FedEx Freight | The Union Debate Thread

[SAC75]

I'll agree with you that there is most definitely more than 1 percent support. However how does it help without petitions filed and elections won?

Totally agree

 

[SwampRatt]

Ok swampy I've been a little busy, wasn't ignoring just busy. I'm not going to go back and quote all of your posts that seems counter productive so I'll hit them here if I miss a point let me know.


Starting with your contract language argument, I will GUARANTEE you will NOT get language in there that makes decertifying easy besides that I'm not sure the NLRB will allow it. The rules for decertifying a clear and unions are good at getting around them and have fought very hard to keep it that way you will not change it in contract language.

As far as your support argument goes, lets look at it more like the electoral college than a simple majority. I AM IN NO WAY trying to go political just using the construct to make my point. You listed the centers and their respective voting percentages, but until they officially join other than moral support it means nothing to Fedex. Back to my electoral college point, In California all the support goes to democrats, in Texas all the support goes to Republicans. Does that mean they're aren't Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas that don't support their partie? Of course there are but it means nothing until they have the majority. That's the same as it is with this campaign, until the other centers put their money where their mouth is it means nothing. In the companies mind (you have to agree with their thinking even if you don't agree with their goal) the movement only has the support of 4 centers out of 300+ and two of those have at least shown a weakness of support even if it was for nothing. So all the company has to do is beat these four centers back with drawn out or bad contracts and it could and might discourage he other centers. We have beat this poor horse until all that's left is the saddle, yet I still think there are those among you that think you will put forward a sweetheart contract and fold your arms until the company signs it. That's not how it works and never will, you don't get to keep voting no until you get your way. The Louisville regional supplement is a good example, they voted no and yet there it is. If this is a more appropriate venue I would be glad to delve further into that one.

The FACT is you have 4 centers out of over 300 that have voted to go forward so that's your percentage like it or not. The other centers could have 99% support but until they have a successful vote they are on the sidelines looking in.

I look forward to your response.

I'll try to be brief, hitting the high (and low) points of your argument.

1) The NLRB sets the rules for when a decert can be filed. Unions prefer a contract not coincide with that window. As a new customer, bringing a significant number of potential new members (funds), leverage could certainly be applied. Yes, apply leverage to the Teamsters. As I said, if I'm on the negotiating committee, I would push for a show of good faith on the part of the Teamsters, showing their confidence that we'll be satisfied with the service. Assurance in the form of a length of contract that does coincide with the window set forth by NLRB rules for decert potential. You cannot "GUARANTEE you will NOT get language in there".

2) I understand you, Red and others like to toss out the 4 centers out of 372 number. Yall want to talk CENTERS, even though 362 have yet to speak. Some of those are know to have a majority, but not the (relative) super majority required to petition, per Teamster current mandate. To say they don't matter until they vote is not 100% accurate. I'll show you again why, in a minute.

3) Everyone understands the difficulty leveraging 4 against the machine, as well as why. You are correct in the reasoning and effect, to a point, of the company's likely willingness to sacrifice four. If the organizing/negotiating parties were to become more proactive/aggressive, using all tools available, they could potentially leverage the support that exists beyond the 4. The support everyone knows is out there.

Again, "The NLRA protects associational rights of both union and non-union employees."

“Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection...” (29 USC § 157).

http://www.lawmemo.com/articles/non-union.htm

I'm not about to predict what will be done. I can only show the potential that exists. Will it be squandered, or not? The final chapter has not be written, yet...

 

[SwampRatt]

Although your numbers are a little off in some cases, and the percentages wouldn't change that much, it does make all the difference!!

E.g.: CLT's final tally was 110-99 making a difference of 11 votes or meaning all we need to turn is 6 drivers to win a decert election by one!! There's been over 6 pro-union drivers to the either retire, terminate themselves, or leave the company on their own to turn the tides our way, not to mention all of the former pro-union drivers that now side with us....and the best part is we didn't have to work hard to get them, the words (lies) and actions of the pro-union guys pushed them right to us!! Now some are trying to rebuild those bridges with more lies and fear mongering...they still don't get it!!

