelworker in the obumma commercial. Which was a lie. But it plays well with the havenots.
Yes comrade Starr we need to stop the evil CEO's.
Which re-education should we send them to?
If you think employees in "Right-to-Work" states are taking a hit, check out the hourly pay of Culinary Union members. Waitresses making over 10 bucks an hour (plus tips); hostesses making around 18 bucks an hour; fry cooks over 15 bucks an hour; all jobs that require little in the way of educational skills. I say good for them but quit the bellyaching about how employees are underpaid by "greedy" corporations. I've never met anyone who thought he or she was paid too much. They always wanted higher wages so they could spend more. Were they "greedy?" Nope! That's the American way. Except for the most indolent among us, we all want "more." It's in our nature, our blood and our way of life. Some, like Starr, want to use it to divide us. Don't let him. Don't be envious of what others have. It's unbecoming. This leads me to another topic: "Fat Albert" Gore and his windfall by selling his "Current TV" to a bunch of American-hating Arabs. Notice the silence on the left about it? The LV Rag ignored the story and what it says about "Fat Albert." Imagine if Geroge W., the oilman, had done something similar. The lefties would be foaming at the mouth. Think the LV Rag would have published an article or two condemning George W.? Mike Smith would have had his pen sharpened so he could draw countless biased cartoons deriding George W. Hypocrisy and leftist; they are interchangaeable words.
Dave Starr wrote "Today, CEOs are paid 350 times the average worker".
Dave, in Nevada, 92% of firms employee less than 100 people. Would these small businesses be led by a big bad CEO making over $7 million a year in salary?
http://www.census.gov//epcd/susb/2008/nv...
@lvfacts101...please...it's not *Fat Albert* Gore, but call him by his true name....Gorebull Warming...
A very large number of the lower and middle income people in this country do not pay much attention to politics. Many don't know what " right to work " really means. That is the exact reason they named it right to work because it makes it sound as if it is 100% for the working person.
Jerry Fink obviously does not know that Rupert Murdoch also owns 20% of Rotana which is also a bunch of "American hating Arabs". Notice the silence on the right about it?
For Balance:
"A fair day's wage
The Department of Labor is suing after a company allegedly fired a worker for refusing to work in a 15 foot deep trench with walls that were caving in. http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2012/12/20...
It's always interesting to see the diverse groups of workers who join unions, recently including American Sign Language interpreters, nurses, custodial workers, carwasheros.
The Kravis Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, and its stagehands union have reached an agreement after a 12-year labor dispute that had workers striking this week.
Food service, housekeeping, and other workers at Indiana's Marian University voted 54 to 1 to unionize, joining UNITE HERE.
Unions in states where workers can get the benefits of the work unions do without bearing any responsibility to the union or their coworkers face added challenges. But it's a body blow, not a death blow, as this Georgia union blogger explains:
"Every day some portion is spent contemplating how to maintain membership levels in my union. We represent several large groups of low-wage members both newly organized and as components of larger groups of better paid members. These groups of members have an extremely high turnover rate, so engaging with them immediately upon being hired is always a priority. The right to meet and do a union presentation is always a priority of every contract that we negotiate. Freeloaders are subjected to varying degrees of 100% legal social pressure from their coworkers of varying degrees depending on the level of union organization at that worksite. This additional burden of maintaining our membership is a constant financial drain on our union valuable hours of staff time are consumed daily by this area of activity."
"Where turnover is lower the level of membership is always higher. Our local union's worksites as well as other unions that are more stable provide the core of our states union membership. Not coincidentally these industries usually represent those area of the private sector where unions used to hold sway nationally. It also reflects the fact that members in these types of bargaining units have a greater understanding of how their membership levels reflect their relative strength to their employer and how that correlates with contract gains."
Activists protested at the Port of Newark as a boat carrying Walmart goods manufactured in Bangladesh arrived. The hope was that longshore workers would not cross the protest's picket line and unload the boat, but police moved the protesters away quickly.
Graduate students at New York University are trying to get the university to recognize their union.
H-1B visa exploitation:
A federal court jury late Monday ordered Universal Placement International of Los Angeles and its owner and president, Lourdes Navarro, to pay $4.5 million to the 350 Filipino teachers they lured to teach in Louisiana public schools following Hurricane Katrina and forced into exploitative contracts after arriving in the United States through the federal guest worker program.
