Garbage Proposal
Contributed by: Jim B.
We keep hearing about the tight budget and the need for a garbage fee because of the lack of money. Here is an idea that I am sure will be shot down, but other communities are doing it. How about eliminating personnel by using the automatic feeder garbage trucks. these are the ones that pick up the container and empty it and drop it back down. We could eliminate two people per truck.
Now I realize there is an investment that would need to be made in trucks and bins, but I think(not sure) that trucks already fall under the CIB. This could be a long term solution to our supposed garbage issues. Appleton currently does this, and most larger cities across the country are converting. I am sure there is more to this than I know, but it seems like a step in the right direction!
Jim B.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 01:13 PM MDT
The city already has a long range plan to do this.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 02:03 PM MDT
Your on the right track. The only way to really succeed and reduce costs is too reduce labor. Automation is costly, but has no long term extended benefits associated with it (ie: healthcare and retirement plans) If you follow the "Lean Manufacturing" trend, you will find most manufactuing companies automating as many production process' as possible to do just that, eliminate labor costs.Brian Pochel (sp?) had a interesting idea of only picking up blue bags once per month and paper once per month. That would also potentially drive down costs. I would also suggest a really detailed in-depth investigation into the hours the sanitation workers actually work. Ive heard Bob Burnell of WOSH comment on how they run to get there routes completed but then get a half day off. Something might be wrong with that program.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: DBCooper on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 07:13 PM MDT
Having an incentive plan for sanitation workers whereby they get paid for 8 hours work for running the days route is a fairly standard industry practice. The "time off" at the end of the day is sort of supposed to make up for doing a nasty/smelly job that nobody else wants to do. Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.What this means is that you can't just force the sanitation workers to work harder, or compress the routes into 4 days, etc. Parkinsons Law would take effect. Magically, it would take 8 hours to run the days route.I don't know what job classification the sanitation workers are. But, they most likely have the same classification as others in the city. If all those jobs paid the same amount of money per hour, why would you WANT to take the job of sanitation worker? To some people, they prefer to spend 5 hours a day at work, and don't mind "busting it" for those 5 hours per day, and then being off. They still get paid for 8 hours.
BTW, there are published standards and formulas that take into consideration household densities in a city, garbage truck type, distance and route to the landfill, etc, to set the size (number of stops) of an 8 hour day garbage route.The recycling routes do not use those formulas, for the simple reason that it would be too confusing for people. The way it is now, you just have to remember if it's a blue week or a paper week, the routes are the same. Technically, there MIGHT be a savings here, but the downside is your recycling day could potentially change every week! You would have to look at the formulas to see what happens to the load if you picked up only once per month paper and once per month blue. Brian Poeschls idea could end up being LESS economical, if it requires you to have another truck and personnel to complete all the stops.
Note that I am not agreeing with the current method of pickup, ie rearloaders versus automated, I'm just telling you how it works.
DBCooper
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Jim B. on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 02:25 PM MDT
Please tell me more!
Jim B.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 02:49 PM MDT
I would suggest you contact the city manager for the long range plan. He has talked about it in the past year.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Jim B. on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 03:11 PM MDT
Sorry, I realize could contact Mr. Wollangk. But if somebody knows it is in the long range plan, they probably know more............maybe they could share!