Now back to our original debate....I agree with JD, you can't apply these numbers/percentages to the masses without proof of support. Your numbers deal with the actual elections (good job), then you try to apply those numbers to centers that have yet to vote without anyway of knowing exactly how those centers would vote. Must I remind you that you guys "thought" the six centers that voted NO would in fact vote YES? That has you at 40% correct without factoring in the centers who filed then pulled their petitions, and the shear fact that so many petitions were filed then pulled due to lack of support proves that the perceived support isn't what it was once thought to be...and the fact that no new petitions have been filed in the last year and a half proves that the perceived support isn't there. The law says 30% support is needed to apply, if the IBT demands more, that's on them, but we'll never know the true support unless an election is held...and even then, as proven above, there's still no guarantee as to the degree/percentage of that support. With that being said, and providing that your numbers are correct, the total amount of yes voters of those who have actually voted still equals at or around 1%...and we already know that even that number has changed by the two decert petitions that were filed (70% & 80% respectively), regardless of their legality.

I deal with reality, you can deal with probabilities, speculation, or even truncated averages all you wish but there's zero evidence to support your claim of 36%-53% support for the union company wide!!
The evidence by those who have voted says around 1% company wide, to assume what the support is by those who haven't voted is speculation!!

Red, The CLT number may have changed due to challenged votes being included in the final tally. My numbers came from voting day results,

You are correct that until the IBT deems a petition worthy of being filed, we will not know the precise number for any given center. Your decision to apply the number zero to all of those locations is flawed. I never claim to know the exact degree of support, but can estimate ballpark figures, based what we do know. As far as the Teamsters reluctance to file without supper majority support, I do have an idea for a way to break that logjam. We will address that shortly. Stay tuned.

You claim to deal with reality, then go on to state that to assume support by those who haven't voted is speculation, while at the same time you (and JD) are speculating as to the degree of opposition. Hypocrisy 101, IMHO.

The evidence by those who have voted says around 1% company wide, to assume what the support is by those who haven't voted is speculation!!

Red, you should know it goes much further than speculation. you avoided the fact that trends do, in fact, tend to follow a pattern, within a margin, across the country. If you had done the research I suggested, using the only national polling numbers easily available (presidential politics), you'd have seen that based on the states in question (7 of them), those numbers do translate directly on a national level. within a margin of error (in that case) of less than 3%. 49.71% (sample group) vs 51% (nationally). http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.V3pQhvkrK71

Again, your assignment, if you choose to accept it. Do some research, on statistical probability and (specifically) margin of error. Apply what you learn, and report back.

http://stattrek.com/estimation/margin-of-error.aspx

http://www.comres.co.uk/our-work/margin-of-error-calculator/

You have the floor Red. Will you make your case using relevant facts, speculation, or hypocrisy?

 

[SwampRatt]

Independence Day special: (Far too long)

Finally, all sides in this debate have the potential to move things along at a much more expedited pace. I've said before, I'm more committed to getting results, than any particular allegiance, for allegiance sake.

1st off, if you want to break the logjam/stalemate that currently exist, either side could get significantly more aggressive. The Union, The Company, the anti side, and the pro side, all have potential. Potential that is unrealized, thus far.

1) The Union side could most certainly be more aggressive in building relationships and utilizing support that certainly exists. Continuing to use the methods of old, waiting for the Drivers to gather up and document support to a level suitable to petition is not going to expedite the process. Being slow to react while missing out on momentum (as it presents itself) has not played well, so far. Making petitions even more difficult to file is not going to add to support. It may reduce the risk, but it also limits potential. Winning a potential 40% of anything seems better than winning 100% of nothing. Fear of failure has the potential to paralyze.

2) On the Company side, a more public formula for the GPD (payscale), elimination of the road/city vacation benefit gap, and stability/improvement of the insurance and retirement benefit package would pay dividends in many areas, including ending this movement, as well as wasted turmoil and resources spent on the protracted opposition.

Also, this practice of quietly revised policy (changes to Short term/Long term disability status, most recently), seems to reduce the credibility of the PSP philosophy (People/Service/Profit). Why are we not updated on changes to existing policy? Is it not reasonable to expect a monthly/quarterly "notice of changes report"? Even an intranet page showing "recent changes" Is it necessary to have a binding contract to insure stability? Does the Company want to create turmoil? Unrest? Or it this a strategy of getting their ducks in a row, prior to upcoming negotiations? Just questions...

