Nursing and unionization...

[dzadzey]

Recently, we were gathered in a meeting held by human resources regarding attempts by a national labor organization to unionize nurses in our area. Now, if anyone can use good union representation, it's nurses. Provided, of course, the union is more interested in serving the needs of the nurses and their patients rather than lining the pockets of union leadership.

And it seems to be the latter in this case. The union is using both grass-roots organizing and what are called "corporate campaigns". The former is well and good as the potential union member has a say in the matter through a vote for unionization. The latter, however, does nothing but honk me off. Corporate campaigns, as they are called seem to be aimed at pressuring management into signing 'neutrality' and 'card check' agreement, either of which will prevent the employees at a given facility from being able to vote on unionization. Any union victory achieved by this means would be Phyrric, at best. The new, and involuntary, union members would be bitter and resentful at not having any say in the matter, and management would be disinclined to negotiate in any constructive way with the union. The ultimate result would seem, at least to me, to be a decline in patient care as nurses disgusted by the process left the profession, leaving those remaining to carry an even heavier burden, leading to more nurses leaving the profession...a vicious cycle.

The unions president has gone so far as to say to health care organizations, " We will unionize your workers or we will destroy your reputation." This would seem to indicate a less than whole-hearted support of nurses, and more about securing his own power and prestige. I have contacted the union in question, both by e-mail and snail-mail regarding this issue and have, thus far received no response. Apparently, they lack the courage of their convictions. If they want to unionize, put it before the nurses. If they can secure better working conditions, pay and benefits for the employees...If the union can constructively engage management to raise everybody's boat and help us provide the best possible patient care, there will be a union. But if they want to engage in the skulduggery and reputation assassination that these 'corporate campaigns' seem to imply, they can fold it five ways and stuff it where the sun never shines.

Any thoughts?

[Sherwood]

Facts about the card check process:

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/takeaction/efca/efca_q_a.cfm#jump5

I am sure most of us can find quotes from "reliable sources" that agree or disagree with whatever point we are trying to make. You quote AFLCIO data, I quote AHA data... it goes on and on.

The way I see it is this: I get a job as a nurse or a factory line worker. It's a nice job, I have little or no problems. Many others share my view, we like our jobs, we get along with our bosses etc...

Now another group of our coworkers see things differently. They think things are not so good so they talk to some union reps. The union reps say we can help you, you are oppressed and deserve better! Management is short changing you and keeping you down. Here are some cards, take them back to work and have as many of your coworkers sign them as you can, meet them in the parking lot, the breakrooms or the restrooms... just convince them to sign and the union will be in and "make it better".

Now a few people know that these cards can represent a vote for the union but many don't, no one tells them anything either way. You are minding your own business in the parking lot or in the restroom and three or four of your friendly coworkers surround you and kindly "ask" you to sign a card. You want to think about it but they all tell you "everybody" is signing and you should too! This is how a "card check" election could take place. The next thing you know, you are forced to pay union dues.

Now with an NLRB election, the card signing process happens just as described above. The only difference is that the union is not automatically "voted" in based on cards collected in parking lots and restrooms. The cards just authorize an election. The management can hold meetings in an attempt to convince employees not to vote for the union and the union can have rallys to convince the employees otherwise BUT...................Everyone gets to vote in the PRIVACY of the VOTING BOOTH behind a closed curtain............no one knows how you voted EVER! unless you tell them. So even if your "friends" convinced you to sign a card you still get to VOTE on it.

Another thing, if you have signed a card and you change your mind you can write a REGISTERED letter to the union and your human resources department and have that card revoked but.........the union knows your name and address. Of course they will honor your privacy and not tell anyone........they will keep it just between you and them right???

So election by "cards" collected in restrooms, parking lots and breakrooms OR an election supervised by the NLRB held in a closed room monitored and witnessed by an equal number of pro-union and anti-union employees as well as union organizers where you vote in a voting booth with a closed curtain behind you.