Jim B.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 05:25 PM MDT
Do we really want to buy new trucks after buying new trucks? Would it not make better sense to either get a buyer for the old trucks lined up, or phase out the old trucks as we are able to sell them or retire them and buy the automated trucks as we get rid of the "manual trucks." Also, if they are doing half a day's work, they should get half a day's pay. If they can do it faster than estimated, we should be able to adjust for that. Maybe make the routes longer and do the whole city in four days instead of five or six. Add Poeschel's idea with recyclables and we could pay for more than the garbage fee.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: DBCooper on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 07:35 PM MDT
"But what about the trucks we just bought?" is an often used, yet specious argument against automating. The truth is that there is a HUGE market for used refuse equipment in all styles. Good equipment, (like a Leach built in Oshkosh!) brings top dollar.A little known fact for people, there is a company located right here in Oshkosh that specializes in brokering used garbage trucks throughout North and Central America. It is operated by 2 former Leach employees. Following is their website, check it out. http://www.eesllc.com
Typcially, when cities go automated, they go one of two ways. The first is to contract it out. In that case, the city just outright sells their equipment, lays off their employees, and it's over. Or, they do it themselves. A city like Oshkosh might keep 2 rearloaders for "white goods" pickup (stoves, fridges, the stuff you need to get a permit for), and the switch to automated is done across the board all at once. You need special containers for automated, it's just easier to make the switch all at once instead of having 2 different types of trucks doing the pickup.DBCooper
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 07:36 PM MDT
Read the previous post regarding Parkinson's rule. If you extend their routes, they're going to make them last more than 8 hours. If that happens, you have to pay them overtime.The city's garbage amount is estimated and divided by 5 to get one fifth of the city's garbage per weekday. Would you do this job? Most people wouldn't. If they can get done in 5 hours and get some time off, give it to them. Many hospitals do the same thing for nurses. Who wants to work weekends? So hospitals have a plan-- if a nurse agrees to work ONLY weekends, say 24 hours --12 hours Saturday and 12 on Sunday-- they get paid for 40 hours. Our sanitation workers do a damn good job keeping the city clean by picking up our garbage. THIS taxpayer doesn't mind if they are gung ho and work their butts off to finish the job early. I will pay my share. More power to them.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 09:00 PM MDT
How many other citys use the "running garbage man" method?If it's such a great idea, I'll bet most of them do. Anyone have and data on that?Maybe Oshkosh is just on the cutting edge with labor methods...1)Running garbage men working only 4-5 hours and getting paid for 8 hours.2)Bus drivers starting wages more than firefighters.By the way, I had a chance to stop at the transit department, you know the old incinerator plant. I needed to speak to the transit supervisor about getting a job application for the open bus driver position. I stopped at about 6:00 AM on my way to my current job. I made my way through the hallways to his office and found the transit supervisor at his desk reading the oshkosh northwestern newspaper and drinking coffee. My first question is why is this guy "working" at 6 in the morning? Hardly anyone else was in the building. My second question is why are my tax dollars paying for this guy to read a newspaper and drink coffee with his feet up on his desk? Needless to say I wasn't impressed by the bus departments management. But the guy did answer a few bus driver job questions for me and directed me to get a job application at city hall.
Hummm...........Good 'ol Oshburg!
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 08 2006 @ 02:25 PM MDT
Parkinson's Law
Prof. Cyril Northcote Parkinson
‘WORK EXPANDS SO AS TO FILL THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR ITS COMPLETION’
General recognition of this fact is shown in the proverbial phrase 'It is the busiest man who has time to spare.' Thus, an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor Regis. An hour will be spent finding the postcard, another in hunting for spectacles, half an hour in a search for the address, an hour and a quarter in composition, and twenty minutes in deciding whether or not to take an umbrella when going to the pillar box in the next street. The total effort that would occupy a busy man for three minutes all told may in this fashion leave another person prostrate after a day of doubt, anxiety, and toil. Granted that work (and especially paperwork) is thus elastic in its demands on time, it is manifest that there need be little or no relationship between the work to be done and the size of the staff to which it may be assigned. A lack of real activity does not, of necessity, result in leisure. A lack of occupation is not necessarily revealed by a manifest idleness. The thing to be done swells in importance and complexity in a direct ratio with the time to be spent. This fact is widely recognized, but less attention has been paid to its wider implications, more especially in the field of public administration. Politicians and taxpayers have assumed (with occasional phases of doubt) that a rising total in the number of