Ireland: Recent Developments in Work Organisation in the EU 27 Member States and Norway

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Work organisation,
  • Working conditions,
  • Published on: 24 Listopad 2011



About
Country:
Ireland
Author:
Institution:

Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.

This national contribution on recent developments in work organization in Ireland outlines some important findings extracted from a new National Employee Survey, in relation to patterns of work organization, trends since an earlier national survey was conducted in 2003, and effects on working conditions. There has been extensive experimentation with new forms of work organization in Ireland in recent years, but data on incidence of forms of direct participation tells us relatively little about the depth and scope of such arrangements – and what happens in practice on the ground. Ireland’s severe recession has had a negative impact on national and company level policy initiatives relating to work organization and workplace innovation.

Block 1: Existing main sources of information dealing with the issue of work organisation at national level and its relation with working conditions, innovation and productivity

  • Are there national statistical sources (censuses, special surveys, other surveys, etc) that analyse the issue of work organisation or are used for analysing the issue of work organisation in your country? If so, identify them and explain the way work organisation types are defined and asked in these surveys.

Yes, but the Irish surveys do not specifically distinguish between “discretionary learning”, “lean production”, “Taylorist” and “traditional” or “simple structure” forms of work organisation. The new national workplace survey below published by the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) in 2010 examines, among other issues, trends in work organisation in Ireland. It considers employees views and experiences of the changing workplace and incorporates a longitudinal comparison of an earlier version of the same survey in 2003.

National Centre for Partnership and Performance (2010), NCPP 2009 National Employee Workplace Survey and National Employer Workplace Survey, Dublin: NCPP.

  • Are there any other main sources of information published after mid-2000s that may provide valuable information on the issue (i.e. ad-hoc studies, sectoral studies, administrative reports, articles, published case studies, etc). If so, identify them.

Yes. Since 2005 a number of quantitative and qualitative academic studies considering work organization issues have been published in Ireland:

The survey based research below examines the performance impact of so-called High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) in Ireland.

Flood, P., Guthrie, J., Liu, W., Mkamwa, T., Armstrong, C., O’Regan, C., & MacCurtain, S. (2008). New models of high performance work systems: The business case for strategic HRM. Partnership and diversity and equality systems. Equality Authority and National Center for Partnership Performance.

The more qualitative case study based research below includes an in-depth analysis of a company in Ireland with an advanced semi-autonomous form of teamworking and considers the effects of this.

Dobbins, T. and Gunnigle, P. (2009), ‘Can voluntary workplace partnership deliver sustainable mutual gains?’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3): 546-570.

  • Have there been any innovations introduced/expected in the existing national statistical sources intended to take into account the issue of work organisation in your country?

No.

Block 2: Identify existing patterns of work organisation at national level and recent evolution in time

  • Describe existing patterns of work organisation at national aggregated level (according to existing used national definitions) and their associated characteristics per pattern, based on the existing information. Provide information on the (quantitative and qualitative) importance of the different forms of these work organisations in the national context. In order to to reflect the workplace practices, NCs are also requested to provide information on different work organisation-related-items, based on the national Working Conditions surveys that stress the main changes that have taken place in the last 5-7 years (i.e. higher/lower presence of team work; higher/lower presence of autonomy at work; higher/lower presence of job rotation; higher/lower assistance from colleagues or hierarchy; higher/lower task complexity; higher/lower degree of learning, higher/lower problem solving capacity, etc), stressing existing differences by sectors and enterprise sizes, and identifying the main reasons behind these changes.

  • Identify (if possible), the recent evolution in time of work organisation patterns in your country (last 5-7 years). Pay special attention to the effects derived from the current economic crisis.

The NCPP National Employee Survey 2009 suggests that direct involvement of employees through participation in the manner in which work is carried out is a growing practice in Ireland compared to an earlier survey in 2003. Examples of direct participation arrangements include teamwork; problem-solving groups; project groups; quality circles; and continuous improvement programmes or groups. Overall, 45 per cent of employees indicate that such direct participation practices are present in their workplaces, and 36 per cent say that they are personally involved in such practices. Both of these figures suggest, the researchers argue, that the incidence of participation in Irish workplaces has increased markedly since the same question was asked in 2003, when the rates were 35 per cent in respect of presence of direct participation, and 27 per cent in respect of personal involvement in such work arrangements. The recent evolution of work organisation is depicted in the table below.

