AllDeaf.com
Mobile - Perks - Advertise - Spy - Who Quoted Me  
Go Back   AllDeaf.com > Miscellaneous > On-topic Debates
LIKE AllDeaf on Facebook FOLLOW AllDeaf on Twitter
Like Tree5Likes

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 06-09-2013, 07:28 PM   #1 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
Unions Vs Right to Work "RTW"

I'm giving this subject another chance since a while back the union related thread (Hostess) was closed. This is a debate about unions and right to work states.

Here, I'll start:



The Blue states are unions while Red states are RTW states.

Here's the Source that I'm using the map as example of right to work and forced unions.

The "Right to Work or RTW" weakens the unionization and one of the signs of downfall of unions. Sure we need unions to protect workers and raise wages and pensions as well as retirements. This at a huge cost to both unions and company and passing the cost to customers.

"RTW" doesn't necessarily need union representation but gets less protection from unions. People who doesn't want to join a union or being forced to join, they have a choice to work without unions.

I am a member of union at my workplace, I joined after high school and been working since. Do I like unions? Well, there is good and bad about unions and it doesn't help with some case if you are rookie or low seniority, the more seniority you have the easier it gets depending on industrial jobs.

I want to note that unions are also part of supporting political campaigns so we can't discuss any of that here. I ask that we can have civil debate that we can agree or disagree on. Thanks.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Alt Today
All Deaf

Beitrag Sponsored Links

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com
   
Unread 06-09-2013, 07:34 PM   #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
jonnyghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA, Earth
Posts: 1,536
Interesting. I wasn't aware i lived in a state with unions. Must not be many as i've never known anyone to mention them where I'm from. I have mixed feeling about them. Mostly i'm sick of people wanting my money and don't like the idea of being told i have to join something but i can see the benefits as well.
jonnyghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 07:59 PM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
AlleyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In my time zone
Posts: 11,505
I hadn't known there were 2 different kinds either. It's no surprise that my state is a union state since I know of many unions here.
AlleyCat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:02 PM   #4 (permalink)
Dream Weaver
 
TXgolfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 19,043
I believe New Mexico and Missouri will go RTW in the next few years. Living in both CA and TX I can tell you the difference is night and day.
__________________
He who answers before listening-that is his folly and his shame..
TXgolfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:12 PM   #5 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
I would not be surprised that there will be more union states are in the works to change to RTW. Most of the unions protect industry workers such as railroads, airlines, teachers, postal/package industries.

In a way union helps with benefits that's one positive thing, but in the workforce, it can be difficult or challenging with seniority and your rights. In many union cases, seniority rules everything.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:25 PM   #6 (permalink)
lol lol lol
 
Foxrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pandaria
Posts: 37,892
Michigan and Indiana are right to work state now.

I used to work at private workplace in forced union and right to work states, but made no difference due to no union at workplace that I used to work.
__________________


What's crazy, Bart?
Patriot Guard Riders
Foxrac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:31 PM   #7 (permalink)
lol lol lol
 
Foxrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pandaria
Posts: 37,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXgolfer View Post
I believe New Mexico and Missouri will go RTW in the next few years. Living in both CA and TX I can tell you the difference is night and day.
Missouri is very likely, so is Kentucky too.

I don't think New Mexico will go RTW but I can't give a reason because political is off limit, sorry. (I could give answer via PM)
__________________


What's crazy, Bart?
Patriot Guard Riders
Foxrac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:34 PM   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
 
rockin'robin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 18,728
Remembering a small newspaper in Carolina where I worked....at first I was sort of enticed to join....later on...actually threatened. Being young with a small child, actually I could not afford the dues.....A few months later, everything went to Court and the union workers were fired, not because of me...but they had been threatening many others to join....Soon after, I left the state and moved, landing a much better paying job (being a journeyman) at a bigger newspaper. And no union there either....everyone was happy with their salary and working conditions.
rockin'robin is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:36 PM   #9 (permalink)
Dream Weaver
 
TXgolfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 19,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxrac View Post
Missouri is very likely, so is Kentucky too.

