 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: Union plan for fee on workers. |  |
|
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21668568-662,00.html
| Quote: |
MILITANT unionist Dean Mighell has declared he would use Labor's IR blueprint to try to charge non-union members "bargaining fees" worth hundreds of dollars a year.
The Electrical Trades Union secretary said the fees would be aimed at workers who wanted the benefits of union membership without paying up.
"At the heart of it, it's tapping freeloaders on the shoulder and saying 'pay the tram fare'," Mr Mighell told the Herald Sun.
Bargaining fees were outlawed in 2002 after Mr Mighell inserted them in an industry-wide pattern deal.
The clause required non-union members to pay a $500 annual charge -- or about $100 more than a year's union dues.
The measure was so effective in encouraging union membership that the fee was never levied on a worker.
Mr Mighell's comments will undermine Labor's claims that it will not hand back workplace power to the unions.
Opposition industrial relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard has been evasive this week on whether bargaining fees would be legal under Labor's IR plan.
But she confirmed to the Herald Sun they would be allowed, saying anything could be included in agreements if all parties agreed.
"If people are making agreements and proceeding by consent, we don't want government suddenly in their face, saying you can do that, you can't do that," she said.
Lifting restrictions on the content of agreements would open the door to other clauses such as paid union training leave, restrictions on the use of contractors, and payroll deductions of union fees.
The Australian Industry Group, which led the fight against bargaining fees seven years ago, said the IR plan was "deeply worrying".
"It just shows how union-friendly this legislation being put forward by the ALP is," AIG chief executive Heather Ridout said.
"The devil really is in the detail."
Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey said the Labor system would mean a return to the days of union power.
"This allows the unions to charge everyone who has not joined the union an uncapped bargaining fee," he said.
"And this Fair Work Australia body -- which will be stacked with union figures -- is going to be the arbiter."
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has already been forced to distance himself from Mr Mighell after he described Prime Minister John Howard as a "skid mark on the bed sheet of Australian politics".
The ETU boss also sparked outrage when he said it was "going to be fun" coercing employers under Labor's IR plan.
Mr Mighell yesterday said he would seek to have bargaining fees in agreements when there was "demonstrable benefit provided by the union in contrast to the award".
He said every worker benefited from unions when they handled workplace bargaining.
"We are the only organisation that goes out there, delivers a service to everybody, and you can decide whether you want to pay," he said.
|
Freeloaders my arse, this is about compulsory union membership by stealth. Here's your vision of the future, back to the 1950's.
Labour will scrap AWA's meaning all workers will be covered by collective agreements. Common Law contracts aren't used for people covered by an Award or collective agreement because you can't contract out of an Award under common law, therefore the contract can only provide conditions in excess of those collective ones.
So, by forcing all employees back onto collective arrangements and then allowing the unions to collect bargaining agents fees (equivalent to annual union membership) a workplace suddenly goes from 10-20% union membership to effectively 100% whether people actually want to join a union or not.
The Howard government abolished compulsory union membership (aka, no ticket no start) with the freedom of association provisions in the 96 workplace relations act. Since they haven't been able to force people to join, membership has been in a freefall (except for those places where they force employers to pay memberships on behalf of employees under threat of industrial sabotage) because they aren't able to convince people of the benefits of membership.
This way, they don't have to be relevant or put in the work to recruit members, at the stroke of a pen their financial position is improved 10 fold.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What a lot of shit. Scrapping AWA's won't mean all workers are back on collective agreements at all. According to Mike Stetkee in yesterday's Australian, the latest ABS figures show that only 3% of workers are on AWA's, with Common-law contracts covering 32 per cent of the workforce, awards 19 per cent and collective agreements 41 per cent. While the ALP has said it will scrap AWA's if you read between the lines, what it looks like doing is effectively renaming them. The freedom of association changes Howard brought in will also be left largely intact, meaning individuals will be able to decide whether or not they become union members.
Why are you so afraid of collective agreements? Is it because you think business needs the flexibility to negotiate 1 on 1 with their employees? If this is the case, perhaps you could explain why almost without exception, AWA's are a pro forma agreement, with the only negotiation being the employer's demand of take it or leave it.
This is just typical pro-business and pro-Howard crap with absolutely no substance to it Stui. FFS to suggest that a fringe player such as Dean Mighell and the ETU have any semblance of influence over ALP IR policy is ridiculous. If you want to build a fear campaign you're going to have to do much better than that.