Table 1: Incidence of direct participation arrangements and whether respondent is directly involved, 2003 and 2009 (percentage)
  Participation present in workplace Personally involved as % of those reporting presence of participation in workplace Personally Involved as % of all employees
       

2009

44.5

79.4

35.3

2003

37.5

71.2

26.7

Source: NCPP National Employee Survey 2009

The NCPP Employee Survey also asked employee respondents whether their organisation had introduced any innovations in the way the work is carried out in the last two years.

‘By workplace innovation we mean new ideas, processes or behaviours designed to promote improvements in the way the work is carried out, rather than improvements to the product or service provided’ (National Workplace Survey of Employees 2009)

It was found that 57 per cent of employees overall reported that they worked in an organisation that had introduced new ideas, processes or behaviours designed to promote improvements in the way the work is carried out.

The researchers also examined the responses to a series of questions relating to employees’ experiences of innovative practices and approaches in their places of work. In general, the researchers point to evidence of substantial innovative practices in workplaces, and suggest these practices are generally more common in the private sector. Combining their above indicator of workplace innovation with the series of questions relating to innovation, they constructed a scale of the strength of the innovation climate in Irish workplaces, as follows.

Organisations that promote greater employee engagement and involvement in the organisation of work appear to also adopt more innovative work practices. They found that several dimensions of employee involvement and work organisation are positively associated with the innovation climate:

  • Those who work in organisations characterised by the presence of participatory practices show higher scores on the innovation climate score, and those who participate personally in such arrangements score higher still.

  • The strength of consultation and the frequency of communication of business information are both also positively associated with innovation climate.

The researchers claim that these results provide a strong indication that innovative workplaces are associated with certain forms of employee engagement – participation, consultation, communication and training. Neither the presence of formal partnership institutions (i.e., involving unions’ representatives and managements) nor incentivised reward systems, the latter considered to be important complements of new work practices, were associated with the strength of the innovation climate.

The NCPP 2009 Employee Survey contains other significant data on work organisation-related practices, and notes some important trends in the Irish workplace. Compared to the previous survey in 2003, in 2009, 61 per cent of respondents reported an increase in responsibility, 54 per cent reported an increase in job pressure, 45 per cent said that the technology involved in their work had increased, just under half reported that the level of skill necessary to carry out their work had increased and 48 per cent report increased autonomy in decision-making, but in contrast 20 per cent said that they have become more closely supervised. With the exception of close supervision, these figures are higher in 2009 than in 2003.

  • Identify existing differences in work organisation patterns accordingly to sector and company size considerations, as well as (if possible) recent changes in these patterns.

The NCPP survey (summarized in tables 2 and 3 below) found that public sector workers are much more likely to report the presence of direct participation in their workplaces (53 per cent) than are private sector workers (42 per cent), and public sector workers are also much more likely to report that they are personally involved in such participation. Workers in the manufacturing sector are most likely to report the presence of such arrangements (59 per cent), and of personal involvement (47 per cent), followed by workers in the education sector. Construction sector workers are least likely to report such participation. The incidence of direct participation arrangements increases with firm size, as does personal involvement. Professionals are most likely to report both the presence of direct participation in their workplaces, and their personal involvement in such working arrangements. This reflects the organisation of work shared by many professionals. Craft workers, on the other hand, are least likely to report such working practices. Permanent workers and those working full-time are more likely than temporary or part-time workers to report the presence of, or personal involvement in, direct participation.