I don't think New Mexico will go RTW but I can't give a reason because political is off limit, sorry. (I could give answer via PM)
I know what you are thinking. NM is a toss up for sure. But the new Gov is popular and wants to go RTW to compete with TX and AZ. It will be interesting.
__________________
He who answers before listening-that is his folly and his shame..
TXgolfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:36 PM   #10 (permalink)
Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D
 
naisho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 6,463
I'm fine with the concept of unions if it is for honest benefit, but I'm personally not interested to get involved in them. At past jobs that asked if I wanted to join their unions I declined.

What I don't like about unions is the scheming and political issues inside union (the union politics that are not related to USA). Like senority, exposing corrupt officials, or taking people to court. There was this guy I met recently in one of my social institution who is very involved with civil rights and pro-union for the underdogs. He did a lot of unethical things like recording conversations (without permission), take people to court or made lies about their salaries. I think this area of unions give it a bad rep.

I did find the concept of union merging is interesting, since it very similar to federal agency merges, like city police mergers. Who becomes the chief, who gets what position after the merger etc.
TXgolfer likes this.
naisho is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:39 PM   #11 (permalink)
lol lol lol
 
Foxrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pandaria
Posts: 37,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXgolfer View Post
I know what you are thinking. NM is a toss up for sure. But the new Gov is popular and wants to go RTW to compete with TX and AZ. It will be interesting.
Yes, that's true about New Mexico has opposition between legislature and governor.

Wisconsin could go RTW by surprise like Michigan did.
__________________


What's crazy, Bart?
Patriot Guard Riders
Foxrac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:41 PM   #12 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by naisho View Post
I'm fine with the concept of unions if it is for honest benefit, but I'm personally not interested to get involved in them. At past jobs that asked if I wanted to join their unions I declined.

What I don't like about unions is the scheming and political issues inside union (the union politics that are not related to USA). Like senority, exposing corrupt officials, or taking people to court. There was this guy I met recently in one of my social institution who is very involved with civil rights and pro-union for the underdogs. He did a lot of unethical things like recording conversations (without permission), take people to court or made lies about their salaries. I think this area of unions give it a bad rep.

I did find the concept of union merging is interesting, since it very similar to federal agency merges, like city police mergers. Who becomes the chief, who gets what position after the merger etc.
Yes, there is some corrupt union officials out there and some are forced to pay dues to support corrupt officials and politicians unfortunately.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:41 PM   #13 (permalink)
Dream Weaver
 
TXgolfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 19,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
I would not be surprised that there will be more union states are in the works to change to RTW. Most of the unions protect industry workers such as railroads, airlines, teachers, postal/package industries.

In a way union helps with benefits that's one positive thing, but in the workforce, it can be difficult or challenging with seniority and your rights. In many union cases, seniority rules everything.
Unions could be a good thing. Unfortunately they threw their weight behind some bad policies and started working outside of the scope of workers rights. Those teachers strikes rubbed most people the wrong way which is sad because everybody supports teachers. Another example is the way they backed workers caught red hands while drinking on the job. As long as unions support things like that, things that hurt children and honest workers, biz and unions will continue to butt heads and biz will continue to look for states where they will receive better support.
Calvin likes this.
__________________
He who answers before listening-that is his folly and his shame..
TXgolfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:49 PM   #14 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXgolfer View Post
Unions could be a good thing. Unfortunately they threw their weight behind some bad policies and started working outside of the scope of workers rights. Those teachers strikes rubbed most people the wrong way which is sad because everybody supports teachers. Another example is the way they backed workers caught red hands while drinking on the job. As long as unions support things like that, things that hurt children and honest workers, biz and unions will continue to butt heads and biz will continue to look for states where they will receive better support.
I see that a lot of time around here, plenty of head butting discussion. I had a case that one worker was drunk on the job with alcohol smell. That person was given a choice to go to AA class... that person has since moved to another location within the same company.