If you want people to be afraid or very afraid, maybe they should consider how Howards IR laws would impact on their job security and their kids job security when unemployment inevitably rises in the future and any bargaining power that they may currently have completely evaporates. (excluding of course many young workers, the unskilled, part-time and casual workers, and many in rural and regional areas where unemployment is still in double figures, because they're already stuffed!)
As for the changes taking us back to the 1950s -that's a laugh. I thought Howard supporters would love that. Anyway, the 1950s would be much more preferable to the regressive, unfair and fundamentally flawed 19th century cap in hand IR system that Howard has implemented. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Could Mighell be a Liberal Party plant, a last resort to sabotage Rudd? 
| nomadjack wrote: | | While the ALP has said it will scrap AWA's if you read between the lines, what it looks like doing is effectively renaming them. |
Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.... 
Although many people will be happy to remove Howard from power, I wonder if they realise how conservative the Rudd government is going to be. We're certainly talking more Hawke than Whitlam.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | What a lot of shit. Scrapping AWA's won't mean all workers are back on collective agreements at all. According to Mike Stetkee in yesterday's Australian, the latest ABS figures show that only 3% of workers are on AWA's, with Common-law contracts covering 32 per cent of the workforce, awards 19 per cent and collective agreements 41 per cent. While the ALP has said it will scrap AWA's if you read between the lines, what it looks like doing is effectively renaming them. The freedom of association changes Howard brought in will also be left largely intact, meaning individuals will be able to decide whether or not they become union members.
Why are you so afraid of collective agreements? Is it because you think business needs the flexibility to negotiate 1 on 1 with their employees? If this is the case, perhaps you could explain why almost without exception, AWA's are a pro forma agreement, with the only negotiation being the employer's demand of take it or leave it.
This is just typical pro-business and pro-Howard crap with absolutely no substance to it Stui. FFS to suggest that a fringe player such as Dean Mighell and the ETU have any semblance of influence over ALP IR policy is ridiculous. If you want to build a fear campaign you're going to have to do much better than that.
If you want people to be afraid or very afraid, maybe they should consider how Howards IR laws would impact on their job security and their kids job security when unemployment inevitably rises in the future and any bargaining power that they may currently have completely evaporates. (excluding of course many young workers, the unskilled, part-time and casual workers, and many in rural and regional areas where unemployment is still in double figures, because they're already stuffed!)
As for the changes taking us back to the 1950s -that's a laugh. I thought Howard supporters would love that. Anyway, the 1950s would be much more preferable to the regressive, unfair and fundamentally flawed 19th century cap in hand IR system that Howard has implemented. |
OK, Lets work thru this.
| Quote: | | What a lot of shit. Scrapping AWA's won't mean all workers are back on collective agreements at all. According to Mike Stetkee in yesterday's Australian, the latest ABS figures show that only 3% of workers are on AWA's, with Common-law contracts covering 32 per cent of the workforce, awards 19 per cent and collective agreements 41 per cent. |
I'm not going to disagree with your stats. When I referred to "workers" I was generally referring to the rank and file earning less than $70k pa. Common law contracts generally apply to the people above that, 1st line management and professionals who aren't covered by collective agreements or have an underpinning award that's out of date. AWA's are generally used by larger companies. The low uptake rate is used by unions to argue that this proves they are no good when in fact until '94, many large companies had clauses in their industrial agreements agreeing not to offer AWA's and they're too complex for the potential benefits for most smaller businesses.
| Quote: | | While the ALP has said it will scrap AWA's if you read between the lines, what it looks like doing is effectively renaming them. The freedom of association changes Howard brought in will also be left largely intact, meaning individuals will be able to decide whether or not they become union members. |
Labour will do more than rename them. The union hates AWA's because they cut them out. Any reformatting will deal them back in in such a way as to make them borderline unworkable but they'll be able to claim that an alternative exists. It's about power. Prior to '96 and the Award Simplification that was introduced, most Awards were so complex and detailed as to tie companies up in bureaucracy and embed the unions into the day to day running. They tried the same thing with Agreements next until this was stopped. As far as the freedom of association principles go, they'll probably leave them in place but only to prevent business from specifying that people can't join unions. By removing the current prohibition on putting a "bargaining agent" fee into industrial agreements, the unions will do exactly what Mighell did before. Charge all non union members a bargaining fee with a discount for union members. Bang. Defacto compulsory union membership and a massive shot in the wallet for the unions financial bottom line. In fact they'd be happy for people NOT to join as they get more money (increased cashflow) and less members to service (reduced overheads)
| Quote: | | Why are you so afraid of collective agreements? Is it because you think business needs the flexibility to negotiate 1 on 1 with their employees? If this is the case, perhaps you could explain why almost without exception, AWA's are a pro forma agreement, with the only negotiation being the employer's demand of take it or leave it. |
I'm not afraid of collective agreements at all. I just believe that they promote mediocrity. I have had the opportunity to compare the workforce in two call centres on the same site, with the same company doing essentially the same work. One centre was 100% AWA, the other was 95% collective agreement.