Feeling like the anti-union laws on the books in his state aren't enough in this age of states passing anti-union laws, an Alabama Republican state senator is proposing to double down on one of the existing ones by putting it in the state constitution:
"It is redundant to a degree, but the redundancy sends a message: We are serious about jobs and Alabama is open for business," Dial said.
Uh, yeah. Sure. Re-passing a law that's already on the books and that doesn't actually add jobs, just pushes down their pay, shows that you're serious about something, but it's not jobs.
In November, Idaho voters rejected a law stripping teachers of collective bargaining rights. But the state's school boards association is trying to get legislators to pass some of the same provisions anyway.
Now we've got Walmart workers and fast food workers fighting their terrible wages and working conditions and the routine intimidation and oppression they face in unprecedented ways. You've got Chicago teachers striking against the odds. As much as the law is tilted toward businesses and the odds are against workers, we're seeing workers rise up and fight. We need more of that.
But what are the most effective strategies? Sarah Jaffe asked six organizers and labor scholars to talk about how labor can go on the offensive.
"It's time to reinvent the strike--the strike as guerrilla warfare," according to Stephen Lerner, organizer of the SEIU's successful Justice for Janitors campaign. Similarly, Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change, a community organization that is organizing low-wage workers in New York City, says:
"It's about constantly pressuring employers from as many angles as possible. It's leveraging not only NLRB elections but back wage claims to pressure the employers, leveraging community pressure, boycotts, strikes. We did a strike at the car wash in the Bronx and they came to the table. That's the lesson, it's not just any one strategy, you have to come at them at every different angle."
Like Westin, labor scholar Ruth Milkman urges a focus on low-wage workers; Bill Fletcher, Jr., Jane McAlevey, and Eric Robertson and Ben Speight offer suggestions for internal union organizing, strengthening how unions relate to their existing members and from there to the community at large.
Corporations have the political power from the top, and the day to day power over workers' lives. They have the money. They have the fear factor. But increasingly we're seeing signs that workers are ready and willing to fight, and that fear won't be as much of a barrier anymore. With creative organizing and lots of struggle, 2013 will be the year the balance starts to shift back toward workers.
Just $100 a month:
According to findings from the Center for Responsible Lending's newest report, The State of Lending in America and Its Impact on US Households (State of Lending), the typical household has just $100 left each month after paying for basic expenses and debt payments. After controlling for inflation, the typical household had less annual income at the end of 2010 than it did at the beginning of the decade.. Moreover, as worker productivity increased, the workplace has seldom rewarded them with higher pay.
A bright spot in Philadelphia: 2,500 security guards have joined a union and ratified their first contract. Under the new contract, wages will rise from current levels between $8 and $11 to between $10.45 and $13, and full-time security guards will have health care starting in 2014.
Nobody's getting rich or even solidly middle-class--$13 an hour is $27,040 for a year of full-time work--but it's enough to change people's lives.
"It means a lot to me," said Pamela Legg, 44, of West Philadelphia, a security guard at Temple University Hospital.
"It means I'm going to get a raise. I'm going to have medical," she said.
The security guards work at major Philadelphia institutions like Temple and the convention center, but are employed by four major national and international security contractors."
You right wingers are soulless.
Everyone should bring a security guard when they go to philly. Definitely a growth industry.
Comment removed by moderator. Do not intentionally misspell other users' names.
Future attacks again the best new voice here at the Sun, MotorSports, with this:
"These guys are not paying their fair share of taxes
Fred Eychaner
James Simons
Jeffrey Katzenburg
Irwin Jacobs
Jon Stryker
Michael Bloomberg
Steven Spielberg
Warren Buffet
George Soros
Phil Falcone
Peter Lewis
Steve Bing
Oprah Winfrey
Ted Turner
Jeff Bezos
Ron Perelman
Steve Cohen
Laurene (Steve) Jobs
Andrew Grove
Bill Gates
Mark Cuban
Mark Zuckerman
John Paulson
Haim Saban
Chris Korn"
Hey Future:
This is very likely true, who or where do you see anyone from the middle class, left side or progressives opposing higher taxes on those people? It is just you, in a twisted way that advocates for them having their taxes reduced all the time.
Calm down, try decaf...
Even better news: FatAlGore is now wealthier than Mitt Romney!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate...
Apparently still can't find a conscience for sale.
Rusty57:
C'mon. They both were born with silver spoons.
I am glad neither one has been president. They both have problems that they are unable to see in themselves.
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/04...
The above is what greed gets you. Companies killing their customers to make a buck.