Also driver had DUI on the job delivering packages, rammed the truck head on into the tree. He was arrested and no longer works for the company. Heard he was going thru a divorce and had a beef with management that time.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 08:52 PM   #15 (permalink)
lol lol lol
 
Foxrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pandaria
Posts: 37,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXgolfer View Post
Unions could be a good thing. Unfortunately they threw their weight behind some bad policies and started working outside of the scope of workers rights. Those teachers strikes rubbed most people the wrong way which is sad because everybody supports teachers. Another example is the way they backed workers caught red hands while drinking on the job. As long as unions support things like that, things that hurt children and honest workers, biz and unions will continue to butt heads and biz will continue to look for states where they will receive better support.
Yes, they have a lot of scandal too so that caused people no longer to support or trust the union.

I found the union is much worse in US than in Canada - how is sad.
TXgolfer likes this.
__________________


What's crazy, Bart?
Patriot Guard Riders
Foxrac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 09:00 PM   #16 (permalink)
lol lol lol
 
Foxrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pandaria
Posts: 37,892
For me, I'm not pro-RTW or pro-forced union.

I'm more of choice - I believe workers are free to have a choice to join the union or not. If workers do not want to join the union so they shouldn't have access to union related benefits or represented under union, but non-union workers will have access to benefits that companies provided (like Walmart health insurance plan instead of union run benefits) and deal with problem to manager instead of complain to union representative.

That's my stance for US, however if unions have great reputation and receive lot of support from citizens so forced union may not bad idea, but not in case for US anymore due to scandals and a lot of issues with American unions.
__________________


What's crazy, Bart?
Patriot Guard Riders
Foxrac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 09:07 PM   #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
VacationGuy234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,442
Major parts of our economy, besides things like price floors for food, rely on prices set by markets. Prices cannot fall if operational cost cannot be adjusted. Because of this, Unions can cause whole companies to collapse as was the case with Hostess.

Right to work is really an extension of union wadges without the unionization. But, in addition to this, states have prevailing wage laws which state prices for certain labor.

Does it not make sense to move from unions to prevailing wadge? The state can set wadges for certain labor based on supply and demand(of course, absent a political argument here).
TXgolfer likes this.
__________________
Got Emacs?
VacationGuy234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2013, 09:13 PM   #18 (permalink)
lol lol lol
 
Foxrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pandaria
Posts: 37,892
Why union is traditionally weak in southern states?
__________________


What's crazy, Bart?
Patriot Guard Riders
Foxrac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2013, 12:43 AM   #19 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
This might be the clue:

Quote:
The shift to service industry employment, where unions traditionally have been weaker, also has been a serious problem for labor unions. Women, young people, temporary and part-time workers -- all less receptive to union membership -- hold a large proportion of the new jobs created in recent years. And much American industry has migrated to the southern and western parts of the United States, regions that have a weaker union tradition than do the northern or the eastern regions.
The Decline of Union Power

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxrac View Post
Why union is traditionally weak in southern states?
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2013, 02:09 PM   #20 (permalink)
Registered User
 
rockin'robin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 18,728
Are Calif. labor-protest laws constitutional? Supreme Court turns away case

Members of a labor union picketed a non-union grocery store in Sacramento, Calif. The US Supreme Court declined an appeal challenging the constitutionality of two state laws that allow such picketing.

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up an appeal challenging the constitutionality of two California laws that allow labor unions to picket on the private property of a targeted non-union business, despite the objections of the property owner.

Critics of the laws say they violate the First Amendment rights of the property owner and the Equal Protection Clause by establishing a content-based preference that affords a higher level of protection to the speech of union officials during a labor dispute than to other would-be speakers.

The issue arose in a case involving a grocery store in Sacramento, Calif., owned by the Ralphs grocery chain.

The store’s workers are not unionized. Shortly after it opened in 2007, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 began picketing the business five days a week, eight hours a day.

The group of four to eight union members picketed at the front entrance to the store on private property and in the privately owned parking lot.

Store managers complained that the protests were confrontational and designed to undercut the store’s commercial operations by attempting to encourage customers to boycott the non-union business.

The company asked police to remove the protesters from its property. The police said it needed a court order.