civil servants must reflect a growing volume of work to be done. Cynics, in questioning this belief, have imagined that the multiplication of officials must have left some of them idle or all of them able to work for shorter hours. But this is a matter in which faith and doubt seem equally misplaced. The fact is that the number of the officials and the quantity of the work are not related to each other at all. The rise in the total of those employed is governed by Parkinson's Law and would be much the same whether the volume of the work were to increase, diminish, or even disappear. The importance of Parkinson's Law lies in the fact that it is a law of growth based upon an analysis of the factors by which that growth is controlled. The validity of this recently discovered law must rest mainly on statistical proofs, which will follow. Of more interest to the general reader is the explanation of the factors underlying the general tendency to which this law gives definition. Omitting technicalities (which are numerous) we may distinguish at the outset two motive forces. They can be represented for the present purpose by two almost axiomatic statements, thus: (1) 'An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals' and (2) 'Officials make work for each other.' To comprehend Factor One, we must picture a civil servant, called A, who finds himself overworked. Whether this overwork is real or imaginary is immaterial, but we should observe, in passing, that A's sensation (or illusion) might easily result from his own decreasing energy: a normal symptom of middle age. For this real or imagined overwork there are, broadly speaking, three possible remedies. He may resign; he may ask to halve the work with a colleague called B; he may demand the assistance of two subordinates, to be called C and D. There is probably no instance, however, in history of A choosing any but the third alternative. By resignation he would lose his pension rights. By having B appointed, on his own level in the hierarchy, he would merely bring in a rival for promotion to W's vacancy when W (at long last) retires. So A would rather have C and D, junior men, below him. They will add to his consequence and, by dividing the work into two categories, as between C and D, he will have the merit of being the only man who comprehends them both. It is essential to realize at this point that C and D are, as it were, inseparable. To appoint C alone would have been impossible. Why? Because C, if by himself, would divide the work with A and so assume almost the equal status that has been refused in the first instance to B; a status the more emphasized if C is A's only possible successor. Subordinates must thus number two or more, each being thus kept in order by fear of the other's promotion. When C complains in turn of being overworked (as he certainly will) A will, with the concurrence of C, advise the appointment of two assistants to help C. But he can then avert internal friction only by advising the appointment of two more assistants to help D, whose position is much the same. With this recruitment of E, F, G and H the promotion of A is now practically certain. Seven officials are now doing what one did before. This is where Factor Two comes into operation. For these seven make so much work for each other that all are fully occupied and A is actually working harder than ever. An incoming document may well come before each of them in turn. Official E decides that it falls within the province of F, who places a draft reply before C, who amends it drastically before consulting D, who asks G to deal with it. But G goes on leave at this point, handing the file over to H, who drafts a minute that is signed by D and returned to C, who revises his draft accordingly and lays the new version before A. What does A do? He would have every excuse for signing the thing unread, for he has many other matters on his mind. Knowing now that he is to succeed W next year, he has to decide whether C or D should succeed to his own office. He had to agree to G's going on leave even if not yet strictly entitled to it. He is worried whether H should not have gone instead, for reasons of health. He has looked pale recently – partly but not solely because of his domestic troubles. Then there is the business of F's special increment of salary for the period of the conference and E's application for transfer to the Ministry of Pensions. A has heard that D is in love with a married typist and that G and F are no longer on speaking terms – no-one seems to know why. So A might be tempted to sign C's draft and have done with it. But A is a conscientious man. Beset as he is with problems created by his colleagues for themselves and for him – created by the mere fact of these officials' existence – he is not the man to shirk his duty. He reads through the draft with care, deletes the fussy paragraphs added by C and H, and restores the thing to the form preferred in the first instance by the able (if quarrelsome) F. He corrects the English – none of these young men can write grammatically – and finally produces the same reply he would have written if officials C to H had never been born. Far more people have taken far longer to produce the same result. No-one has been idle. All have done their best. And it is late in the evening before A finally quits his office and begins the return journey to Ealing. The last of the office lights are being turned off in the gathering dusk that marks the end of another day's administrative toil. Among the last to leave, A reflects with bowed shoulders and a wry smile that late hours, like grey hairs, are among the penalties of success.
