|
If we really want to find the best solution to the labor supply and demand situation and really maximize our capitalism, perhaps we could enter into some sort of mutually beneficial agreement with our fellow coworkers where we make our wages known to each other to assist in our own negotiations while helping others. If we get really brave perhaps we could agree to stick our neck out for someone getting treated unfairly by wage or social reprisal. Never let someone tell you labor unions are anti capitalism. They are the most capitalist thing imaginable for labor suppliers i.e. people.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
ben shapino posted:question since this seems to be the kind of thread that might have suggestions for this kind of thing Clickup is good, but only if it's organised by someone who knows what they want to do--it's extremely flexible (users can view tasks as a list or a kanban or on a calendar, for example) and there are a bunch of custom display options. If people are new to this type of software, it will take them a long time to get a workflow that's right and to explain it to other users. The free tier is quite good (limited storage space, no Drive/Dropbox integration) so you can get a pretty good idea of how it works. Basecamp was OK when I used it long ago and it seems to be good value if you have more than 12ish users (flat fee of $99/month for unlimited users). But gently caress, you could already make improvements just with Trello or Todoist or something basic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
i think asana is pretty good but im not sure if its robust enough for a large operation. i've had great success using it to coordinate with a handful of clients and their other vendors
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Yeah, Asana can be good too! In fact, the web devleoper for the non-profit I work with uses it to organise all of their client work and they've got it nicely set up so we can clearly see the cost of the request and the billing period if we need to go back to anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
greazeball posted:Yeah, Asana can be good too! In fact, the web devleoper for the non-profit I work with uses it to organise all of their client work and they've got it nicely set up so we can clearly see the cost of the request and the billing period if we need to go back to anything. my favorite part is the ability to receive a task from someone, work on it until your part is done, and then pass it on to someone else. great piece of functionality. also the ability to attach IM conversations as notes to a file. it's like the Discord of productivity software
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
In regards to the whole company cancelling yearly raises to adjust pay: This is capital trying to make the issue feel like it's labor against labor. Those higher paid employees did nothing to deserve a sudden stop in their yearly pay raises. Despite the company trying to make it such, it's not a choice between give the higher paid employees inflation raises and get the lower paid employees in line with what their pay should be. If it was a C level execs special project with some money burning vendor or a bonus one of them was owed, the money would be there. These "higher paid" employees are also almost certainly not getting paid some incredible sums, but regular employees making a bit more than others at the same company. So lets be charitable to the company and assume these higher paid employees are making above average compared to market rate, rather than the equally if not more likely scenario that they are making at or below market rate. In this charitable scenario, they were likely recruited to the company with that being one of the attractive bits. It's not their fault that same company wasn't paying current employees that rate and it definitely shouldn't be them giving up future earnings to correct this wrong that is completely unrelated to them. Remember, this is under the charitable assumption. Every year you don't get an inflation bump, you are getting paid less as that same dollar you get paid is worth less than it was the year before. It also means your next bump is also worth less than it would be, so it's also decreasing the value of every future bump you'll get. Never let the company tell you it's other workers that are loving you. It's the company loving you. wilderthanmild fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
greazeball posted:Yeah, Asana can be good too! In fact, the web devleoper for the non-profit I work with uses it to organise all of their client work and they've got it nicely set up so we can clearly see the cost of the request and the billing period if we need to go back to anything. I used asana a hundred years ago so it's probably very different so my post is useless. Thanks for reading. But thanks for reminding me about it, I'm getting busy enough that having management software is going to be useful. Do they have an NFP discount/free subscription? E: 50% off with free support. Noice. quote:All Asana Nonprofit Discount recipients can join the Asana Advisors program and engage with Asana employee volunteers to get pro-bono help with your Asana projects.  Volunteers or voluntolds? Maybe not so noice. Outrail fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Mar 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