3) The anti side: Rather than cheer lead every move the Company makes, you could join in vocal opposition on the issues of relevance, as they come up. That could assist in encouraging the Company to do the right thing, showing it to be in their best interest, rather than making excuses for everything from flawed a GPD to policies subject to change without notice.

4) The pro side: Other than those who have already done their part, and voted (I can't really criticize them), there is more that the rest can do. For example, those with significant numbers but unable to file due to Teamster reluctance without a super majority, yeah you, perhaps a more aggressive strategy in is order.

We need to know that the Teamsters are not the only game in town. Yeah, I'm going there... Perhaps approaching a competing organization might be in order. Even though the Teamsters might be the most suited, if they continue to be reluctant to file, at some point shopping the marketplace could be what is needed to bring (to use a FedEx term) a sense of urgency into play. There are a number of other Unions out there, and if a few locations were to file with an alternate (and more palatable to some) organization, that might force the Teamsters to rethink their current requirement. Leverage as well as competition has it's benefits.

Finally, waiting to see what happens is a flawed strategy, by any measure, IMHO.

That should be plenty to make everyone a little uncomfortable... But the desired results are possible, and achievable, if we can think out side the box.

The Company seems willing (happy even) to drag this out indefinitely, preferring to make only the most measured calculated moves. They have been successful, even though that means it will be an ongoing/never ending endeavor, always lurking. The Teamster seem to be in it for the long haul, in no hurry to test the new laws and the effect thereof. Meanwhile we sit between two giants, both a little stubborn, who have nothing but time. That leaves the two sides within the driver workforce, chasing our tail, neither (as a group) quite willing to make the moves necessary for truly successful results.

I refuse to waste too much time bickering about the details, since I'm not on anyone's payroll for this purpose. Just one opinion, for what it's worth. Hopefully worth the price of admission...

Just some things for all sides to consider. Independence Day seems to be as good a time as any, and time allowed for it.

 

[DNA]

Independence Day special: (Far too long)

Finally, all sides in this debate have the potential to move things along at a much more expedited pace. I've said before, I'm more committed to getting results, than any particular allegiance, for allegiance sake.

1st off, if you want to break the logjam/stalemate that currently exist, either side could get significantly more aggressive. The Union, The Company, the anti side, and the pro side, all have potential. Potential that is unrealized, thus far.

1) The Union side could most certainly be more aggressive in building relationships and utilizing support that certainly exists. Continuing to use the methods of old, waiting for the Drivers to gather up and document support to a level suitable to petition is not going to expedite the process. Being slow to react while missing out on momentum (as it presents itself) has not played well, so far. Making petitions even more difficult to file is not going to add to support. It may reduce the risk, but it also limits potential. Winning a potential 40% of anything seems better than winning 100% of nothing. Fear of failure has the potential to paralyze.

2) On the Company side, a more public formula for the GPD (payscale), elimination of the road/city vacation benefit gap, and stability/improvement of the insurance and retirement benefit package would pay dividends in many areas, including ending this movement, as well as wasted turmoil and resources spent on the protracted opposition.

Also, this practice of quietly revised policy (changes to Short term/Long term disability status, most recently), seems to reduce the credibility of the PSP philosophy (People/Service/Profit). Why are we not updated on changes to existing policy? Is it not reasonable to expect a monthly/quarterly "notice of changes report"? Even an intranet page showing "recent changes" Is it necessary to have a binding contract to insure stability? Does the Company want to create turmoil? Unrest? Or it this a strategy of getting their ducks in a row, prior to upcoming negotiations? Just questions...

3) The anti side: Rather than cheer lead every move the Company makes, you could join in vocal opposition on the issues of relevance, as they come up. That could assist in encouraging the Company to do the right thing, showing it to be in their best interest, rather than making excuses for everything from flawed a GPD to policies subject to change without notice.

4) The pro side: Other than those who have already done their part, and voted (I can't really criticize them), there is more that the rest can do. For example, those with significant numbers but unable to file due to Teamster reluctance without a super majority, yeah you, perhaps a more aggressive strategy in is order.

We need to know that the Teamsters are not the only game in town. Yeah, I'm going there... Perhaps approaching a competing organization might be in order. Even though the Teamsters might be the most suited, if they continue to be reluctant to file, at some point shopping the marketplace could be what is needed to bring (to use a FedEx term) a sense of urgency into play. There are a number of other Unions out there, and if a few locations were to file with an alternate (and more palatable to some) organization, that might force the Teamsters to rethink their current requirement. Leverage as well as competition has it's benefits.