The answer to the 98% question is welfare. Currently the number of labor force participants receiving welfare is roughly equivalent to the number of workers that used to belong to unions as a percentage of the workforce.
There is a huge spread that exists between what it costs to live in America and what people make. That spread is closed through criminal activity, welfare, charitable giving and generational wealth transfers. The biggest being welfare. There are tens of thousands of people a day signing up.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-fina...
The above companies employ substantial numbers of American workers. Wait-and-see how many of those workers are going to have the ability to pay the $150 trillion in medical bills that are coming due over the next 40 years. For-profit medicine is another travesty. Millions suffer because they can't afford to pay the exorbitant prices the medical industry charges for even the most basic care. According to the American dental Association 100 million Americans can no longer afford to go to the dentist.
Going forward it's all about welfare.
Bill Gates is doing his best to not only raise the limit on how many H1-B visas are issued, but to remove the limit entirely. It is ridiculous to think that there are not enough qualified programmers and engineers in this country. The sole purpose behind his desire to have a workforce that will accept a lower salary.
In this respect, Bill Gates is no different than any of the greedy Republicans that are so hated by some, yet we never hear from those people about Gates.
It's not so ridiculous. The vast majority of new hires that are taking place in the Silicon Valley are from India. This country doesn't produce nearly the brain power it needs to fulfill these high-tech positions. How much money do these guys make? A fortune! Silicon Valley is the land of the $100 million home. High-tech entrepreneurs and workers do not work for low wages.
"...We all know what "right-to-work state" means..." No author, you don't know.
Programmers hired on H1-B visas work for what I would call significantly less than US citizens, from what I have seen.
The days of high-soaring salaries in the programming field are numbered, at best. There is a noticeable trend downward, due in part to the ability to a) outsource the work to code shops in India and b) bring in lower-cost labor via the H1-B.
Thankfully there is still enough problems in dealing with the time zone difference and cultural differences that jobs are still kept here, hence the push for more H1-B slots.
As an aside, Indian companies are now recruiting US programmers to act as the primary "face" to US clients.
Jim joins the "Casler" strategy of "both sides are awful and says:
"Bill Gates is no different than any of the greedy Republicans that are so hated by some, yet we never hear from those people about Gates."
I say:
It is not a serious point you make about Gates, he has been detested and branded a thief by zillions of people since he ripped off many patent holders.
He could release his ownership of the Windows XP OS and make access to computing readily available to many 3rd world countries and citizens today.
He does not get a free ride from the left, center, but is grudgingly respected by the right.
I have to agree with the letter writer for most of what he says. It is a travesty that in the US a high level exec makes so much money and bonuses while the people that work for the company are just getting by or worse. I watched many times when companies where laying off employees sighting their financials and then announcing a big bonus for the CEO and execs! If they have the money for bonuses then they are untruthful about their fiscal problems. These greedy acts have over time turned this once conservative in to a now middle left leaning independent!
I can no longer tolerate this and accept it as the American way! If the rising tide floats all boats then why is the CEO's yacht rising at @350% and the workers dingy going down by 8%? Companies need to share their profits more equally with all employees that create the profit, not just the executive team! It seems that in hard times the workers always get laid off or have to take pay cuts and in good times its only the executives that benefit from larger salaries and bonuses. Why is that?
Michael has it right! It is human nature to take advantage of others for personal gain whenever possible! Simple human nature! Lacking government regulating it there is no throttle to the amount of pain and suffering companies will inflict on their employees. Look around the third world and see how this plays out in real life. Dismantling our checks and balances between Mgmt. and employee only moves us closer to that reality. The single most defining trait of a 2nd and 3rd world nations is the income inequality between the rich and everyone else.
If you think american workers are overpaid in relation to the cost of goods, then what would you label CEO's and Exec's incomes?
Jeff,
Jim is trying to start a viable 3rd party, in part I believe because he realizes what so bothers you about the view I hold.
We have two very poor parties. Both are active participants and enablers of the corrupted Congressional system. Both are AWOL as far as any real effort to curb deficit spending and begin to reduce the debt. Both accept contributions from wealthy and powerful special interests and then try to claim their decisions are not influenced by these same groups and people. Both support our role as world policeman and benefactor. Both place their own interests above those of the nation. Both do whatever they can to lock out any viable 3rd party from participation in Presidential debates.
I could go on and on but why?