Table 2: Incidence of direct participation arrangements and whether respondent is directly involved, by sector
Industry

Organisation has

participation

%

Personal participation

%

Public

52.9

42.5

Private

42.1

33.3

Other production

59.4

47.1

Construction

25.8

21.3

Wholesale and retail

32.4

22.3

Hotels and restaurants

28.9

26.6

Transport, storage, communication

39.7

27.8

Financial and other business activities

50.9

41.3

Public administration and defence

49.0

37.5

Education

54.5

45.9

Health

48.0

38.2

Other services

30.6

27.3

 

 

 

1–4 employees

25.9

21.7

5–19 employees

37.6

31.9

20–99 employees

43.7

35.6

100+ employees

58.8

44.0

Total

44.5

35.3

Table 3: Incidence of direct participation arrangements and whether respondent is directly involved, by job characteristics
 

Organisation has participation

%

Personal participation

%

Managers and administrators

57.1

49.5

Professionals

58.5

50.5

Associate professional and technical

49.8

38.4

Clerical and secretarial

46.5

32.3

Craft and related

28.2

23.1

Personal and protective services

30.6

25.0

Sales

29.9

20.5

Plant and machine operatives

51.8

39.8

Other

43.7

34.9

Contract

 

 

Permanent

46.1

36.7

Temporary/casual

35.4

27.6

Full-time

46.8

38.2

Part-time

38.0

27.3

Total

44.5

35.4

Source: NCPP National Employee Survey 2009

Furthermore, the NCPP employee survey found that workplace innovation (as defined above) was more common in the private than the public sector and was most common in manufacturing and financial services. Those working in larger organisations were more likely to report workplace innovation.

  • Identify work organisation patterns associated with high performance working environments/enterprises.

The conclusion that work organisation patterns associated with High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) can substantially boost working conditions, labour productivity and workplace innovation in Ireland is contained in an academic survey report entitled New models of high-performance work systems, which was published on 22 January 2008 (IE0802029I). The report was commissioned by the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) and the Equality Authority, and compiled by a team of academics from Dublin City University (DCU), University of Limerick and University of Kansas, led by Professor Patrick Flood of DCU Business School, together with Professor Jim Guthrie, University of Kansas and Dr Victor Liu, University of Limerick.

The survey confirmed a strong link between better working conditions, bottom-line business performance and the use of high-performance work systems (HPWS) at the workplace. HPWS were said to include strategic human resource management (HRM) in relation to staffing, training and development, performance management and remuneration, employee communication and participation practices, as well as partnership, diversity and equality strategies, and flexible working arrangements and new forms of work organization. Employee turnover was found to be 7.7% lower as a result of such strategies. Moreover, the research identified that this comprehensive form of work organisation can generate a 14.8% productivity rise and a 12.2% boost to innovation (see below for more detail). Taking a representative sample of 132 companies drawn from "The Irish Times top 1,000 companies" database – which is deemed to encompass a representative, multi-sectoral set of Irish-based businesses – the participants included both indigenous and foreign-owned companies with operations in Ireland. Initially, 1,005 companies were invited to participate in the survey, of which 241 enterprises responded. Data were utilised from the 132 companies that completed both a Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/General Manager and a human resources (HR) survey questionnaire, resulting in the overall response rate of 13.2%. The economic activities of the participating companies reflect the general profile of medium-to-large enterprises in Ireland: approximately 50% operate in the services sector, 38% in manufacturing, 8% in construction, and the remaining 4.5% are in agriculture, forestry and fishing. Some 50% of the companies surveyed are indigenous Irish-owned businesses and 50% are subsidiaries of foreign companies. Trade unions represent 33.7% of participating companies’ employees.

The researchers measured the following:

  • the average rate of labour productivity per person – defined as annual productivity per employee; revenue per employee was the measure of productivity used – and to quantify the proportion of which could be attributed to the use of so-called HPWS;

  • workforce innovation rates – measured by a company’s ability to generate revenue efficiently through the introduction of new products and services, and operationalised using data on the number of employees, sales revenue and responses to the question: ‘What proportion of your organisation’s total sales (turnover) comes from products or services introduced within the previous 12 months?’;

  • rates of employee turnover to determine the extent to which these were affected by the use of HPWS. The measure of employee turnover was taken from responses to the following question: ‘Please estimate your annual voluntary employee turnover rate (percentage of who voluntarily departed your organisation)’.

