UPS Pilots Union Votes to Authorize Strike

Move comes as talks enter fifth year, puts pressure on delivery company

Imagen: reuters

Imagen: reuters

Updated Oct. 23, 2015 3:04 p.m. ET

The union representing United Parcel Service Inc. pilots voted overwhelmingly to authorize their executive board to call a strike if and when it sees fit as contract negotiations enter their fifth year, a very public signal of employee dissatisfaction at the delivery giant as the all-important holiday peak fast approaches.

On Friday, the union said that more than 99% of the pilots who voted said yes, authorizing the Independent Pilots Association’s executive board to request a release from federally mediated negotiations with UPS. If the union chooses to ask for release and it is granted by the mediators, the pilots would be able to strike.

“The ball now is really in UPS’s court to decide which direction we’re going,” said Capt. Robert Travis, president of the union, which represents more than 2,500 pilots.

The situation stands in contrast to FedEx Corp., where pilots this week ratified a new six-year contract agreement granting higher hourly pay rates, new-hire compensation, a “significant” signing bonus and work-rule improvements.

The main sticking point between UPS and the pilots union is work rules, specifically to avoid fatigue, said Mr. Travis. The pilots want more time to rest between flights, with rules closer to what the Federal Aviation Administration has come up with for airline pilots. He said other sticking points include pay, health care and retirement benefits.

UPS called the strike “a symbolic gesture” and “a common union tactic in airline negotiations.” The next round of negotiations is already scheduled to take place in November.

UPS said that it takes excellent care of its pilots, with higher pay, better benefits and less flying time. It has successfully negotiated contracts four times in its 27 years of running an airline, the company said, and it doesn’t expect any disruptions this time around. “Any discussion of holiday disruptions is negotiations posturing,” UPS said.

This week, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters—which represents about 250,000 UPS employees working as drivers, package handlers and loaders—pledged to stand with the pilots if it did come to a strike.

“If a strike is necessary, we will not cross your lines, but will stand with you on them,” Teamsters leaders said in a letter to the union.

The agreement between FedEx and its pilots will put more pressure on UPS to get a deal done, says Kevin Sterling, a transportation analyst with BB&T Capital Markets. No one fears a strike yet, though.

“It’s in the back of everybody’s mind, but I get the sense that no one is running for the hills yet. They understand that it’s a tactic,” Mr. Sterling said.

Both airlines and railroads fall under the U.S. Railway Act, which makes it more difficult to strike. Under that law, contracts don’t expire, and federal mediation is mandated once the two sides come to an impasse. UPS and its pilots union entered that process in early 2014. Federal authorities likely would hesitate before releasing the two parties from mediation, which would effectively allow a strike that could cripple the economy.

Contract negotiations between UPS and its pilots typically last several years, and the union has twice in previous years voted to authorize a strike vote before the two groups came to an agreement.

Even a hint of a strike leading into the holiday season could prompt nervous shippers to consider other options. FedEx and other rivals are sure to use those fears as a selling point.

“With the holiday season approaching, a pilot strike would certainly put shippers in a precarious position,” said Scott Langley, president of global sales and strategy for shipping consultant Intelligent Audit, in an email. “Shippers are constantly evaluating their contingency plans, especially as it pertains to peak season shipping, so they are monitoring this situation very closely.”

UPS flies packages across the country and around the world in planes, with space often reserved for higher-revenue packages that need to get there fast. The delivery giant runs a delicate, precise network that can be easily rattled by severe weather events, unexpected surges in packages and other disruptions. In 1997, a Teamsters strike cost the company an estimated $600 million as employees walked off the job for a little more than two weeks.

Write to Laura Stevens at

In: wsj

Many Low-Income Workers Say ‘No’ to Health Insurance

An employee at Golden Corral taking clean cups from the kitchen. Some Golden Corral restaurants began offering health insurance to employees, but few have opted in.

© Logan R. Cyrus for The New York Times An employee at Golden Corral taking clean cups from the kitchen. Some Golden Corral restaurants began offering health insurance to employees, but few have opted in.

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — When Billy Sewell began offering health insurance this year to 600 service workers at the Golden Corral restaurants that he owns, he wondered nervously how many would buy it. Adding hundreds of employees to his plan would cost him more than $1 million — a hit he wasn’t sure his low-margin business could afford.