Finally, waiting to see what happens is a flawed strategy, by any measure, IMHO.

That should be plenty to make everyone a little uncomfortable... But the desired results are possible, and achievable, if we can think out side the box.

The Company seems willing (happy even) to drag this out indefinitely, preferring to make only the most measured calculated moves. They have been successful, even though that means it will be an ongoing/never ending endeavor, always lurking. The Teamster seem to be in it for the long haul, in no hurry to test the new laws and the effect thereof. Meanwhile we sit between two giants, both a little stubborn, who have nothing but time. That leaves the two sides within the driver workforce, chasing our tail, neither (as a group) quite willing to make the moves necessary for truly successful results.

I refuse to waste too much time bickering about the details, since I'm not on anyone's payroll for this purpose. Just one opinion, for what it's worth. Hopefully worth the price of admission...

Just some things for all sides to consider. Independence Day seems to be as good a time as any, and time allowed for it.

Thanks for going there Swamp,Wonder if pilots would be interested in a Freight division? Have they ever been approached on this matter? Great relationship with Fed Ex already in place!

 

[Redracer3136]

Independence Day special: (Far too long)

Finally, all sides in this debate have the potential to move things along at a much more expedited pace. I've said before, I'm more committed to getting results, than any particular allegiance, for allegiance sake.

1st off, if you want to break the logjam/stalemate that currently exist, either side could get significantly more aggressive. The Union, The Company, the anti side, and the pro side, all have potential. Potential that is unrealized, thus far.

Too long, naw...you covered quite a bit.

I think you fail to realize that this was always going to be a long, drawn out process. The company explained to everyone from the beginning what their intentions were (due process) and they followed through with their intentions. The IBT will certainly do the same with ULP's, some frivolous, (due process) during negotiations and at decert time...it is what it is!! Attempting to put the cart before the horse (no pun intended) by urging everyone to become "more aggressive" will do more harm than good IMHO.

As I can't speak for the union or the pro-union side, I'll address the ones that I can relate to.

2) On the Company side, a more public formula for the GPD (payscale), elimination of the road/city vacation benefit gap, and stability/improvement of the insurance and retirement benefit package would pay dividends in many areas, including ending this movement, as well as wasted turmoil and resources spent on the protracted opposition.

Also, this practice of quietly revised policy (changes to Short term/Long term disability status, most recently), seems to reduce the credibility of the PSP philosophy (People/Service/Profit). Why are we not updated on changes to existing policy? Is it not reasonable to expect a monthly/quarterly "notice of changes report"? Even an intranet page showing "recent changes" Is it necessary to have a binding contract to insure stability? Does the Company want to create turmoil? Unrest? Or it this a strategy of getting their ducks in a row, prior to upcoming negotiations? Just questions...

As a few of these issues may be important to some, again, I feel you fail to realize that most employees aren't worried about them. As for the GPD, perhaps adjustments "could" be made but you'll always have guys complaining when someone makes more than themselves...some people will never be happy. I'll agree with city vacation pay. Insurance and retirement could always be better but most realize what the company offers is better than what most (family & friends) receive, perhaps not within our industry, but we also receive other perks that offset these shortcomings...and obviously most agree that increased wages/bennies in exchange for joining the union is worth the tradeoff!!

What changes to STD/LTD do you speak of?? I keep hearing this scare tactic but have yet to see evidence of any change...other than Cigna used to administer the plan, now it's administered by Aetna. Perhaps the letter sent out by Aetna to those who are a few months into STD, which is more direct than the one Cigna used to send out, may have caused the stir/misunderstanding, but from what I've seen, this is the only change with the plan....who administers the plan is not that big of deal to me. Surely Mr Swamp didn't buy into the hype/fear mongering before researching the issue for himself??
I guess the company could've informed us of the admin change but I'm guessing most don't care....as long as it's there when needed.

3) The anti side: Rather than cheer lead every move the Company makes, you could join in vocal opposition on the issues of relevance, as they come up. That could assist in encouraging the Company to do the right thing, showing it to be in their best interest, rather than making excuses for everything from flawed a GPD to policies subject to change without notice.