No-one's said annual raises are being cancelled forever, more it's a combination of covid meaning less money coming in and the higher-ups wanting to do something about pay gaps. They could have just never mentioned it and let people find out that, yes, they are being paid less than their colleagues for essentially the same work. It'd be up to them to work out why - are they the wrong gender, is their skin the wrong color, were they just bad at negotiating a starting salary at their interview? Regardless of what the reasons are, higher-ups have revealed that there is in fact a pay gap, they believe it is unfair and they intend to ameliorate if not completely resolve the issue. What bothered me was there were still some people who were bothered by this idea and it seemed to me like they took issue with the fact that their underpaid colleagues might get paid the same. Again, that's my personal feeling about it. Sure, I'd love to get a raise, but I get what they're trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Volunteers or voluntolds? just...don't use the advisors program if you think they're being coerced into working for it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:No-one's said annual raises are being cancelled forever, more it's a combination of covid meaning less money coming in and the higher-ups wanting to do something about pay gaps. Not trying to dogpile, so please don't take me the wrong way here. However, I am intensely curious: do you have inside information on how much this is going to cost overall, vs. how much working capital is available, plus the overall access to capital? In my opinion (which is worth nothing btw), if there's enough money to bring equity to the pay situation, then - and this is the important bit - there is also enough money to give the high-end people their standard raise, and then bring everyone ELSE up to that level. To me, they're going about this the way they are for one of two reasons: 1). Incompetence 2). They have a reason to want to make half of their employees really happy and half of them angry, and have the employees resenting each other for it Either reason is really bad! The fact that they're trying to couch this decision in "hey look at us doing the right thing finally!" is scummy to boot, but that's just the icing on the cake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
I don't have any info on what this is costing. Pay isn't being equalised overnight: it's being raised for some more than others and being reviewed at different points in the year to see if it's sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:I don't have any info on what this is costing. Pay isn't being equalised overnight: it's being raised for some more than others and being reviewed at different points in the year to see if it's sustainable. Hahaha, to me this is an even larger red flag. The people who aren't getting raises will end up looking somewhere else and leaving, which will allow management to give some small raises out and say, "Oh look, everyone is equal now, how nice!  "I don't disagree with you that complaining about this loudly and in the open is a bit gauche, but I do think that it's being handled extremely poorly and is another way for management to line their own pockets. Which is a perfectly reasonable disagreement to have with the company. My last company was loving around with compensation structures for years, and it was pretty obvious that every time they did something they would try and sell it to everyone as "oh look you can potentially make more now!" but on average you were probably going to make less. They were just looking for either Shareholder Value or Executive Compensation in our pockets, which was one of the largest reasons I left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
quote:No-one's said annual raises are being cancelled forever I'll address this separately first. Nobody said they were being cancelled forever and I don't see other posts implying that. I did however point out that skipping one year of raises has impacts that reach far beyond that year. nexus6 posted:No-one's said annual raises are being cancelled forever, more it's a combination of covid meaning less money coming in and the higher-ups wanting to do something about pay gaps. I'll just be blunt and say this is a very rosy view of a situation where the company has given you incomplete information. For the bolded line, remember it's a symptom of them trying to make this an issue of workers against workers. Hell, even your feelings towards them are a symptom of that. They see it as: My yearly raise is gone because of these other workers. You see it as: These workers are greedy for not wanting to give up their raises to help other workers. The reality I'm presenting to you is, the company is greedy because they chose cutting raises as the way to pay for these other raises. Even that's on the assumption that this moving is net saving them money. Did any of the C-levels say they are rejecting their own raises or bonuses for the year? Because they sure as hell would tell you if they were. nexus6 posted:I don't have any info on what this is costing. Pay isn't being equalised overnight: it's being raised for some more than others and being reviewed at different points in the year to see if it's sustainable. This makes things sound even worse. I'd assume they are actually saving money on this move. My guess now is that they wanted to find a place to save money, cutting raises was what they landed on, and this whole hubbub about "equalizing pay" is just a convenient excuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
boar guy posted:just...don't use the advisors program if you think they're being coerced into working for it? Yeah, just sucks the first thing I thought of was 'they're exploiting their workers' instead of 'oh that's nice of them'. Dumb poo poo my work does: Gives me unsupervised control of our social media accounts. New public engagement policy: All future posts must include a minimum of two lovely puns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Yeah I agree with Zarin, they may well want the higher paid people to leave, that’s a great ‘pay equalisation’ outcome for them. If you notice that a bunch of people are underpaid - i.e. they provide the same value as higher paid people for a lower cost - what would YOU do? If you fire the highly paid people directly (assuming that’s possible in your business’s location), lower paid people will cotton on to your grift. This way, you retain all the people who won’t cause a fuss at being underpaid and most of them are even grateful to you. Ok maybe it collapses long term but there are reasons why someone wouldn’t see that coming (e.g. some work of higher paid people is ‘invisible’ so it looks like other people are churning out all the work) e: an important point here being that they HAVEN’T equalised the pay, they’ve just, like, made steps towards it lol. So they can shift the whole pay range down by doing this while retaining most workers Prism Mirror Lens fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Mar 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Did any of the C-levels say they are rejecting their