His actual costs, though, turned out to be far smaller than he had feared. So far, only two people have signed up.

“We offered, and they didn’t take it,” he said.

Evidence is growing that his experience is not unusual. The Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, which requires employers with more than 50 full-time workers to offer most of their employees insurance or face financial penalties, was one of the law’s most controversial provisions. Business owners and industry groupsfiercely protested the change, and some companies cut workers’ hours to reduce the number of employees who would be eligible.

But 10 months after the first phase of the mandate took effect, covering companies with 100 or more workers, many business owners say they are finding very few employees willing to buy the health insurance that they are now compelled to offer. The trend is especially pronounced among smaller and midsize businesses in fields filled with low-wage hourly workers, like restaurants, retailing and hospitality. (Companies with 50 to 99 workers are not required to comply with the mandate until next year.)

“Based on what we’ve seen in the marketplace, we’re advising some of our clients to expect single-digit take rates,” said Michael A. Bodack, an insurance broker in Harrison, N.Y. “One to 2 percent isn’t unusual.”

Nationwide, the Affordable Care Act has significantly reduced the number of Americans without health insurance. Around 10.7 percent of the country’s under-65 population was uninsured in the first three months of this year, down from 17.5 percent five years earlier, according to the National Health Interview Survey, a long-running federal study. Some 14 million previously uninsured adults have gained coverage in the last two years, the Obama administration estimates.

Most of those gains, though, have come from a vast expansion of Medicaid and from the subsidies that help lower-income people buy insurance through federal and state exchanges. Workers who are offered affordable individual coverage through their employers — a group that the employer mandate was intended to expand — are not eligible for government-subsidized insurance through the exchanges, even if their income would otherwise have qualified them.

But for those trying to get by on near-minimum wages, a plan that qualifies as “affordable” can still seem far out of reach.

Billy Sewell, owner of several Golden Corral restaurants.

© Logan R. Cyrus for The New York Times Billy Sewell, owner of several Golden Corral restaurants.

That is the case for many of Mr. Sewell’s workers. He employs 1,800 people at the 26Golden Corral franchises he owns in six Southern and Midwestern states, and previously offered insurance only to his salaried management staff. In January, when the employer mandate took effect, he made the same insurance plan, with a bigger employer contribution, available to all employees working an average of 30 or more hours a week.

Running the math on his plan — a typical one for the restaurant industry — illustrates why a number of low-wage workers are falling through gaps in the Affordable Care Act.

The annual premium for individual coverage through the Golden Corral Blue Cross Blue Shield plan is $4,800. Mr. Sewell pays 65 percent for service workers, leaving them with a monthly cost of $140.

The health care law defines affordable employer-sponsored insurance as that priced at 9.5 percent or less of an employee’s annual household income for individual coverage. (Because employers do not know how much money their workers’ relatives make, there are several “safe harbors” they can use for compliance, including basing their calculation on only their own employees’ wages.) Mr. Sewell’s insurance meets the test, but $65 per biweekly paycheck is more than most of his workers are willing — or able — to pay for insurance that still carries steep out-of-pocket costs, including a $2,500 deductible.

Clarissa Morris, 47, has been a server at the Golden Corral here for five years, earning $2.13 an hour plus tips. On a typical day, she leaves the restaurant with about $70 in tips. Her husband makes $9 an hour at Walmart but has been offered only a part-time schedule there, without benefits. Their combined paychecks barely cover their rent and daily essentials.

“It’s either buy insurance or put food in the house,” she said. On the rare occasions that she gets sick, she visits a local clinic with sliding-scale fees. It costs her $25 for a visit, and $4 to fill prescriptions at Walmart.

Brad Mete, the managing partner of Affinity Resources, a staffing agency in Dania Beach, Fla., began offering insurance this year to most of his workers only because the law required it. He said the alternative, paying a penalty of about $2,000 per full-time employee, was unthinkable, “That would put us out of business, in one swoop.”

Trying to persuade his hourly workers to buy the insurance is “like pulling teeth,” he said. His company’s plan costs $120 a month, but workers making about $300 a week are reluctant to spend $30 of it on insurance.