We keep hearing about the tight budget and the need for a garbage fee because of the lack of money. Here is an idea that I am sure will be shot down, but other communities are doing it. How about eliminating personnel by using the automatic feeder garbage trucks. these are the ones that pick up the container and empty it and drop it back down. We could eliminate two people per truck.
Now I realize there is an investment that would need to be made in trucks and bins, but I think(not sure) that trucks already fall under the CIB. This could be a long term solution to our supposed garbage issues. Appleton currently does this, and most larger cities across the country are converting. I am sure there is more to this than I know, but it seems like a step in the right direction!
Jim B.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 01:13 PM MDT
The city already has a long range plan to do this.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 02:03 PM MDT
Your on the right track. The only way to really succeed and reduce costs is too reduce labor. Automation is costly, but has no long term extended benefits associated with it (ie: healthcare and retirement plans) If you follow the "Lean Manufacturing" trend, you will find most manufactuing companies automating as many production process' as possible to do just that, eliminate labor costs.Brian Pochel (sp?) had a interesting idea of only picking up blue bags once per month and paper once per month. That would also potentially drive down costs. I would also suggest a really detailed in-depth investigation into the hours the sanitation workers actually work. Ive heard Bob Burnell of WOSH comment on how they run to get there routes completed but then get a half day off. Something might be wrong with that program.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: DBCooper on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 07:13 PM MDT
Having an incentive plan for sanitation workers whereby they get paid for 8 hours work for running the days route is a fairly standard industry practice. The "time off" at the end of the day is sort of supposed to make up for doing a nasty/smelly job that nobody else wants to do. Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.What this means is that you can't just force the sanitation workers to work harder, or compress the routes into 4 days, etc. Parkinsons Law would take effect. Magically, it would take 8 hours to run the days route.I don't know what job classification the sanitation workers are. But, they most likely have the same classification as others in the city. If all those jobs paid the same amount of money per hour, why would you WANT to take the job of sanitation worker? To some people, they prefer to spend 5 hours a day at work, and don't mind "busting it" for those 5 hours per day, and then being off. They still get paid for 8 hours.
BTW, there are published standards and formulas that take into consideration household densities in a city, garbage truck type, distance and route to the landfill, etc, to set the size (number of stops) of an 8 hour day garbage route.The recycling routes do not use those formulas, for the simple reason that it would be too confusing for people. The way it is now, you just have to remember if it's a blue week or a paper week, the routes are the same. Technically, there MIGHT be a savings here, but the downside is your recycling day could potentially change every week! You would have to look at the formulas to see what happens to the load if you picked up only once per month paper and once per month blue. Brian Poeschls idea could end up being LESS economical, if it requires you to have another truck and personnel to complete all the stops.
Note that I am not agreeing with the current method of pickup, ie rearloaders versus automated, I'm just telling you how it works.
DBCooper
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Jim B. on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 02:25 PM MDT
Please tell me more!
Jim B.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 02:49 PM MDT
I would suggest you contact the city manager for the long range plan. He has talked about it in the past year.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Jim B. on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 03:11 PM MDT
Sorry, I realize could contact Mr. Wollangk. But if somebody knows it is in the long range plan, they probably know more............maybe they could share!