own raises or bonuses for the year? Because they sure as hell would tell you if they were. Actually yes, they did. Their pay isn't changing at all. wilderthanmild posted:The reality I'm presenting to you is, the company is greedy because they chose cutting raises as the way to pay for these other raises. Even that's on the assumption that this moving is net saving them money. This isn't coming out of nowhere as a cost cutting measure - they've been under pressure for years to be more transparent about pay. We have an anonymous annual survey in which people are asked if they'd change anything about the company, and being open about pay has been the #1 employee concern for years. Not from the position that most people think they're underpaid because, compared to other places I've worked, you can quite freely gripe about that stuff openly. I'm sure people have come and gone for higher pay, but this isn't really the place that strives to make as much money as possible. It's a company aim to 'be the best place to work', not 'be as profitable as possible'. As an example - last year there wasn't as much work coming in, so revenue was down. Our sister companies (under a corporate umbrella) just furloughed people so they didn't have to pay them. My company asked people to reduce their hours if they wanted to. Some people cut their hours to 80%, some to 90% and some made no changes at all. It was voluntary, anonymous, and ended sooner than expected. I get companies trying to do what they can to save a buck, I've worked for a few, but these don't seem like the actions of greedy cynical capitalists to me. They could have fired people, furloughed everyone or extended voluntary furloughs longer than necessary. It's kinda the same with pay here: if your goal is saving money then just cancel raises and make an excuse instead of a presentation about what the discrepancies are. The company is small enough that they couldn't easily get away with saying 'we balanced it out' without doing anything because we could just talk to each other to find out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:Actually yes, they did. Their pay isn't changing at all. They haven't actually been more transparent about pay here. All they've told you is that some people are getting paid more than others in certain positions. I could have told you that without knowing anything about your company, because that's the norm in the USA unless you're in the public sector. You still don't know who makes what or the scale of these pay gaps. You also don't know what their pay is relative to market value, just that they aren't the same for two different people in the same position. It's odd that they decided to do what appears to be a massive adjustment to pay scales after a year with down revenue where their sister companies had to do layoffs. I really don't think that's a coincidence. As for why not just cancel raises all together, if you just completely cancel raises morale across the board falls and people start quitting, actively looking for new jobs, etc. The same is true for something like mass layoffs, except that it's more immediate. If you just cancel some people's raises and make up an excuse why that's a good thing, instead morale overall improves and the bad guy is anyone who is mad they suddenly aren't getting an inflation adjustment. Hell, if a couple of them quit, even better because hopefully we find people to do it as cheap as these other guys. I think this is really important: Prism Mirror Lens posted:e: an important point here being that they HAVEN’T equalised the pay, they’ve just, like, made steps towards it lol. So they can shift the whole pay range down by doing this while retaining most workers They are likely saving money, while creating less of a retention risk than just cancelling raises all together. Nobody saying you need to go burn down the offices or lead a mass strike. I'm not even saying your company is any worse than others, as lots of companies do this kind of stuff. I'm just saying that you shouldn't judge others for being unhappy they aren't getting their yearly raises. That is lost income for them and has a cumulative impact on all of their future income and raises. Even if they all explicitly mad only at the other workers, the only thing they are wrong about is who they should be mad at. For the cumulative impact bit: let's say you're 30 and make $100,000 and get a yearly adjustment of 3%. You work the same position with that company and retire at 65. The difference missing the pay bump at 30 makes would be $173,190.53 representing a loss of 2.86% if your lifetime earnings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:They are likely saving money, while creating less of a retention risk than just cancelling raises all together. I hadn't considered that, that is a good point. wilderthanmild posted:They haven't actually been more transparent about pay here. All they've told you is that some people are getting paid more than others in certain positions. I could have told you that without knowing anything about your company, because that's the norm in the USA unless you're in the public sector. You still don't know who makes what or the scale of these pay gaps. You also don't know what their pay is relative to market value, just that they aren't the same for two different people in the same position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Nobody saying you need to go burn down the offices or lead a mass strike. I'm not even saying your company is any worse than others, as lots of companies do this kind of stuff. Nobody's saying shouldn't go burn down the offices or lead a mas strike either. Just say'n.