The employer mandate has not yet had any noticeable effect on the number of workers enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans, according to a survey by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm. Most of the newly eligible appear to be obtaining coverage elsewhere, such as through the plan of a parent or spouse, or are continuing to go without, said Tracy Watts, a Mercer consultant.

A study by ADP, the payroll processing giant, found an income tipping point at which most employees who are eligible for health insurance will buy it: $45,000 a year.

Workers making $15,000 to $20,000 a year buy employer-sponsored individual insurance when it is offered only 37 percent of the time. That rate rises at every income increment ADP studied until $45,000, when it reaches 82 percent and levels off. Further income gains have virtually no effect on the rate, ADP found.

The study was conducted in 2013, before many of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions took effect, but ADP’s recent figures do not indicate significant changes in that pattern, according to Christopher Ryan, an ADP research executive.

Low participation can pose problems for employers, especially smaller ones. Insurers are reluctant to sell policies to companies with low enrollment, because they fear that only the sickest employees will buy coverage.

Until this year, most insurers would not cover groups that fell short of their minimum participation requirements. The Affordable Care Act struck down that policy — a sea change for the industry — by prohibiting minimum participation rules from being used to deny coverage to any employer with 100 or more workers. But there is a big loophole: Insurers are required to issue the policies, but they are not required to renew them.

Mario K. Castillo, a lawyer in Houston who has extensively studied the new law, said it was poorly understood in the industry, and a bureaucratic nightmare.

“They have to issue you a policy, but dropping it after one year is perfectly legal,” he said. “If you’re in this space, you essentially have to shop for insurance every year.”

For employees, forgoing coverage can mean facing tax penalties. Ms. Morris said she was surprised by the $95 fee she had to pay this year for being uninsured in 2014. “I had kind of heard about it, but I didn’t think it was going to kick in until later,” she said.

Around 7.5 million taxpayers paid the fine, according to a preliminary report by the Internal Revenue Service. That is significantly more than the three million to six million the government had forecast.

Low-income, full-time workers like Ms. Morris may prove to be some of the hardest people to bring into the ranks of the insured, said Gary Claxton, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which conducts an annual study on employer health benefits.

“This is one of the outcomes of trying to keep employer-based coverage in place,” Mr. Claxton said. “These are folks that didn’t have coverage before, and they’re not being given much help to get coverage now.”

In: nytimes

Star Wars: Rex, Wolffe, Gregor y Ahsoka Tano regresan en la segunda temporada de “Star Wars Rebels”

Ezra Bidger, personaje principal de la serie "Star Wars Rebels". El arma que le asignaron los realizadores es la más tonta jamás vista en el universo oficial y expandido de Star Wars.

Ezra Bidger, personaje principal de la serie “Star Wars Rebels”. El arma que le asignaron los realizadores (energy slingshot) es la más estúpida jamás vista en el universo oficial y expandido de Star Wars, digna de Disney.

Muchos se preguntan quiénes son los clones que aparecen, ya bien cambiados por la edad, en la segunda temporada de Star Wars Rebels. Pues se trata del ex hombre de confianza de Anakin Skywalker: El Capitán Rex; el comandante del maestro Plo Koon, Wolffe; y el entrañable Clone Commando Gregor.

El comando clon Gregor también regresa en Star Wars Rebels

El comando clon Gregor retorna en la serie Star Wars Rebels

En un primer momento, es notorio el paso del tiempo en los clones dado el crecimiento acelerado con el fueron programados por los kaminianos como clones del cazarrecompensas Jango Fett, sin embargo, como algunos meticulosos notarán, este trío de hermanos en armas muestra una pequeña cicatriz en la cabeza, lo cual nos confirma que la advertencia hecha por el Clon Fives en el episodio “Orders” sobre la existencia de un chip de control en todos los clones para ejecutar la “Orden 66” fue tomada seriamente en cuenta por ellos, logrando extraerla de sus cerebros mediante alguno de los procedimientos quirúrgicos existentes en el universo de Star Wars.