"Cheer lead"...really??
We do voice our opinions with issues of relevance, (making excuses??), it's obvious our issues differ from those of the pro-side...with the exception of city vacation pay, I'll give you that one.

Finally, waiting to see what happens is a flawed strategy, by any measure, IMHO.

That should be plenty to make everyone a little uncomfortable... But the desired results are possible, and achievable, if we can think out side the box.

The Company seems willing (happy even) to drag this out indefinitely, preferring to make only the most measured calculated moves. They have been successful, even though that means it will be an ongoing/never ending endeavor, always lurking. The Teamster seem to be in it for the long haul, in no hurry to test the new laws and the effect thereof. Meanwhile we sit between two giants, both a little stubborn, who have nothing but time. That leaves the two sides within the driver workforce, chasing our tail, neither (as a group) quite willing to make the moves necessary for truly successful results.

Again, you don't seem to understand the process, not saying that I agree with it either. I personally would've liked for our one year clock to have started a year and a half ago and we could've decertified by now but that decision is above our pay grades.

I refuse to waste too much time bickering about the details, since I'm not on anyone's payroll for this purpose. Just one opinion, for what it's worth. Hopefully worth the price of admission...

Just some things for all sides to consider. Independence Day seems to be as good a time as any, and time allowed for it.

You're on the company's payroll...unless you work for free...and the union would be on your payroll, although you'd have to agree to their constitution....do as they say, not as they do!!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's worth is up to the reader.

 

[Redracer3136]

Revised above post...."and obviously most agree that increased wages/bennies in exchange for joining the union isn't worth the tradeoff!!"

 

[SAC75]

Revised above post...."and obviously most agree that increased wages/bennies in exchange for joining the union isn't worth the tradeoff!!"

How do you know? It really is up to the employees correct?

 

[SwampRatt]

Too long, naw...you covered quite a bit.

I think you fail to realize that this was always going to be a long, drawn out process. The company explained to everyone from the beginning what their intentions were (due process) and they followed through with their intentions. The IBT will certainly do the same with ULP's, some frivolous, (due process) during negotiations and at decert time...it is what it is!! Attempting to put the cart before the horse (no pun intended) by urging everyone to become "more aggressive" will do more harm than good IMHO.

As I can't speak for the union or the pro-union side, I'll address the ones that I can relate to.


As a few of these issues may be important to some, again, I feel you fail to realize that most employees aren't worried about them. As for the GPD, perhaps adjustments "could" be made but you'll always have guys complaining when someone makes more than themselves...some people will never be happy. I'll agree with city vacation pay. Insurance and retirement could always be better but most realize what the company offers is better than what most (family & friends) receive, perhaps not within our industry, but we also receive other perks that offset these shortcomings...and obviously most agree that increased wages/bennies in exchange for joining the union is worth the tradeoff!!

What changes to STD/LTD do you speak of?? I keep hearing this scare tactic but have yet to see evidence of any change...other than Cigna used to administer the plan, now it's administered by Aetna. Perhaps the letter sent out by Aetna to those who are a few months into STD, which is more direct than the one Cigna used to send out, may have caused the stir/misunderstanding, but from what I've seen, this is the only change with the plan....who administers the plan is not that big of deal to me. Surely Mr Swamp didn't buy into the hype/fear mongering before researching the issue for himself??
I guess the company could've informed us of the admin change but I'm guessing most don't care....as long as it's there when needed.


"Cheer lead"...really??
We do voice our opinions with issues of relevance, (making excuses??), it's obvious our issues differ from those of the pro-side...with the exception of city vacation pay, I'll give you that one.


Again, you don't seem to understand the process, not saying that I agree with it either. I personally would've liked for our one year clock to have started a year and a half ago and we could've decertified by now but that decision is above our pay grades.


You're on the company's payroll...unless you work for free...and the union would be on your payroll, although you'd have to agree to their constitution....do as they say, not as they do!!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's worth is up to the reader.

I understand fully, how the process works. You should notice that much of what I post is a solution to a problem, either real or perceived. That and correcting the record, when necessary.

If you were paying attention, you'd see, I was actually more critical of the Teamsters, at this stage. I hear frustration on the street, from those concerned with the silence as well as the obstacles being put in place. I'm just throwing a couple solutions out there. The Company has done several positive things, and been successful enough to slow the movement, but not enough to completely put it to rest. I offer solutions to them too.