Jim B.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 05:25 PM MDT
Do we really want to buy new trucks after buying new trucks? Would it not make better sense to either get a buyer for the old trucks lined up, or phase out the old trucks as we are able to sell them or retire them and buy the automated trucks as we get rid of the "manual trucks." Also, if they are doing half a day's work, they should get half a day's pay. If they can do it faster than estimated, we should be able to adjust for that. Maybe make the routes longer and do the whole city in four days instead of five or six. Add Poeschel's idea with recyclables and we could pay for more than the garbage fee.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: DBCooper on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 07:35 PM MDT
"But what about the trucks we just bought?" is an often used, yet specious argument against automating. The truth is that there is a HUGE market for used refuse equipment in all styles. Good equipment, (like a Leach built in Oshkosh!) brings top dollar.A little known fact for people, there is a company located right here in Oshkosh that specializes in brokering used garbage trucks throughout North and Central America. It is operated by 2 former Leach employees. Following is their website, check it out. http://www.eesllc.com
Typcially, when cities go automated, they go one of two ways. The first is to contract it out. In that case, the city just outright sells their equipment, lays off their employees, and it's over. Or, they do it themselves. A city like Oshkosh might keep 2 rearloaders for "white goods" pickup (stoves, fridges, the stuff you need to get a permit for), and the switch to automated is done across the board all at once. You need special containers for automated, it's just easier to make the switch all at once instead of having 2 different types of trucks doing the pickup.DBCooper
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 07:36 PM MDT
Read the previous post regarding Parkinson's rule. If you extend their routes, they're going to make them last more than 8 hours. If that happens, you have to pay them overtime.The city's garbage amount is estimated and divided by 5 to get one fifth of the city's garbage per weekday. Would you do this job? Most people wouldn't. If they can get done in 5 hours and get some time off, give it to them. Many hospitals do the same thing for nurses. Who wants to work weekends? So hospitals have a plan-- if a nurse agrees to work ONLY weekends, say 24 hours --12 hours Saturday and 12 on Sunday-- they get paid for 40 hours. Our sanitation workers do a damn good job keeping the city clean by picking up our garbage. THIS taxpayer doesn't mind if they are gung ho and work their butts off to finish the job early. I will pay my share. More power to them.
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 09:00 PM MDT
How many other citys use the "running garbage man" method?If it's such a great idea, I'll bet most of them do. Anyone have and data on that?Maybe Oshkosh is just on the cutting edge with labor methods...1)Running garbage men working only 4-5 hours and getting paid for 8 hours.2)Bus drivers starting wages more than firefighters.By the way, I had a chance to stop at the transit department, you know the old incinerator plant. I needed to speak to the transit supervisor about getting a job application for the open bus driver position. I stopped at about 6:00 AM on my way to my current job. I made my way through the hallways to his office and found the transit supervisor at his desk reading the oshkosh northwestern newspaper and drinking coffee. My first question is why is this guy "working" at 6 in the morning? Hardly anyone else was in the building. My second question is why are my tax dollars paying for this guy to read a newspaper and drink coffee with his feet up on his desk? Needless to say I wasn't impressed by the bus departments management. But the guy did answer a few bus driver job questions for me and directed me to get a job application at city hall.
Hummm...........Good 'ol Oshburg!
Garbage Proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 08 2006 @ 02:25 PM MDT
Parkinson's Law
Prof. Cyril Northcote Parkinson
‘WORK EXPANDS SO AS TO FILL THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR ITS COMPLETION’
General recognition of this fact is shown in the proverbial phrase 'It is the busiest man who has time to spare.' Thus, an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor Regis. An hour will be spent finding the postcard, another in hunting for spectacles, half an hour in a search for the address, an hour and a quarter in composition, and twenty minutes in deciding whether or not to take an umbrella when going to the pillar box in the next street. The total effort that would occupy a busy man for three minutes all told may in this fashion leave another person prostrate after a day of doubt, anxiety, and toil. Granted that work (and especially paperwork) is thus elastic in its demands on time, it is manifest that there need be little or no relationship between the work to be done and the size of the staff to which it may be assigned. A lack of real activity does not, of necessity, result in leisure. A lack of occupation is not necessarily revealed by a manifest idleness. The thing to be done swells in importance and complexity in a direct ratio with the time to be spent. This fact is widely recognized, but less attention has been paid to its wider implications, more especially in the field of public administration. Politicians and taxpayers have assumed (with occasional phases of doubt) that a rising total in the number of civil servants must reflect a