I find it tragic that you and other Americans completely buy into the crap that one party or the other sells. We all have to vote but we should all hold our noses when we do and we should readily criticize each party for their horrendous performance.
I hope Jim is successful because I do believe that if a 'viable' 3rd party can be established, 'supporters' of the Republican and Democrat parties will flee those parties in droves. I know I would flee, and quickly.
Michael
Michael:
I have no serious problem with Jim's efforts, but I will be first in line to snark him into shape.
I personally hope you 'n him don't join up. I think you'd slow him down ;)
Oh and:
"I find it tragic that you and other Americans completely buy into the crap that one party or the other sells."
I find it more tragic your constant ripping the scab off that never allows anything to heal, always telling everyone they are equally to blame. It is just not true.
Forward is the only way out old timer...
Jeff,
No worries. I don't plan to join up with Jim. And I would request that you and I keep our back and forth on a professional and non personal basis. If you will note, I refrain from making judgments on the character and or abilities of anyone on this board and try to adhere to the rules the moderator sets out.
You and I disagree, and that's fine. I don't judge your smarts or abilities, at least not in writing. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.
With all respect,
Michael
Motor first of all all news sources should be read and you can determine validity of reference, its easy to check. If you believe mainstream media is not bias, you're living in a dream world. As far as WWE wrestling, I beg to differ with you. It is a sport, and to be a contender you better be in top shape. If you think not, why not, just for fun, hop in the wring with one of them and see how much cardiovascular excercise you get and how long you last for that matter.
Jeff,
You might find the word 'equal' in my letters but not very often. The Republicans controlled the White House for 8 years and Congress for 6 of those I believe. Their responsibility for all that was wrong when Obama took office is much, much greater than the Democrats.
My point isn't to try to shift the blame to Democrats. It is instead to point out that if an honest look is taken, the Obama administration has taken precious few real steps that will be necessary to get deficit spending under control and start to pay down the debt, which are exactly the same things that were needed under Bush, but were not done.
Michael
Motorsports,
I read over and over again where you and other Progressives write that Fox News isn't 'legitimate'.
Here is a definition of legitimate: being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false.
I will readily admit that Fox is biased toward the right. It is also fairly obvious that there is no media outlet that I have even seen in the last 15 years at least that isn't biased on one side or the other.
Can you name me any media outlets that you think play it right down the middle... just the facts and no bias, using the definition of the word?
Michael
MotorSports,
It would be easy for me to have a discussion with you and others if your position was more reasonable but you won't really engage. I admit that Fox is biased and ask if other networks are biased as well.
Instead of admitting the obvious fact that outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and others are also biased (the amount of bias in each is debatable), you point out that Talk Radio is almost totally Conservative (agreed) and that there are major newspapers that are Conservative (agreed).
What is it that keeps you from admitting what is obvious? It doesn't hurt your contention that Fox is biased. I've even agreed that you are correct.
You and others on both sides contribute to this forum but you will not debate? Why?
I could be like others who say Fox isn't biased, but I don't because it isn't the truth and if I do that, there is no room for debate because I start out being disingenuous.
I'd really like to find someone on this forum who would really engage and debate. I guess I'll just have to keep looking.
Michael
Michael, as usual was being disingenuous:
"I don't judge your smarts or abilities, at least not in writing."
I say:
Wow, I am so shocked that you would allude that in private and between your ears you think poorly of me.
In all reality I think you believe your mother of the middle, "I'm a reasonable guy" pap. However, you always choose the wrong team and you do re-litigate EVERY problem or difference of opinion with finger pointing at everyone except yourself.
I keep the finger pointed at you, because you cause lots of heartache, figurative you, it is not personal old timer, not personal at all.
Unions and the middle class are doing very well in ALL other developed countries.
AND THESE COUNTRIES HAVE LESS NATIONAL DEBT!
This US is run by rich greedy people who will never be satisfied until everyone is a slave and they own everything.
Dave Starr.....GREAT LETTER, SPOT ON!
YES, greedy, anti-union CEO'S destroyed our middle
class.
And right to work means right to be stupid, right
to work for MINIMUM WAGES, right to no health care
and right to no retirement.
That's what greedy republicans want for American
workers.
And being the only union member commenting here,
I KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT!
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
MotorSports,
I strongly suggest that you take a look at the posts made by "teamster". He has got to be the most dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool, Democrats-are-ALWAYS-right, Republicans-are-evil, hardcore progressive on this site. Yet I'd wager I can count on one hand how many of his comments have been deleted.