The AWA centre performed better, as a result were paid more, had better morale and were generally rated higher on every productivity and employee engagement metric.
The reason AWA's are a proforma document is for simplicity. Try to administer a payroll function where every employee has different conditions of service. That doesn't mean they re all the same however as most larger companies have a suite of different AWA's for different role types.
| Quote: | | If you want people to be afraid or very afraid, maybe they should consider how Howards IR laws would impact on their job security and their kids job security when unemployment inevitably rises in the future and any bargaining power that they may currently have completely evaporates. |
Got any genuine examples of how they reduce job security? Generation Y is already showing they aren't interested in working for a single employer all their life. They are more likely to have several careers in their life span over a number of different fields. I've heard all the propaganda about "bosses being able to sack people for no reason". What absolute bullshit. There's always a reason. No sane employer is going to sack good workers because he wakes up one morning and thinks "who can I &*( over today?" With the cost of recruitment and training, the best form of job security is right within the employees control, do a good job and you'll have a job. be a lazy &*( with a WIIFM mentality and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Oh and finally, anyone who thinks Dean Mighell isn't more representative of the majority of union officials than say a Greg Combett needs to get out more.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Dale61
You can't have manslaughter without laughter.
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Location: /home/room/chair
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That sounds a bit like protection money.
The non-union workers pay a fee to avoid getting beaten to a pulp.
Besides, if I was able to work, I'd be signing a contract with only one person, and that's the person who pays my wages.
BTW, how many people are aware that this Dean Mighell is the same person that is the President of Coburg Football Club.
_________________
Whale
Oil
Beef
Hooked |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Maybe you need to get out more Stui and mix with some of us riff raff on less than 70k. Dean Mighell and the ETU are no more representative of the trade union movement than Ross Lightfoot or Bill Heffernan are of the Liberal Party or Hendy is of employers. Mighell is a peripheral player and has absolutely no influence over the ALP's IR policy.
Where has the ALP said anywhere that it will allow bargaining fees to be implemented by the union movement? The answer is nowhere, because it won't. To do so would be political suicide and they are not that stupid.
In my experience, mediocre management, lack of incentive, lack of training and poor communication are far more influential on productivity or on promoting mediocrity than whether a workplace is covered by awards, AWAs or other forms of contracts.
If you think the examples of bosses sacking workers for no good reason or using the legislation to undermine workplace provisions are just bullshit or 'propaganda', again, it's you who needs to get out more.
Read the following report produced by David Peetz at Griffiths University.
http://www.business.vic.gov.au/busvicwr/_assets/main/lib60104/4827wcanniversaryreportweb.pdf
It makes it pretty clear what has happened to real wages and working conditions under Workchoices so far. It's also interesting that the majority of employers and senior and mid-level managers interviewed in 2 separate studies felt that the laws would reduce wages rather than promote wages growth- this at a time of near full employment.
As for no sane employer ever sacking a good worker for no reason. You've got to be friggin joking. (By the way, what's a good worker? Is it someone who stays back after work, unpaid, to finish what they're doing? Is it someone who never questions their boss when they take short cuts on health and safety?) While your argument might hold for industries or sectors where high required skill levels make training costs an impediment, in low or unskilled areas, workers are often treated as no more than a commodity. As the operation of the laws has proven, many have no bargaining power, and are forced to give up existing conditions or piss off, whether they are/were a good worker or not.
By the way, how do you think these laws will work in an environment of high unemployment? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't believe that the employment mechanism suddenly turns dullards into geniuses. The data I'm referring to where the AWA employees were better and happier than those on collective is probably as much an indication of attitude as anything else, but they were on the same site with the same job and same middle management.