Nótese la marca de la cirugía para extirparse el chip orgánico del cual Fives había investigado debido al incidente de su amigo Tup

Nótese la marca de la cirugía para extirparse el chip orgánico inhibidor el cual Fives había investigado debido al incidente que tuvo como consecuencia la muerte de su amigo Tup

Al parecer, los eventos que involucraron al amigo de Fives, el clon Tup, en la muerte de la Jedi Tiplar por causa de un desperfecto en el chip orgánico implantado por los Kaminianos en un pacto secreto con Darth Tyranus (quien representaba a Sifo-Dyas), así como las advertencias de Fives dadas segundos antes de su muerte a Rex, tuvieron como consecuencia que luego del episodio 4 de la sexta temporada de la serie “Star Wars The Clone Wars” (“Orders”), los clones Rex y Wolffe tomaran la decisión de extirparse los mencionados implantes. En el caso de Gregor no es claro el momento en que ocurrió dicha extracción.

Yoda: Quítense los cascos, sus rostros dese over. Thire: No hay mucho que ver, señor. Todos tenemos el mismo rostro. Sus ojos los engañan. En la fuerza muy diferentes ustedes son. Diálogo del maestro Yoda con los clones Rys, Jjeck y Thire (“Ambush” The Clone Wars, ep.1 temporada 1).

Individualidad. Yoda: “Quítense los cascos, sus rostros deseo ver”. Thire: “No hay mucho que ver, señor. Todos tenemos el mismo rostro”. Yoda: “Sus ojos los engañan. En la fuerza muy diferentes ustedes son”. Diálogo del maestro Yoda con los clones Rys, Jjeck y Thire (“Ambush” The Clone Wars, ep.1 temporada 1).

Desde los capítulos “The Deserter” (Star Wars The Clone Wars Ep. 10 de la 2da Temporada) y “Darkness on Umbara”, “The General”, “Battle of Umbara”, “Plan of Dissent” y “Carnage of Krell” (Star Wars The Clone Wars, 4ta Temporada) ya apreciamos signos de pensamiento creativo y conciencia de individualidad en los soldados clon. Suponemos que tomaron la decisión de escapar de la guerra en medio del caos generado por el enfrentamiento entre la República y los Separatistas. Su deserción pudo haberse producido luego de la caída de la República por ese deseo reprimido deseo de libertad. Asimismo, resulta interesante el momento cuando uno de los implantes de control de comportamiento donde residía la orden 66 falla. El descubrimiento de lo que realmente ocurrió con el clon Tup y los esfuerzos de Fives por dar a conocer la verdad sobre el siniestro y secretísimo plan entre Palpatine, Dooku y los Kaminianos hubieran dado un giro tremendo a la serie.

Momento en que el soldado clon Tup, amigo de Fives, asesina a una Jedi debido a un malfuncionamiento del chip implantado que contenía la "Orden 66"

Momento en que el soldado clon Tup, amigo de Fives, asesina a la Jedi Tiplar en Ringo Vinda debido a un desperfecto en el chip inhibidor orgánico implantado que contenía la “Orden 66”

La presencia de Rex y Wolffe en este episodio me confirmaría que ellos nunca participaron de la gran purga Jedi llevada a cabo con la ejecución de la “Orden 66”.

En fin, pasado el tiempo y a inicios de la Alianza Rebelde, estos clones reaparecen en la segunda temporada de la serie de Disney “Star Wars Rebels” generando una gran emoción en los seguidores y fans a ultranza de las sagas. A continuación presentamos un avance de este encuentro entre los protagonistas de esta serie y estos entrañables clones:

Por último, Ahsoka Tano reaparece para colocarle la nota sentimental a la serie. La emoción del último capítulo de la quinta temporada de la Serie The Clone Wars (“The Wrong Jedi”) se acumula para estallar finalmente en la respuesta a una gran interrogante que nos veníamos haciendo por años: “¿Qué pasó con Asohka Tano?”. Es aún todo un misterio lo que sucederá más adelante entre Vader y su ex-aprendiz cuando lleguen a encontrarse cara a cara.

Study: Supreme Court ‘right to work’ ruling could drag down pay

New report finds link between ‘right-to-work’ rules and lower wages for public employees.


Image: commons wiki

The nine Supreme Court judges will soon hear arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, and their ruling could transform all of the American public sector into a “right-to-work” zone. The result could be lower wages for public employees around the country, according to the author of a recent study from the pro-union Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

At issue is whether non-union public employees can be legally required to pay so-called “fair share fees” to the unions that bargain their contracts. Proponents of right-to-work laws, which ban unions from charging such fees, argue that unions are political institutions, and that mandatory union fees violate the free speech rights of those who object to paying them.