What sounds most likely to be fair?

Thanks,

Sherwood Cox, R.N., CCRN

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

i am sure most of us can find quotes from "reliable sources" that agree or disagree with whatever point we are trying to make. you quote aflcio data, i quote aha data... it goes on and on.

the way i see it is this: i get a job as a nurse or a factory line worker. it's a nice job, i have little or no problems. many others share my view, we like our jobs, we get along with our bosses etc...

now another group of our coworkers see things differently. they think things are not so good so they talk to some union reps. the union reps say we can help you, you are oppressed and deserve better! management is short changing you and keeping you down. here are some cards, take them back to work and have as many of your coworkers sign them as you can, meet them in the parking lot, the breakrooms or the restrooms... just convince them to sign and the union will be in and "make it better".

now a few people know that these cards can represent a vote for the union but many don't, no one tells them anything either way. you are minding your own business in the parking lot or in the restroom and three or four of your friendly coworkers surround you and kindly "ask" you to sign a card. you want to think about it but they all tell you "everybody" is signing and you should too! this is how a "card check" election could take place. the next thing you know, you are forced to pay union dues.

now with an nlrb election, the card signing process happens just as described above. the only difference is that the union is not automatically "voted" in based on cards collected in parking lots and restrooms. the cards just authorize an election. the management can hold meetings in an attempt to convince employees not to vote for the union and the union can have rallys to convince the employees otherwise but...................everyone gets to vote in the privacy of the voting booth behind a closed curtain............no one knows how you voted ever! unless you tell them. so even if your "friends" convinced you to sign a card you still get to vote on it.

another thing, if you have signed a card and you change your mind you can write a registered letter to the union and your human resources department and have that card revoked but.........the union knows your name and address. of course they will honor your privacy and not tell anyone........they will keep it just between you and them right???

so election by "cards" collected in restrooms, parking lots and breakrooms or an election supervised by the nlrb held in a closed room monitored and witnessed by an equal number of pro-union and anti-union employees as well as union organizers where you vote in a voting booth with a closed curtain behind you.

what sounds most likely to be fair?

thanks,

sherwood cox, r.n., ccrn

the history behind the wagner act was that the original process was a card check process. the taft-hartley amendments of 1947 were the source of the nlrb elections process. my reading of the card check bills actually says that the revised process is in effect a worker's choice between the election process or the card check process. i would have no problem with the election process continuing unchanged if union organizers had unfettered access to the job site to discuss the merits of the proposal.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/takeaction/efca/cardsummary.cfm

majority sign-up procedures have been legal throughout the life of the national labor relations act (nlra). majority sign-up procedures have always been legal under the nlra and were once the preferred method of gauging employee choice. in the early years of the nlra, majority sign-up procedures were presumptively used absent special circumstances requiring an nlrb-supervised election. today, majority sign-up procedures implemented at the discretion of management are becoming more common in light of the obvious failures of the nlrb election process. however, under current law, management can refuse to recognize a union even when 100 percent of employees have signed union authorization forms and can instead insist on an nlrb election process that enables management to intimidate employees through a coercive anti-worker campaign.

the real coercive forces are the inherent levers that management has over employee economic security.

every 23 minutes a u.s. worker is fired or retaliated against for their support of a union.

this figure was derived from the 1993-2003 nlrb annual reports, which indicate an average of 22,633 workers per year were ordered to receive backpay from their employers.