As far as | Quote: | Where has the ALP said anywhere that it will allow bargaining fees to be implemented by the union movement? The answer is nowhere, because it won't. To do so would be political suicide and they are not that stupid.
|
did you read the article I posted?
| Quote: | Opposition industrial relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard has been evasive this week on whether bargaining fees would be legal under Labor's IR plan.
But she confirmed to the Herald Sun they would be allowed, saying anything could be included in agreements if all parties agreed.
"If people are making agreements and proceeding by consent, we don't want government suddenly in their face, saying you can do that, you can't do that," she said.
Lifting restrictions on the content of agreements would open the door to other clauses such as paid union training leave, restrictions on the use of contractors, and payroll deductions of union fees. |
I don't necessarily agree that everything in the workchoices legislation is completely balanced or doesn't have potential for abuse but that wasn't my intent in posting this.
The intent was to hilight the dangers of the Labour alternative. I've spent plenty of time with the rank and file earning less than $70k. I spent hours each week talking with team leaders who earn a lot less than that and nearly as much dealing with malignant workplace delegates and industrial officers whose only interest in life was to generate disharmony between management and staff where none previously existed so they could then recruit members. (Granted, I also came across a few good ones)
I've witnessed the union movement at it's absolute worst, slandering good managers, spreading lies and misinformation through propaganda and the media all for the sole purpose of boosting their own relevance to sign up members.
I've had an argument with the national president of a Union I won't name who refused to accept legitimate performance management techniques and steadfastly believed that no employee should ever be able to be sacked for poor performance.
I've had an argument with a shop steward on a building site who refused to admit a tech to do cabling work unless he was a union member. When I tried to explain that "no ticket-no start was illegal" his response was that if a non union tech came on site he would find an OH&S excuse to shut the site for a week and cost the developer millions.
I was raised in a Labour household but my experiences over my life mean I have zero time for most of the union movement. Rather than seeking to protect the supposed working class (which itself is a 50's anachronism) they are self serving quasi politicians whose interest lies in Power and influencing society. Giving them a free kick like this by allowing them to claim bargaining agents fees increases their wealth and influence to a very dangerous level.
Mighell may be a bit player with no influence on policy but he has hundreds of clones out there who don't get as much publicity who will take advantage of these scenarios to screw business.
You asked me how I think the IR laws will work in an era of high unemployment, well my response is that If Labour get in and bring in these kind of laws, we'll find out how well theirs will work fairly quickly.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
Mighell may be a bit player with no influence on policy but he has hundreds of clones out there who don't get as much publicity who will take advantage of these scenarios to screw business. |
As a student I'm no expert on workplace relations, however this single line belies your ideological alliegances... far out my anger is rising by the second
Workers screwing businesses?!?!?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?? You do realise that workers are the VAST majority of society, business owners are the extreme minority. Workers are clearly getting screwed at every level, and you're having the absolute $£$%^%%$ nerve to say that when unions claw just that iota of fairness back they are screwing businesses??
Screwing businesses of what exactly? A bit of extra profit ground out by reducing the wages and benefits of the majority of society? F*ck them, and f*ck their supporters.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| No I am just kidding around. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: |
Mighell may be a bit player with no influence on policy but he has hundreds of clones out there who don't get as much publicity who will take advantage of these scenarios to screw business. |
As a student I'm no expert on workplace relations, however this single line belies your ideological alliegances... far out my anger is rising by the second
Workers screwing businesses?!?!?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?? You do realise that workers are the VAST majority of society, business owners are the extreme minority. Workers are clearly getting screwed at every level, and you're having the absolute $£$%^%%$ nerve to say that when unions claw just that iota of fairness back they are screwing businesses??
Screwing businesses of what exactly? A bit of extra profit ground out by reducing the wages and benefits of the majority of society? F*ck them, and f*ck their supporters. |
And you betray your naivety. You consider the union movement and workers to be the same thing which they are not, they are an industry in their own right. I never said the workers we screwing businesses, but I've seen business driven to the wall by Unions who don't give a &*( if the person who built the business goes bankrupt as long as they make their ideological statement, the workers get their entitlements and go to another job with a competitor in the same industry as advocates or the wonderful union. Pah.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | sherrife wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: |
Mighell may be a bit player with no influence on policy but he has hundreds of clones out there who don't get as much publicity who will take advantage of these scenarios to screw business. |
As a student I'm no expert on workplace relations, however this single line belies your ideological alliegances... far out my anger is rising by the second
Workers screwing businesses?!?!?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?? You do realise that workers are the VAST majority of society, business owners are the extreme minority. Workers are clearly getting screwed at every level, and you're having the absolute $£$%^%%$ nerve to say that when unions claw just that iota of fairness back they are screwing businesses??