Studies of the nation’s right-to-work states show that such laws tend to lead to lower union membership rates, and to drive down wages among government employees.

Jeffrey Keefe, an EPI researcher and former professor of labor relations at Rutgers University, found that states that adopt public sector right-to-work rules — also known as “open shop” laws — see government worker pay fall by between 4.4 and 11.2 percent relative to non-right-to-work states.

Keefe said he attributed the wage decline to reduced bargaining ability on the part of unions, a result of non-members declining to pay them representation fees. He said a ruling against the California Teachers Association in the Friedrichs case would likely have a similar effect, but one that would likely be nationwide.

“The contagion from free-riding doesn’t work itself out overnight,” he said. “But it would work itself out over a five- to 10-year period. Over time these unions would have significantly lower revenue, which translates into lower capacity to represent union members.”

He suggested this could also affect contracts more widely, beyond the issue of wages. Negotiating the scope of health care and other benefits is a complex and resource-intensive process, he said. As members drop out of the union and non-members decline to pay representation fees, the funds needed to properly bargain for those benefits would decline, he added.

“A great deal of bargaining now is over health care, and it’s an incredibly complicated subject,” Keefe said. “The union really needs hired experts to come in and help.”

Barack Obama and the Powell Doctrine, Reconsidered

Barack Obama and the Powell Doctrine, Reconsidered

President Barack Obama was elected to extricate the United States from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a sad irony of his presidency that among his foremost foreign-policy legacies will be leaving American involvement in both countries as among the first and most complex challenges his successor will face.

The president’s decision to leave 5,500 troops in Afghanistan at least into the first year of the next president’s term of office was inevitable. The lessons of Iraq and the volatile situation on the ground in Afghanistan dictate it. It was also the right decision. To leave entirely would be to invite chaos, render America’s enormous investment a write-off, and likely leave the country a home to a new generation of violent extremists even more dangerous than the al Qaeda thugs whom America entered Afghanistan to eradicate.

In reaching this decision, Obama is helping to put to rest one of the most often cited aspects of the Powell Doctrine, the framework for considering American overseas interventions that was named after the former secretary of state. The doctrine traces its roots to Colin Powell’s former boss, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and to the deep desire to avoid future Vietnams that dominated the thinking of American military planners in the wake of that debacle. One of its central precepts is that when America contemplates overseas use of force, an “exit strategy” is developed to avoid the prospect of being bogged down, as in the so-called quagmire of the Indochina War.

It is a natural desire. Protracted, bloody, costly engagements are undesirable on almost every level. Unfortunately, history has shown that in many circumstances avoiding them is unrealistic. In fact, the lesson of the past three-quarters of a century of U.S. overseas military action might be seen as “do not intervene unless you are prepared to remain involved for a long, long time.”

What are the notable “successes” of America’s major wars during that period? Defeating Germany and Japan? Ensuring the freedom of Korea?

In each case, troops have remained on the ground in those countries for more than half a century. In none of these cases did this mean the United States had to be an imperial power. But it did mean that Washington had to accept that troops served an important stabilizing role that could not be otherwise provided. Needless to say, other longer-term interests were also involved in all these circumstances — particularly, counterbalancing Cold War adversaries. But this justification underscored a common-sense corollary to the “be prepared to stay” doctrine that is experience’s real lesson: Don’t intervene unless your long-term interests warrant long-term involvement.

This altered approach should actually be embraced by more anti-war elements in American society — as well as by those who support a strong military. It eliminates the illusion that “in and out” or “low cost” interventions are really options in any situation where the goal is more than of a very limited, tactical nature. As a consequence, it argues even more forcefully than the Powell Doctrine that involvements be weighed carefully and undertaken infrequently.

It is not necessary, of course, that the United States act alone in such interventions. Nor is it required that the long-term commitment of troops to a country be wholly, primarily, or even partially a U.S. obligation. But an effective stabilizing force needs to be present — particularly in a situation where the intervention is meant to address threats that have emanated from local problems that have a long history or have otherwise been protracted in nature. Even overwhelming application of military force can’t undo history, culture, or structural problems with deep roots. Indeed, there are certain circumstances where stabilization is just not a possible outcome, and we must plan for those accordingly, limiting our objectives. As my colleague Tom Ricks has suggested, in Afghanistan this might have meant focusing on securing the area around greater Kabul and not seeking to venture further to try to secure what few Afghan governments ever could.