91% of employers force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors during union organizing drives.

chirag mehta and nik theodore,

undermining the right to organize: employer behavior during union representation campaigns

, center for urban economic development, university of illinois at chicago, dec. 2005.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/resources/statistics.cfm

the card check process is a cleaner process and levels the playing field. broadening the basis of participation in the process of deciding whether or not to organize as a group is in effect more democratic than the current process. neutrality agreements allow employees to make their own decisons without fear of management reprisal or retaliation.

the electoral process can be manipulated and in effect deny the expression of voters intent. (witness the florida election fiasco of 2000.)

coercion by management is a real phenomenon.

thus federal labor law grants employers a series of extremely powerful one-sided privileges: the

use of supervisors to carry a partisan message to their subordinates; unlimited anti-union campaigning

matched by a near-total ban on pro-union campaigning; and a nearly unlimited right to mandatory antiunion

meetings with absolutely no corresponding pro-union response. each of these is an activity that

not only would be banned if transposed onto an analogous political election, but is actually prohibited

employer behavior in political campaigns. yet the protections we take for granted in political campaigns

are absent in the workplace.

http://araw.org/docuploads/freeandfair%20final%2epdf

both principles undergirding the equal time rule apply with equal logic to union elections. while

communication in the workplace is not the sole medium for talking with workers about unionization,

it is a finite resource, and it is by far the most influential possible forum for campaigning. yet where

federal law insists that both sides of a political campaign have equal access to mass media, labor law is

content to allow one party to exercise near-monopoly control over workplace media.60 indeed, in union

election campaigns, communication within the workplace operates much like state-controlled media in a

totalitarian nation. employers may post anti-union information on bulletin boards, in cafeterias and in

work areas, while banning similar postings by pro-union employees.

if you believe in true fairness in the worksite then a union proponent should be granted equal access to antiunion employee meetings that are organized and led by management.

by contrast, the inequality built into union elections is not one of resources, but one of rights. no matter

how much money a union may have, pro-union workers may be denied the right to post notices, make

announcements, or circulate newsletters as a matter of company policy. as the supreme court has

explained, labor law:

does not command that labor organizations .... be protected in the use of every possible means

of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of

communication simply because the employer is using it.67

...

for instance, employers may not tell workers that "if you wear a union button, you'll never

get a promotion," but they are perfectly free to state that "a union is a declaration of disloyalty to me

personally, and an affront to everything this company stands for." to any reasonable human being, there

is little material difference between these two statements. yet under labor law, the second is perfectly

legal.

http://araw.org/docuploads/freeandfair%20final%2epdf

[Sherwood]

The electoral process can be manipulated and in effect deny the expression of voters intent. (witness the Florida election fiasco of 2000.)

Coercion by management is a real phenomenon.

Quote:

The Florida Presidential election is no comparison to a simple union election! There are no "hanging chads" to check. There is just a simple single piece of paper with two or three boxes, you check one of them; yes I want union A, Yes I want union B or NO, I do not want union representation. Very simple. Do not make it more complicated then it really is.

Like I said before, you can quote all the sources you want but tbe bottom line is the sanctity of the voting booth is the only place one can make a decision without being intimidated.

I have been through two union elections at my own hospital, it is that simple. Instead of all the quotes and references can you make a statement in your own words from your own experiences?

Coercision from management?? Coercion from the union and union supporters is well documented. Picketers and marchers blocking the entrances to buildings yelling at those who dare cross the picket line. Veiled threats spoken in whispers in the hall. "Anonymous" flyers sent to employees homes or left on the windshields in the parking lot. Who really threatens who? History is telling

[Simplepleasures]

Sherwood, are you paid as a union buster?Or has a union hurt your feelings somewhere down the road and you do this for free? I cannot understand why a so called nurse would be SO against unionization.Your arguments really make no sense coming from a nurse who works as a nurse. My opinion only.

[Sherwood]

Sherwood, are you paid as a union buster?Or has a union hurt your feelings somewhere down the road and you do this for free? I cannot understand why a so called nurse would be SO against unionization.Your arguments really make no sense coming from a nurse who works as a nurse. My opinion only.

I am not a paid "union buster". I am a bedside nurse. I am not sure why you say my "arguments make no sense coming from a bedside nurse." Why is that? The majority of bedside nurses at my hospital must think somewhat along the same lines as I do in regards to not unionizing. I would say 98% were bedside nurses the same as I.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

The point is that having management out of the election process will clean the process up. Here is an example of how management attempted to coerce employees at a MN hospital.

http://nursesrev.advocateoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={9CB119A7-E088-48CD-98EF-184987726DE4}

The nurses organized on the third attempt because they were tired of the shenanigans. The purpose of a picket line is to draw attention to a labor dispute. Picketing is a perfectly legitimate exercise of the right to free speech.