I doubt the Teamsters or the Company really wants my advice. They both have paid professionals for that.

The point of not being on payroll for this purpose, it's hard to justify wasting time on nonsense. There has been a lot of that and you should know what I mean. There are solutions, if we are serious and if we choose to explore them. Or we can continue to do the same things, expecting different results. I'm not a fan of the latter...

 

[SwampRatt]

Thanks for going there Swamp,Wonder if pilots would be interested in a Freight division? Have they ever been approached on this matter? Great relationship with Fed Ex already in place!

THAT is creative thinking. Not sure if they were approached on this topic, or if they'd consider it. if not, there are several other options.

 

[Redracer3136]

I understand fully, how the process works. You should notice that much of what I post is a solution to a problem, either real or perceived. That and correcting the record, when necessary.

If you were paying attention, you'd see, I was actually more critical of the Teamsters, at this stage. I hear frustration on the street, from those concerned with the silence as well as the obstacles being put in place. I'm just throwing a couple solutions out there. The Company has done several positive things, and been successful enough to slow the movement, but not enough to completely put it to rest. I offer solutions to them too.

I doubt the Teamsters or the Company really wants my advice. They both have paid professionals for that.

The point of not being on payroll for this purpose, it's hard to justify wasting time on nonsense. There has been a lot of that and you should know what I mean. There are solutions, if we are serious and if we choose to explore them. Or we can continue to do the same things, expecting different results. I'm not a fan of the latter...

Much of what you posted were suggestions based on your opinion that could possibly lead to solutions that benefit some but not all.

I was paying attention and what I observed is you repeating the same message as the pro-union "others" being spread locally, on social media sites, etc...again, suggestions based on your opinion.
"Not completely put it to rest"...only time will tell.

Agreed.

Those solutions that you speak of are above our pay grade, however, I agree we can all offer suggestions. Unfortunately for us (the four yes centers), our hands are now tied...atleast the rest of you still have the opportunity to try and make a difference without a third party interference!!

 

[Redracer3136]

How do you know? It really is up to the employees correct?

Correct, but the lack of petitions and yes elections says it all!!

 

[SwampRatt]

Correct, but the lack of petitions and yes elections says it all!!

It says "something", for sure.

Could it be that the potential petitions, that I had complained about, are being held for the optimum date, in order to assist your guys in negotiation?

Honest question. Feel free to speculate...

I personally don't know. If I did, I wouldn't be at liberty to discuss it.

 

[Redracer3136]

It says "something", for sure.

Could it be that the potential petitions, that I had complained about, are being held for the optimum date, in order to assist your guys in negotiation?

Honest question. Feel free to speculate...

I personally don't know. If I did, I wouldn't be at liberty to discuss it.

I'm going with....a big fat Noooo!!!

I personally think the wool has been pulled over "your eyes" (generally speaking of course) by those at certain centers who think/wish they had the support they claim to have, otherwise they would've already petition!! Let's face the facts, 60% of the centers that voted "thought" they had the numbers and 100% of the centers that filed then pulled their petitions due to lack of support finally "realized" they didn't have the numbers.

Honestly, what good does/would it do to wait when leverage is the one thing you/they need??

I'll speculate and say with all of the begging for those centers with the alleged numbers to file that's been done here and other places and the fact that no new petitions have been filed in a year and a half, clearly says that they don't have the numbers to file or else they would've struck while the iron was hot!!

Just my two cents!!

 

[Crazy Trucker]

Revised above post...."and obviously most agree that increased wages/bennies in exchange for joining the union isn't worth the tradeoff!!"

And most don't agree with a company parot speaking for them just sayin.

 

[Redracer3136]

And most don't agree with a company parot speaking for them just sayin.

Not speaking for them puppet, the lack of petitions speak for themselves!!

 

[Crazy Trucker]

Not speaking for them puppet, the lack of petitions speak for themselves!!

It shur sounds like it. Get your own lines polly.

 

[SwampRatt]

Not speaking for them puppet, the lack of petitions speak for themselves!!

But is doesn't say less than 1 %, does it?

 

[SwampRatt]

In case anyone missed the latest from Bobby... It is always good to hear what the man has to say.

 

[SwampRatt]

I can't believe we missed this one... Listen to what Mike has to say.