This represented the total production output divided by labour inputs per employee. The use of HPWS accounted, on average, for 14.8% of labour productivity among the survey sample. In terms of total economic value, annual revenue per employee was found to be €299,992, of which €44,399 per employee a year was directly attributable to the use of HPWS. For the median-sized company in the survey – employing 270 workers – this equates to an additional €12 million in annual sales revenue. On workforce innovation, the use of HPWS accounted, on average, for 12.2% of workforce innovation, equivalent to sales revenue of €2,061 per employee a year, or €556,200 in the median-sized company. On employee turnover, use of HPWS accounted, on average, for a 7.7% reduction in annual employee turnover. The research team examined the business impact of each of the four components of HPWS – strategic HR management (SHRM), workplace partnership (WP), diversity and equality systems (DES) and flexible working systems (FWS) – individually as well as collectively. It found that productivity and other gains were at their highest level when all four components were employed together in a cohesive and synergised manner (the ‘multi-dimensional model’), rather than the selective use of one or other of the components separately. The table below outlines this positive effect.

Effect of combining HPWS elements
Labour productivity

Four elements together (SHRM, WP, DES, FWS) account for 14.8% variance in labour productivity. Total economic value equates to €44,399 per employee, or almost €12,000,000 in median company with 270 employees.

Workforce innovation

Four elements together account for 12.2% variance in workforce innovation. Total economic value equates to €2,061 per employee, or €556,200 in median company with 270 employees.

Employee turnover

Four elements together account for 7.7% variance in employee turnover. Total economic value equates to retention of up to two additional employees in median-sized company.

Note: Survey sample of 132 companies drawn from the ‘Irish Times top 1,000 companies’ database, including indigenous and foreign-owned companies with operations in Ireland.

Source: Author’s summary, based on NCPP and Equality Authority, 2008

  • Identify the main drivers for change or barriers to change underpinning these recent developments in work organisation in the country, paying special attention to the effects derived from the current economic crisis.

No information is available for this.

  • Partners are requested to identify one/the most dynamic national economic sector in terms of work organisation changes and for whom information is available. For this selected economic sector, NCs are requested to provide information on existing predominant work organisation patterns in this sector, as well as recent trends and changes in the last 5-7 years and reasons behind these changes. Also, and in the case the selected economic sector is a non-tertiary one, NCs are requested to provide some general information on recent trends and changes in work organisation patterns in the last 5-7 years and reasons behind these changes in any tertiary sector selected by each NC (i.e. consultancy services, HORECA, consultancy services, call centres, etc).

There is no sector specific data of this type.

Block 3: Associated effects of identified different forms of work organisation and work organisation-related items on working conditions

  • Identify associated effects of different existing patterns of work organisation and work organisation-related items on working conditions (i.e. training, skills and employability; health, safety and well-being; working time and work-life balance). Particular elements to be analysed may include stress, job satisfaction, work life balance, workloads and learning

The NCPP National Employee Survey 2009 explored the impact of work organisation by examining the relationship between employer workplace strategies and four employee outcomes: work pressure, job satisfaction, work–family conflict and autonomy. Of the high performance work practices considered, employee consultation over work organisation type issues had the strongest positive impact on employee well-being. High levels of consultation were associated with reduced work pressure, lower levels of work–family conflict, increased job satisfaction and increased autonomy. In comparison, work practices to promote direct employee involvement (e.g. work teams, problem-solving groups, project groups, quality circles) are less strongly associated with employee outcomes than consultation. Where there is employee involvement in the organisation, levels of job satisfaction and worker autonomy are higher, but so are levels of work pressure.

The innovation climate within the organisation was also influential: greater openness to innovation was associated with increased job satisfaction and autonomy, and reduced work–life conflict. However, conversely, a highly innovative climate also had the adverse effect of increasing work pressure. This evidence supports the view that workplace innovation may, with increased responsibilities and up-skilling, bring with it new pressures for employees. This interpretation is further supported, the researchers observe, by the effects of employee participation, which is also associated with greater work intensity, as noted above. The implication seems to be that new forms of work organisation can be a double-edged sword for employees.

  • Identify (possible) changes in working conditions associated to each work organisation pattern in the last 5-7 years, as well as the main reasons underpinning these changes

The researchers involved in the NCPP 2009 National Employee Survey suggest that the current economic recession, in terms of experience of staff reductions and the reorganisation of the company/organisation, has had a significantly negative effect on a range of employee well-being measures – reducing job satisfaction, increasing work pressure, increasing work–life conflict and reducing organisational commitment. For example, the researchers suggest the increase in work pressure/intensity experienced by employees between the first survey in 2003 and 2009 seems to be partly linked to the economic downturn, such as the knock-on effect from staff cuts or increased competition for markets/contracts. Increased work intensity could also arise, they suggest, from new forms of work organisation and changing work practices, for example increased responsibility for employees, upskilling and new technology.