Another conclusion, and a lesson that must be particularly bitter for the president, is that the long-term stabilizing role can only be undertaken by a truly capable force. The president has frequently argued that a centerpiece of his plans to extricate America from its involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan was turning such responsibilities over to local militaries. But in both cases, even after huge investments in training and equipping local forces, America has failed to adequately cultivate forces to which the baton can be handed off.

Given the evidence that was at hand when the president made such transfers of responsibility core to his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan — and fighting extremism more broadly — his conclusion that such an approach could work was at best folly. Probably, it was worse than that: bordering on deep intellectual dishonesty. It was an approach based largely on denial and self-deception.

Now it is clear that it has not only failed — it has done so catastrophically. In fact, it is largely the degree of the failure in Iraq (which, as probably should no longer need to be pointed out, was precipitated by the George W. Bush administration’s deeply misguided intervention in that country) that has obligated the president to leave troops in Afghanistan. With recent gains by the Taliban and the Islamic State in Afghanistan and the continuing bumbling and revealed failings of the government in Kabul, simply pulling out would have produced a second mess like the one that has made the situation in Iraq and Syria such a giant threat to regional and international stability.

Of course, not all of the common-sense precepts of the Powell Doctrine have been invalidated by our recent experiences. We must still weigh whether vital interests are at stake, whether clear objectives exist, whether potential costs have been assessed, whether other means of resolving have been exhausted, whether we are willing to apply sufficient force and resources to ensure the outcome we seek, and whether the consequences of the potential action have been fully assessed. Other concepts associated with the doctrine — that action be supported by the American people and also by the international community — are more debatable; there are clearly circumstances in which national interests may trump either of these otherwise desirable criteria.

It is important to note that this does not mean we should never intervene. It means going in with our eyes wide open, knowing what we are getting into.

Colin Powell is one of the most sensible men I have met in Washington, and I don’t dismiss even one of the conclusions of his great service and experience lightly. Fortunately, he has also provided us with a thought to replace the language about exit strategies (which, like broad public and international support, falls in the category of “hoped for” conditions), which perhaps may be his most famous pronouncement regarding the American use of force abroad. Because if the Obama and Bush years and Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us one thing, it is this: “If you break it, you own it.” With the president’s recent decision, it is clear he and we are now owning that.

Photo credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

In: foreignpolicy

Italian porn actor, Rocco Siffredi, launches ‘University of Porn’ for aspiring stars

Actor insists how ‘fame did not make me lose touch with reality’ as he strives to teach about the workings of the industry.

The veteran star (far left) hopes to teach other aspiring actors all he's learned from a career spanning over 1,300 films SEBASTIEN NOGIER/AFP/Getty Images

The veteran star (far left) hopes to teach other aspiring actors all he’s learned from a career spanning over 1,300 films SEBASTIEN NOGIER/AFP/Getty Images

Have you always wondered about the academic side of porn and what it really takes to become a top adult film star? That’s what we thought.

Well, thanks to one ‘Italian Stallion’, a group of aspiring actors looks set to ‘graduate’ from the ‘University of Porn’, courtesy of Italian porn actor, Rocco Siffredi.

Bestowing a group of hopefuls with all the knowledge he has acquired from his time as a porn actor – which has seen the star take the lead in over 1,300 films – the ‘Siffredi Hard Academy’ is a reality show which will strive to document the actor’s training.

Watch the group learning from the actor:

Italian news site, Perfil, reports how the actor is eager to show his methods of working and, emphasising how the show will not be scripted, he assured readers of the site: “I have a normal life, for many, perhaps too normal. I do not forget where I come from. Fame did not make me lose touch with reality.”

From the thousands of individuals who applied, Siffredi helped to whittle the number of ‘students’ down to the final 21 – seven women and 14 men – where he will carry out on-screen tests, including positions that will work against the camera, as well as recitation techniques in order to mould the ‘believable’ porn actors of tomorrow.


1 2 3 4 5 10