Ralphs filed suit against the union in 2008, seeking a court order and injunction to block the labor group from picketing on its private property.

The store’s lawyers challenged the constitutionality of two provisions of California law that place restrictions on the authority of state courts to issue injunctions concerning a labor dispute. They are state versions of a 1932 federal law that barred the federal courts from becoming involved in efforts to break an ongoing strike.

The law established that unions have a right to peacefully publicize a labor dispute and that the courts may not interfere with that right.

Lawyers for the California union argued that the state provisions are constitutional and deserve to be upheld.

A California judge questioned the constitutionality of the two provisions, but ultimately upheld them and declined to issue an injunction against the union based on existing legal precedent in California. A state appeals court, however, reversed that decision. The appeals court overturned the earlier precedent and declared both laws unconstitutional.

The case went to the California Supreme Court. The state high court reversed the appeals court and declared that the two state laws at issue did not violate free speech and equal protection guarantees in the US Constitution.

Urging the US Supreme Court to take up the case, lawyers for Ralphs said the California provisions give those engaged in labor-related speech a “free pass to trespass on private property by closing the court-house doors to the property owner.”

“If the content of the protester’s speech had been about any other topic – had they been proselytizing, campaigning, protesting military action, or requesting charitable donations – the protesters would have been trespassers, and Ralphs could have obtained injunctive relief compelling them to stay off Ralphs’ property,” wrote Deanne Maynard in a brief to the high court on behalf of grocery-store chain.

“But because the content of the protesters’ speech was about labor issues, the Supreme Court of California held that the Union representatives could not be ejected from Ralphs’ private property by Ralphs or by any court,” Ms. Maynard wrote.

There is no evidence that union picketers impeded or harassed customers at the store, San Francisco lawyer Steven Stemerman wrote in his brief on behalf of the union.

He warned the justices about the potential consequences of embracing the grocery chain’s view of the law.

“Accepting Ralphs’ theory would have radical implications,” Mr. Stemerman said. Similar laws, both at the federal level and in many states, would face challenges and be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, he said.

He said that the California laws do not abridge anyone’s free speech rights and thus cannot violate the First Amendment.

The case was Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (12-1162).

Are Calif. labor-protest laws constitutional? Supreme Court turns away case
rockin'robin is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2013, 10:18 PM   #21 (permalink)
lol lol lol
 
Foxrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pandaria
Posts: 37,892
Not surprised, the battle between employers and unions will never be over.
__________________


What's crazy, Bart?
Patriot Guard Riders
Foxrac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2013, 01:47 AM   #22 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
Yep.... employers loathe unions big time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxrac View Post
Not surprised, the battle between employers and unions will never be over.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2013, 02:56 AM   #23 (permalink)
lol lol lol
 
Foxrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pandaria
Posts: 37,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
Yep.... employers loathe unions big time.
Yes, that's big true.
__________________


What's crazy, Bart?
Patriot Guard Riders
Foxrac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2013, 06:56 AM   #24 (permalink)
Registered User
 
VacationGuy234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
Yep.... employers loathe unions big time.
From a bargaining perspective, yes, but because of the politics unions can actually generate work by getting jobs through politics.
__________________
Got Emacs?
VacationGuy234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2013, 06:33 PM   #25 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Lau2046's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Peabody, MA
Posts: 2,485
This sums up how unions work for me and why I'll never join or support them...

A fat lot of good he’s doing his workers.
An executive of New York City’s largest union of blue-collar public employees spends a whole lot more time sleeping at his desk than fighting for the working man, according to a New York Post expose.
And he’s making $156,000 a year in union-dues paid salary to do it!
According to the Post, Mark Rosenthal is a 400-lb. president of District Council 37’s Local 983. After arriving late to the office, he eats a big lunch, naps for a while at his desk, then cuts out early to beat the afternoon rush.
“He’s usually out by 4 p.m. after being at the office two hours,” Marvin Robbins, a union vice president, told the Post.
Granted, there’s probably union politics at work in a vice president ratting to the press about his president, but other union officials
told much the same story, according to the Post.
Rosenthal even uses a “union business” expense account to write off some of his eating bills, board members told the Post.
Rosenthal, however, told the Post he takes “power naps” he needs during “12-14 hour days.”
Lau2046 is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-12-2013, 01:42 AM   #26 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
That is true there is a lot of lazy employees in union jobs... one of many reasons employers loathe unions. The unions are making it difficult to fire slackers who work slow, being unproductive, so on. There is some good union workers who work hard but pretty much most just don't care.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lau2046 View Post
This sums up how unions work for me and why I'll never join or support them...
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-12-2013, 06:15 PM   #27 (permalink)
Registered User
 