  • Partners are requested to provide information focused on the existing relationship between predominant work organisation patterns and existing working conditions in the economic sector selected in previous section.

  • is no sector specific data of this sort.

Block 4: Social partners’ position with regard to the issue of work organisation patterns

  • Attitude/opinion of the social partners in your country on the importance of encouraging changes of work organisation in the national economic context.

  • Main elements identified by social partners and associated with forms of work organisation, which have an impact on the improvement of working conditions and performance.

  • Please distinguish (if possible) different views between trade unions and employers organisations.

Employers and trade unions in Ireland both believe in the importance of encouraging new forms of work organization to improve working conditions and company and national performance. However, employers and unions hold contrasting positions on the extent to which new forms of work organization should involve trade unions (and collective representation in general). This difference of position is reflected in the debate over the nature of workplace partnership. In the non-union sector, many employers would claim to have management-employee partnerships in place, based on teamwork, direct employee involvement and communication, rather than through the indirect channel of independent worker representatives. In view of this, while employer representative bodies such as the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) argue that direct participation practices (such as teamwork) in non-union firms can constitute partnership, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and its affiliated unions would argue that partnership in any true sense must incorporate independent collective representation for workers alongside new forms of work organization and direct participation.

  • In some countries, agreements have been signed between social partners or initiatives/programmes have been developed by employers and/or trade unions in order to support changes in work organisation for different reasons (e.g. facing the economic crisis, improvement of productivity/performance and/or working conditions). Please, describe one/two relevant agreements or initiatives with the aim of supporting changes in work organisation.

In recent years the Irish government and social partners have placed a significant policy emphasis on a shift towards a “Smart Economy” or “Knowledge Economy”, aimed at an up-skilling of workers, greater employee involvement and greater innovation not only in products and processes but also in the organisation of work. Increasing the skill levels of the workforce and improving work organisation has been a key dimension of Irish employment policy, and has featured strongly in national agreements between the social partners (notably the Towards 2016 national pact) , as well as the National Workplace Strategy, the recent Government paper, Building Ireland’s Smart Economy , and the national skills strategy Tomorrow’s Skills: Towards a National Skills Strategy (2007). The National Skills Strategy recommended that an additional 500,000 individuals within the workforce needed to be up-skilled through training. However, the severity of Ireland’s recession and debt crisis has placed considerable uncertainty over such national work organization initiatives. In particular, the breakdown of Ireland’s national social partnership system in early 2010 has greatly reduced the scope for social partner engagement on work organization related issues.

At a local level, there are some examples of company-level employer and trade union collective agreements over work organization, but these are few in number. The author of this national contribution undertook research (Dobbins and Gunnigle, 2009), comprised of two qualitative in-depth company case studies on workplace partnership and work organisation arrangements in Ireland, which, in large part, examined the relationship between workplace social dialogue, work organisation and working conditions, in terms of the impact on worker experiences and industrial relations outcomes.

In one case study, at an Alumina refinery plant, the benefits of the new partnership approach for workers outweighed the costs. The alumina refinery had a full bundle of partnership practices, notably management-union partnership, semi-autonomous teamwork, training, gainsharing, annualised hours, communications, single status provisions, and an employment security clause. Under the new pattern of work organisation centred on semi-autonomous teams, direct supervision was removed and a small cohort of facilitators now play an indirect role as trouble-shooters and coaches for teams when necessary. Initially, semi-autonomous teams were implemented unilaterally in 1993 at a time of crisis (without the initial involvement of unions). Since then, however, unions and employees have become more involved in the operation of teamwork. The scope of employee involvement in teams ranges from fairly minor issues, including scheduling holidays, to issues like controlling budgets, recruiting new team members and acting as first line of discipline, which would have traditionally been controlled by supervisors. Furthermore, although the nature of work tasks changed little, teams now have significant control over their work, including scheduling, allocation and pace of work.