You can see his comment history here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/users/teamste...
Jim,
If we took the comment history of everybody that has written into the Sun, with very few exceptions, we could not find people who will write that 'their' side is 'wrong' on an issue, that they disagree with their side on an issue, or that the opposite side has the correct view on an issue.
That is the problem on this forum and much more importantly, it is the problem in our society. Choose whatever 'handle' we'd like to view, whether on the D or R side, and we just see this attitude that 'my' side is perfect and the other side is 'totally and completely' wrong.
To think that 'compromise' is possible or even actually 'desired' by the opposing sides....is ludicrous.
Michael
Mr. Starr. Have you conferred with J. Patrick on how the tax system is supposedly regressing on low-income workers while middle class and up are defrauding the public? Who's going to pay for 100 million people who won't work? We keep feeding, clothing, sheltering, medicating, nurturing millions who won't do anything productive and JPC and you think we should do more for them? Oh, that's right, just take it all from upper income and let the "middle class" keep all their money. DO THE MATH. Can't be done. Working class has to pay for those who won't work. There are too many of them. Can't get all the funding from the affluent.
Roberta,
You've hit the nail on the head. Math will tell you that if you take all the money the relatively few affluent have, it is not nearly enough to fund those that don't do anything productive. Once that reality strikes, these people who want to soak the rich, many of whom are middle class, will find the government is looking to them to support the unproductive.
Then we will see a conflict of middle class against the poor and the unproductive. At that time, many of the 'soak the rich' crowd will be looking around and asking .... what happened?
Michael
Roberta: Of the total US population of 308 million (2010), 100 million people, one third, WON'T work? Really? Is that on top of the 40 million people over age 65 and the 22 million age 18 and under? What about those physically or mentally incapable of working? Full time students over age 19? People currently in re-training programs? Women working at tending their own children? How many refused to accept a job they were otherwise qualified to fill?
I'm curious, where did you find the statistic that 100 million people actually WON'T work?
Where is Motor Mouth today?
Robert: I suggest you use a dictionary or learn how to search on line. "Won't" doesn't include a negative connotation. Sure those who can but won't are more of a problem then those who can't and therefore won't. Ever hear "That dog won't hunt."?
Students SHOULD BE WORKING instead of crying for grants and loans, tuition reductions, help from mom and dad--students should pay their own way--my view. Women working at tending their own children SHOULD BE WORKING. It is disgraceful and irresponsible to have children when you don't have the ability to support them completely. I don't care if you are married and the spouse has a good job--EACH PARENT is responsible for providing for each child. And per the people over 65, many ARE working 'cause half of what they earned has gone to pay for the whining dependents.
Here's an end run around the math: Unemployment Compensation and EBT SNAP are the ONLY safety net we retain as those two programs are pretty much the only help productive (former) workers can count on. We ELIMINATE everything else and cut "defense" and our spending problems are over. We can then refocus on securing our borders, routing out illegals, incarcerating violent criminals and restoring our economy.
boftx: 1:09: Ditto that Tanker info--MANY don't like my posts--they can't figure out if I'm Dem or Rep--and they just seem to like to disagree. Could be 'cause I'm female... Anyhow, I SELDOM get deleted and I'll bet you money LVSun owners, editors, moderators don't agree with a lot of what I say. On the other hand, the owners might be OK with it.
Robert: In one (actually several) of my occupations, I was in the offices of businesses. Over and over again, especially in Vegas Casino offices (the accounting offices, not the executive spots) I noted young working mothers--who had "disabled" husbands at home, drinking beer, "watching" the kids. These women would have a bicycle for transportation, if lucky. These were the low-paid clerks. Whenever I asked, the "disabled" husbands didn't qualify for ANY form of disability but usually had a "bad back." So she'd work for small change. He'd sit on his back side, smoking, watching tv--and do ya think those kids were cared for? Sure, they qualified for and got housing assistance, food stamps, medicaid, child care assistance, non-profit food and Christmas help. What a way to live. And you think it's a good thing to encourage this life style? Consider the alternatives--these women would not have as many kids. Sure, some would still have a kid or two before they figured out that the hubby was unwilling to participate in life, love, ... OR hubby would figure out he HAD to find a job or he'd be single again. Women would compare notes and figure out that what they want in a man did not include those former hubbies.
Casler 9:23 a.m. SPREAD THE WORD. Suggested reading for all posters. ...many of the soak-the-rich crowd will be ...asking what happened?