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:Maybe it's just my experience (or lack of) but to me it feels like people who want to continue to get raises instead of making pay fair sound like a FYGM attitude. I agree the company shouldn't punish people who are paid better, but it's not like people are getting their pay reduced - the finite amount the company has is being spread more evenly. This isn't to do with any specific law or change btw, it's an internal decision. Is there any reason to believe that payroll in total is going to be 100% + COL for the year? The whole thing feels a little fucky. nexus6 posted:It's kinda the same with pay here: if your goal is saving money then just cancel raises and make an excuse instead of a presentation about what the discrepancies are. The company is small enough that they couldn't easily get away with saying 'we balanced it out' without doing anything because we could just talk to each other to find out. Do this anyway. Heck, make a spreadsheet and share it so that people can post their own info if they want to. Offer to anonymously add people's salaries to it if they don't want to publicly edit it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:I'm not in the USA but I do feel there is a difference in assuming there is a pay gap between genders and/or positions with no changes being made and the company acknowledging it exists, is a problem and is being changed. I agree there is a difference between us assuming there is a pay gap and them admitting there is one. I'm just saying without actually providing insight into what people's salaries are, they haven't added any transparency to the situation. They've just told you what you already know. You'll have no way of knowing if they'd actually done anything significant to close that gap, or if they've just pulled the fast one I'm accusing them of. Also for the gender thing, has the company explicitly stated that the pay gap is related to gender, race etc? Because if not I think you're giving them credit where none is due. While these kind of pay gaps do exist it's not the sole reason gaps exist. Often they can organically come about like so: Employee A is a widget licker making $50,000 We need a new senior widget licker, one who licks the troublesome widgets. We promote Employee A to senior widget licker, because employee A is a pretty good licker of widgets. We don't have a rigid pay scale to determine what a senior widget licker get's paid so a manager needs to figure it out. The other senior widget licker, Employee B, makes $100,000, but has been a widget licker since widgets were black and white, so the manager decides maybe B's not the best comparison. Employee A still definitely deserves a raise with the promotion, so we decide on a nice 30% raise to get them to $65,000. Later we decide we still need one more senior widget licker and decide to go with an outside hire. Turns out we can't get a single senior widget licker to take anything less than $85,000 so Employee C, who has roughly the same level of experience licking widgets as A, is hired at that rate. This is pretty common and lot of pay gaps are formed this way. This is also a charitable version where we didn't intentionally screw employee A to save $20000 on one of our two new senior widget licker positions. My understanding is that gender and race pay gaps usually aren't as obvious as this, as a large component of those is stuff like passing women and minorities up for promotions, new hires, etc or things like women leaving the workforce for a while after having children, thereby missing out on career progression. Which makes it a much harder issue to catch than looking a spreadsheet of salaries and saying "Wow all the minority Senior Widget Lickers make less than what the while male Senior Widget Lickers do". Like imagine the previous scenario, except employee A, B, C are all white men, while another Employee D was a black woman never even considered for the same position despite similar qualifications to A and C. Volmarias posted:Do this anyway. Heck, make a spreadsheet and share it so that people can post their own info if they want to. Offer to anonymously add people's salaries to it if they don't want to publicly edit it. wilderthanmild fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
Yeah that's kinda fair but the fact of the matter is the company is now screwing employee A for $20,000 and they need to give that to him the second employee C comes on board or they are cheap shitheads who deserve to lose C.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Yeah that's kinda fair but the fact of the matter is the company is now screwing employee A for $20,000 and they need to give that to him the second employee C comes on board or they are cheap shitheads who deserve to lose C. Oh I'm not defending the company there, just talking about how that stuff comes about in the first place. To actually be the good guys here the company should be giving A a raise. Also like I said that's the charitable version where it's unintentional at least at first. The less charitable version it's intentional from the very start because they first realized it was cheaper to promote A and give them a 30% raise than hire someone at market rate and only hired C when they didn't have anyone else they could reasonably promote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:Maybe it's just my experience (or lack of) but to me it feels like people who want to continue to get raises instead of making pay fair sound like a FYGM attitude. I agree the company shouldn't punish people who are paid better, but it's not like people are getting their pay reduced - the finite amount the company has is being spread more evenly. This isn't to do with any specific law or change btw, it's an internal decision. They are also underpaid and you immediately wanting money directly from them rather than the management/company in general is literally the exact attitude they're trying to cultivate so y'all hate each other. Like you almost came across as a far right caricature of leftist values when you immediately went for the "yeah it's our white male colleagues that are paid too much, we should take money from them to equalize things" here. The reality is your bosses are laughing all the way to the bank while you squabble.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 05:01
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Oh I'm not defending the company there, just talking about how that stuff comes about in the first place. To actually be the good guys here the company should be giving A a raise. Yep I understand that. We're looking for a new hire and I'm already starting to find myself in that exact problem. Pay is largely arbitrary and relative and it sucks I have to consider how much to pay someone instead of going 'regulations say I pay you this much so here's your money number'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