Work schedules are drawn up during a weekly team meeting between planners, maintenance people and operators. The operator then communicates work schedules to other team members, and teams then decide how schedules are allocated and at what pace they work. The difference between the old form of supervisory controlled work organization and the new is that workers decide how best carry to out the work and the work process. In sum, workers experienced increased workplace participation due to semi-autonomous teams and responded positively to this autonomy. There were limits to their autonomy, however, and workers had been subjected to new indirect management controls, which brought new demands, such as tighter performance targets.

Workers experienced some intensification of work effort, which was not only due to the new form of work organisation, but attributable to redundancies and fewer people doing more work. Yet, significantly, they did not necessarily object to more work effort. On the whole, workers appear to have pragmatically accepted tighter performance standards and increased effort, because they perceive that management is more competent at organising work. There is considerable evidence that trust, job satisfaction and commitment have increased substantially. There is also evidence that labour productivity has improved considerably, while grievances, conflict, absenteeism and accident rates have also declined. The new form of work organization has generated higher levels of mutual gains consensus than has been possible in the past. It was significant that because the bundle of high performance work practices was more comprehensive at the alumina refinery than the second case company, workers experienced more benefits and better working conditions, and the mutual gains accruing were more far-reaching.

Commentary by the NC

National policy discussions in Ireland have emphasised the importance of new forms of work organisation, value-added products, high skills and quality services as key elements of Ireland’s future economic success. New work practices to promote greater employee involvement in the organisation of work and workplace innovation have all been cited as potential levers for pursuing this policy goal at the workplace level. From this there stemmed various ‘soft’ non-prescriptive policy initiatives under successive national pacts, which sought to stimulate enterprise arrangement for workforce cooperation and innovation, while leaving significant scope to customize practices at workplace level.

The State signalled its support for innovative workplace arrangements by establishing a specific institution, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) in 1997, whose remit was to act as a voluntary catalyst for workplace partnership and new forms of work organisation.

In recent years, An Taoiseach (the Prime Minister) launched various NCPP policy initiatives designed to deepen partnership and new forms of work organisation across different sectors of the economy: establishing a formal Forum on the Future of the Workplace, a New Workplace Strategy, and created a Workplace Innovation Fund (WIF) aimed at supporting and mainstreaming best practice in work organisation. However, the NCPP was disbanded in April 2010 and amalgamated into the National Economic and Social Development Office (NESDO), so a specific state institution supporting new forms of work organisation has now been withdrawn.

The Irish paradox is that despite Ireland’s recent twenty year history of centralized ‘social partnership’ agreements, and considerable experimentation with new forms of work organisation, advanced and enduring forms of workplace partnership and work organisation are rare. Therefore, although surveys (like the new NCPP Employee Survey 2009) have pointed to the increased incidence of forms of work organization like teamwork and other types of direct participation, such surveys tell us relatively little about the depth and scope of these practices (which ideally requires case study research).

Policy measures under Ireland’s permissive voluntarist industrial relations system have focused on encouraging employers to voluntarily design their own work organisation arrangements, but there are limits to this, and such initiatives tend to be fragile. Ireland has tried, but, so far, failed, to promote enduring workplace cooperation, innovation and new forms of work organisation in the context of a voluntarist system lacking the regulatory constraints required for this to happen more widely across the economy. Voluntarist arrangements often tend to be associated with quite weak forms of employee participation, which are dependent on employer sponsorship and support, and devolve too little decision-making power to employees.

References

  • Dobbins, T. and Gunnigle, P. (2009), ‘Can voluntary workplace partnership deliver sustainable mutual gains?’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3): 546-570.

  • Flood, P., Guthrie, J., Liu, W., Mkamwa, T., Armstrong, C., O’Regan, C., & MacCurtain, S. (2008). New models of high performance work systems: The business case for strategic HRM. Partnership and diversity and equality systems. Equality Authority and National Center for Partnership Performance.

  • National Centre for Partnership and Performance (2010), NCPP 2009 National Employee Workplace Survey and National Employer Workplace Survey, Dublin: NESDO. Available at: http://www.nesdo.ie/ncpp/employers_2009.pdf and http://www.nesdo.ie/ncpp/employee_2009.pdf

Tony Dobbins, NUI Galway

Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Přidat komentář