Screwing businesses of what exactly? A bit of extra profit ground out by reducing the wages and benefits of the majority of society? F*ck them, and f*ck their supporters. |
And you betray your naivety. You consider the union movement and workers to be the same thing which they are not, they are an industry in their own right. I never said the workers we screwing businesses, but I've seen business driven to the wall by Unions who don't give a &*( if the person who built the business goes bankrupt as long as they make their ideological statement, the workers get their entitlements and go to another job with a competitor in the same industry as advocates or the wonderful union. Pah. |
Actually i don't give a hoot about the union bosses, and i do have some understanding of the disgusting nature of that particular stratus of society.
However the fact remains that any benefits eked out of the system by the union bureaucrats are benefits that serve the majority at the cost of the minority. Actually my problem with unions is that they are not demanding ENOUGH of Howard and Rudd, not that they are demanding too much.
The bureaucrats have refused to go on strikes in the past (even when the workers vote for it) and the recent campaign against Workchoices has been lamentable. How symbolic was it that their slogan changed from "Your rights at work, worth fighting for" to "Your rights at work, worth VOTING for", thereby removing all grassroots sentiment and simply relying on Rudd and the ALP to fix everything. They are constantly giving the ALP a free ride. Just look at the silence on Rudd's horrible IR policy that just barely takes a step back from Howard's policy.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs
Last edited by sherrife on Fri May 04, 2007 10:11 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| But you implied the workers were screwing businesses. Ask me another question. Let's think of a name for your problem, like "purple". Think of what it is like when you are purpling. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | sherrife wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: |
Mighell may be a bit player with no influence on policy but he has hundreds of clones out there who don't get as much publicity who will take advantage of these scenarios to screw business. |
As a student I'm no expert on workplace relations, however this single line belies your ideological alliegances... far out my anger is rising by the second
Workers screwing businesses?!?!?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?? You do realise that workers are the VAST majority of society, business owners are the extreme minority. Workers are clearly getting screwed at every level, and you're having the absolute $£$%^%%$ nerve to say that when unions claw just that iota of fairness back they are screwing businesses??
Screwing businesses of what exactly? A bit of extra profit ground out by reducing the wages and benefits of the majority of society? F*ck them, and f*ck their supporters. |
And you betray your naivety. You consider the union movement and workers to be the same thing which they are not, they are an industry in their own right. I never said the workers we screwing businesses, but I've seen business driven to the wall by Unions who don't give a &*( if the person who built the business goes bankrupt as long as they make their ideological statement, the workers get their entitlements and go to another job with a competitor in the same industry as advocates or the wonderful union. Pah. |
Actually i don't give a hoot about the union bosses, and i do have some understanding of the disgusting nature of that particular stratus of society.
However the fact remains that any benefits eked out of the system by the union bureaucrats are benefits that serve the majority at the cost of the minority. Actually my problem with unions is that they are not demanding ENOUGH of Howard and Rudd, not that they are demanding too much.
The bureaucrats have refused to go on strikes in the past (even when the workers vote for it) and the recent campaign against Workchoices has been lamentable. How symbolic was it that their slogan changed from "Your rights at work, worth fighting for" to "Your rights at work, worth VOTING for", thereby removing all grassroots sentiment and simply relying on Rudd and the ALP to fix everything. They are constantly giving the ALP a free ride. Just look at the silence on Rudd's horrible IR policy that just barely takes a step back from Howard's policy. |
This my friend, | Quote: | | However the fact remains that any benefits eked out of the system by the union bureaucrats are benefits that serve the majority at the cost of the minority. |
is a very simplistic view. When those benefits are eked out to a level that is unsustainable, the inevitable correction has to happen and the house of cards they built comes crashing down effecting lots more people very badly.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
LOL, I'll wait on that one.
I could just say it's a political stunt to distance themsleves from a total tosser and what penalty is it anyway but I'm enjoying Mighell's bleating about how he was set up (while still acknowledging that he said everything he was reported to say ) too much.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