If the law required equal time rules for management and union organizers I would agree that the election process is workable. Since we do not have that codified in our laws nor does the NLRB aggressively protect the rights of workers then we need to forcibly level the playing field through card check. The Florida elections illustrate exactly how the process can be willfully distorted.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/big_labor_vs_freedom_and_fairn.html

"Behold, the self-styled friends of American labor. They are now trying to relieve the American worker of what they consider the unreasonable burden of the secret ballot, which is only one of the cardinal principles of free and fair elections."

". . . most workers rationally calculating their interests will avoid unions. Union membership has shrunk to a husk of itself. In 2006, it was just 12 percent of workers, down from 12.5 percent only a year before and down from 20.1 percent in 1983. Almost half of those union members are government employees, and almost half live in just six states."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/congress_prepares_to_ignore_th.html

George Will:

"Under the card check system, unions are able to, in effect, select the voters they want. It strips all workers of privacy and exposes them, one at a time, to the face-to-face pressure of union organizers who distribute and collect the cards. The Supreme Court has said that the card check system is "admittedly inferior to the election process.''

Repealing a right -- to secret ballots -- long considered fundamental to democratic culture would be a radical act. But labor is desperate."

"What unions are trying to sell is decreasingly attractive to potential members, so unions are doing what declining businesses often do: They are seeking government protection, in the form of a law to insulate them from the rigors of competition. They want government to allow them to, in effect, silence the employers' side of debates about the merits of unionization."

~~~~~

It's just plain silly to suggest that any method other than a secret ballot is the best way to conduct a fair election. The secret ballot IS the only and true best way to avoid manipulation and coercive tactics.

That is obvious.

You can argue that the ability to strong-arm co-workers is more fair if you like. It's a non-sensical argument. In truth, such a system IS a much more accessible system for unions. True enough. But fair? Not a chance. That's the point. When you can't win fairly, some resort to other means to get their way.

In fact, unions ARE systematically losing ground, year after year, nationwide.

Why? Because employees can choose, fairly.

~faith,

Timothy.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

q: do majority sign-up procedures and nlrb elections require the same measure of majority support?

a: no. majority sign-up procedures—under current law as well as the employee free choice act—require a higher standard of majority support. under majority sign-up procedures, a majority of all the employees in the bargaining unit must support union representation, and employees who cannot be identified or located are presumed not to support union representation. in nlrb elections, only a majority of those employees who actually vote is required.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/takeaction/efca/efca_q_a.cfm#jump4

so in a 600 member unit that means that essentially 400 of the employees must affirmatively express their intent to organize. compare that to an election where 300 may vote and if 151 vote for organization that makes 25% of the proposed unit making the decisions for 450 other employees.

...

democratic majority sign-up procedures are necessary to avoid anti-democratic employer coercion through the nlrb election process. union elections are unlike any other kind of elections because of the inherent coercive power that management holds over employees—the power to deprive employees of their livelihood and to control their pay, hours and working conditions. according to a survey of 400 nlrb election campaigns in 1998 and 1999, 36 percent of workers who vote against union representation explain their vote as a response to employer pressure.

1 the

nlrb election process makes matters worse by enabling management to wage lengthy and bitter anti-union campaigns, during which workers can expect harassment, intimidation, threats and firings. by avoiding these inherently coercive and anti-democratic anti-union campaigns, majority-rule majority sign-up procedures help employees make freer choices under less duress.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/takeaction/efca/cardsummary.cfm

the failure is by no means because workers reject unionism. american unions operate under a labor law that is the least favorable to collective worker action in the developed world. they are pummeled daily by a powerful business community uniquely hostile to unions.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020624/rogers/2