My boss decided to chew me out today and halfway through his rant I realized, "This is just bullshit. He's just wrong." Instead of arguing my case, which I suspect he would have enjoyed shooting down, I just nodded along and calmly said "Yes sir, I'll fix that, I'll take care of it." The visible disappointment on his face when (I think) he realized that he couldn't make me mad or argumentative or whatever nonsense he was hoping for...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 08:09
|
|
|
Finished another two modules of the Salesforce certification program today after reading the last 100 or so posts I missed
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 08:16
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Like you almost came across as a far right caricature of leftist values when you immediately went for the "yeah it's our white male colleagues that are paid too much, we should take money from them to equalize things" here. The reality is your bosses are laughing all the way to the bank while you squabble. I could say the inverse really - I wasn't expecting as much pushback on the idea of making pay more fair across roles tbh. We're not so much squabbling as I'm remarking on grumbles I've heard. edit: I also wonder if these people would change their tune at all if it was deemed they were underpaid and their salary was increasing. Outrail posted:Yep I understand that. We're looking for a new hire and I'm already starting to find myself in that exact problem. Pay is largely arbitrary and relative and it sucks I have to consider how much to pay someone instead of going 'regulations say I pay you this much so here's your money number'. I think that's the end goal here - to move to a structure more based on pay bands rather than arbitrary numbers made up by management. nexus6 fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 09:19
|
|
|
AHH F/UGH posted:Finished another two modules of the Salesforce certification program today after reading the last 100 or so posts I missed which was more painful?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 10:26
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:edit: I also wonder if these people would change their tune at all if it was deemed they were underpaid and their salary was increasing. It’s not really gonna change their tune, it’s just going to change your opinion of their tune “It’s not fair if I don’t get a pay rise. I’ve worked hard. Why should I lose out so that other people can be paid more?” - a greedy high-paid bastard “It’s not fair if I don’t get a pay rise. I’ve worked hard. Why should I lose out so that other people can be paid more?” - a noble underpaid fellow traveller Everyone of course will support the thing they think is gonna make them money, but that doesn’t necessarily make them hypocrites Prism Mirror Lens fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 11:28
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:I wasn't expecting as much pushback on the idea of making pay more fair across roles tbh. That’s p much the least honest possible way to twist what people are saying to you. Literally no one replying to you has said that they think giving underpaid employees raises to match their peers, particularly when there’s evidence their lack of pay is due to discrimination, is a bad thing. Everyone is criticizing the method as dumb poo poo your work did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
“You need to let me know about this earlier in the process.” *5 seconds later* “I just don’t read email threads.” Ok? So how are we supposed to let you know what’s up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
Today my volume is low so I've been poo poo posting. It's pretty good. Otherwise it's easter so we got some draws for wearing spring colours and a word search. Things could be worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
You're going to have to reverse manage them. Work out how involved they actually want to be, should you be asking for their input earlier or just telling them what is being done earlier etc. If you just need to drop them a direct email whenever a decision is made but they don't really care what that decision is, eh, suck it up. If they want to be more directly involved, delegate upwards. You can't order them to do things so they need to tell you how they want to take part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:I could say the inverse really - I wasn't expecting as much pushback on the idea of making pay more fair across roles tbh. We're not so much squabbling as I'm remarking on grumbles I've heard. Pay bands are also pretty arbitrary, and then there's the issue of people who're qualified for a pay band but just loving useless. If someone works harder and get better results they should get something to incentivize them to keep it up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
I got 25 corporate funbux and thank you notes from directors in other business units this week because: 1) The buyer assigned to a vendor isn't allowed to issue an order for anything but hardware and the program needed to pay for engineering hours. 2) the buyer for the program isn't allowed to issue orders to the vendor at all. Because I'm not assigned to any vendor or program I have a free hand and can issue orders to anyone for anything. How in the gently caress does this company actually function, let alone make money?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:“You need to let me know about this earlier in the process.” I appreciated a district manager straight up telling us in a review meeting "the higher level you are, the less you can read." We all KNEW it, but it was nice to hear it admitted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
Had two meetings today where no one else showed up. Don't think it was an April Fools thing, I think everyone here is just fed up
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
nonathlon posted:Had two meetings today where no one else showed up. Completely unrelated but I just realised where the phrase 'fed up' comes from. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Outrail posted:Completely unrelated but I just realised where the phrase 'fed up' comes from. Tell me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:07
|
|