growing volume of work to be done. Cynics, in questioning this belief, have imagined that the multiplication of officials must have left some of them idle or all of them able to work for shorter hours. But this is a matter in which faith and doubt seem equally misplaced. The fact is that the number of the officials and the quantity of the work are not related to each other at all. The rise in the total of those employed is governed by Parkinson's Law and would be much the same whether the volume of the work were to increase, diminish, or even disappear. The importance of Parkinson's Law lies in the fact that it is a law of growth based upon an analysis of the factors by which that growth is controlled. The validity of this recently discovered law must rest mainly on statistical proofs, which will follow. Of more interest to the general reader is the explanation of the factors underlying the general tendency to which this law gives definition. Omitting technicalities (which are numerous) we may distinguish at the outset two motive forces. They can be represented for the present purpose by two almost axiomatic statements, thus: (1) 'An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals' and (2) 'Officials make work for each other.' To comprehend Factor One, we must picture a civil servant, called A, who finds himself overworked. Whether this overwork is real or imaginary is immaterial, but we should observe, in passing, that A's sensation (or illusion) might easily result from his own decreasing energy: a normal symptom of middle age. For this real or imagined overwork there are, broadly speaking, three possible remedies. He may resign; he may ask to halve the work with a colleague called B; he may demand the assistance of two subordinates, to be called C and D. There is probably no instance, however, in history of A choosing any but the third alternative. By resignation he would lose his pension rights. By having B appointed, on his own level in the hierarchy, he would merely bring in a rival for promotion to W's vacancy when W (at long last) retires. So A would rather have C and D, junior men, below him. They will add to his consequence and, by dividing the work into two categories, as between C and D, he will have the merit of being the only man who comprehends them both. It is essential to realize at this point that C and D are, as it were, inseparable. To appoint C alone would have been impossible. Why? Because C, if by himself, would divide the work with A and so assume almost the equal status that has been refused in the first instance to B; a status the more emphasized if C is A's only possible successor. Subordinates must thus number two or more, each being thus kept in order by fear of the other's promotion. When C complains in turn of being overworked (as he certainly will) A will, with the concurrence of C, advise the appointment of two assistants to help C. But he can then avert internal friction only by advising the appointment of two more assistants to help D, whose position is much the same. With this recruitment of E, F, G and H the promotion of A is now practically certain. Seven officials are now doing what one did before. This is where Factor Two comes into operation. For these seven make so much work for each other that all are fully occupied and A is actually working harder than ever. An incoming document may well come before each of them in turn. Official E decides that it falls within the province of F, who places a draft reply before C, who amends it drastically before consulting D, who asks G to deal with it. But G goes on leave at this point, handing the file over to H, who drafts a minute that is signed by D and returned to C, who revises his draft accordingly and lays the new version before A. What does A do? He would have every excuse for signing the thing unread, for he has many other matters on his mind. Knowing now that he is to succeed W next year, he has to decide whether C or D should succeed to his own office. He had to agree to G's going on leave even if not yet strictly entitled to it. He is worried whether H should not have gone instead, for reasons of health. He has looked pale recently – partly but not solely because of his domestic troubles. Then there is the business of F's special increment of salary for the period of the conference and E's application for transfer to the Ministry of Pensions. A has heard that D is in love with a married typist and that G and F are no longer on speaking terms – no-one seems to know why. So A might be tempted to sign C's draft and have done with it. But A is a conscientious man. Beset as he is with problems created by his colleagues for themselves and for him – created by the mere fact of these officials' existence – he is not the man to shirk his duty. He reads through the draft with care, deletes the fussy paragraphs added by C and H, and restores the thing to the form preferred in the first instance by the able (if quarrelsome) F. He corrects the English – none of these young men can write grammatically – and finally produces the same reply he would have written if officials C to H had never been born. Far more people have taken far longer to produce the same result. No-one has been idle. All have done their best. And it is late in the evening before A finally quits his office and begins the return journey to Ealing. The last of the office lights are being turned off in the gathering dusk that marks the end of another day's administrative toil. Among the last to leave, A reflects with bowed shoulders and a wry smile that late hours, like grey hairs, are among the penalties of success.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 11:53 AM
<< Home