VacationGuy234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,442
I don't sense that of union workers. I tried out for the union myself, but could not get in due to lack of contacts on the inside, went to college instead. So, if anyone should be bitter it would be me.

However, I know a lot of union people who are very good at their jobs. I don't doubt the people at the top are lazy, but the people at the bottom do the work.
__________________
Got Emacs?
VacationGuy234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-12-2013, 07:42 PM   #28 (permalink)
Registered User
 
green427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The First State
Posts: 1,899
The concept of unions is a great thing. We needed unions back in the day for protection. I think that if unions were operating based on principle and that common sense was used, they would be very successful today.

Unfortunately, as mentioned by several...that is not the case. Greed, favoritism, and corruption are rampant, and they use fear and intimidation to keep people in line. My wife has worked for a few unions, and all of them served no purpose for her.

I work in the service & construction industry, and worked with many union workers. Good people are being told not to work harder or better than others. Why work harder if it serves no purpose?

I got a flyer in the mail addressed to someone else. The flyer was a quarterly UAW journal for the now-defunct car factory nearby. Every single article in there was about how every company is out to screw every worker, how the union has prevented many bad things, etc, etc. I was sick to my stomach after reading it.

Now, I am aware that corporations have one goal in mind....to make money, but are they willing to risk hurting employees knowing full well that it can put them out of business? Come on, use some common sense.
__________________
Warning: Anything I post may not make any sense. All advice is for entertainment value only. Sarcasm might be present. Interpret at your own risk.
green427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-13-2013, 02:18 AM   #29 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
Yeah, the similar to here.. the top seniority people gets the easier job while the bottom works harder and gets more pressure from managements. The top gets the vacation pick first in order to the bottom. It's how seniority works with unions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VacationGuy234 View Post
I don't sense that of union workers. I tried out for the union myself, but could not get in due to lack of contacts on the inside, went to college instead. So, if anyone should be bitter it would be me.

However, I know a lot of union people who are very good at their jobs. I don't doubt the people at the top are lazy, but the people at the bottom do the work.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-13-2013, 02:25 AM   #30 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,541
The first bold -- Yep I've seen shop steward plays favoritism and throws other union workers under the bus. You don't always trust your union co workers or shop stewards. You don't always make friends at work, you just work there to get the money and go home.

The 2nd bold is the same comment I posted previously above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by green427 View Post
The concept of unions is a great thing. We needed unions back in the day for protection. I think that if unions were operating based on principle and that common sense was used, they would be very successful today.

Unfortunately, as mentioned by several...that is not the case. Greed, favoritism, and corruption are rampant, and they use fear and intimidation to keep people in line. My wife has worked for a few unions, and all of them served no purpose for her.

I work in the service & construction industry, and worked with many union workers. Good people are being told not to work harder or better than others. Why work harder if it serves no purpose?

I got a flyer in the mail addressed to someone else. The flyer was a quarterly UAW journal for the now-defunct car factory nearby. Every single article in there was about how every company is out to screw every worker, how the union has prevented many bad things, etc, etc. I was sick to my stomach after reading it.

Now, I am aware that corporations have one goal in mind....to make money, but are they willing to risk hurting employees knowing full well that it can put them out of business? Come on, use some common sense.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 PM.


Join AllDeaf on Facebook!    Follow us on Twitter!

AllDeaf proudly supports St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Copyright © 2002-2014, AllDeaf.com. All Rights Reserved.