applying our results to today's work force, about 42 million workers want an organization with elected representatives and arbitration of disputes with management. another 42 million or so want an organization more focused on information, career assistance or consultation with management, but still operating independent of management. together these roughly 85 million workers--a group twelve times the size of present private union membership--are the market for open-source unionism. capturing even a small share of this market could massively expand the american labor movement and vastly extend its reach.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020624/rogers/3

so if you assume that the us workforce is approximately 160 million people that equates over 50% of american workers desire the protection of a union and a voice in their day to day work life.

fiction: the “legislation would end the rights of employees to secret ballot elections.”– center for union facts

fact: the employee free choice act does not abolish elections. under the proposed legislation, workers get to choose the union formation process—elections or majority sign-up. what the employee free choice act does prevent is an employer manipulating the flawed system to influence the election outcome. when faced with organizing campaigns: 25 percent of employers illegally fire pro-union workers; 51 percent of employers illegally threaten to close down worksites if the union prevails; and, 34 percent of employers coerce workers into opposing the union with bribes and favoritism.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/antiunionnetwork/exposingcritics.cfm

management coercion is real.

fiction:nlrb elections are “the only way to guarantee worker protection from coercion and intimidation.”

– coalition for a democratic workplace

fact: workers are more susceptible to coercion in nlrb elections than majority sign-up. workers in nlrb elections are twice as likely (46 percent vs. 23 percent) as those in majority sign-up campaigns to report that management coerced them to oppose the union. further, less than one in 20 workers (4.6 percent) who signed a card with a union organizer reported that the presence of the organizer made them feel pressured to sign the card.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/antiunionnetwork/exposingcritics.cfm

who is coercing who? as a union steward i know that i have to win the hearts and minds of my coworkers if we are to have a strong bargaining position vis a vis management.unionism is built on the principle of free association to improve working conditions. loyalty is built through positive associations not negativity.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/antiunionnetwork/nrtw/rightwing.cfm

[Freedom42]

But I still have those things without being union. It isn't the union that provided them it is my employer.

That's right. And it's your employer who can take many of your benefits away without warning -- or fire you without reason as an employee "at will" -- unless you have a contract.

I am a nursing student. The last 12 years of my professional life were spent as management in two unionized companies. It was great: Not only did employees know exactly what they must and must not do, management knew exactly what they could and could not demand of them. The rules of the playing field were crystal-clear. The pay scales were only guaranteed minimums, and employees who were performed well were amply rewarded.

People who think they'll be guaranteed all these benefits without union representation risk a rude awakening.

[lindarn]

That's right. And it's your employer who can take many of your benefits away without warning -- or fire you without reason as an employee "at will" -- unless you have a contract.

I am a nursing student. The last 12 years of my professional life were spent as management in two unionized companies. It was great: Not only did employees know exactly what they must and must not do, management knew exactly what they could and could not demand of them. The rules of the playing field were crystal-clear. The pay scales were only guaranteed minimums, and employees who were performed well were amply rewarded.

People who think they'll be guaranteed all these benefits without union representation risk a rude awakening.

I really think that all of the antiunion folks in this country are smart enough to connect the dots. As union membership has fallen in the last 20 or so years, workers pay, benefits, and workplace protections has taken a sharp nosedive. It shoudn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Part of the drop is the control of this country by anti union elected officials who are in the pockets of big business.

As for Sherwood, I used to work at Long Beach Memorial, and lived in Garden Grove. I remember well the hospital where you now work. I worked registry at times in Orange County, and the talk at the time, was no one wanted to work at the some of the hospitals there, (including yours), because the pay and working conditions were awful. They treated the agency nurses like dirt, and many never wanted to work there again. No need to because there were plenty of other hospital to work at. The same for the regular staff.

There is a reason that nurses have been treated like crap for years. The martyr maries who are in nursing because it is a "calling", and/or, the ones who have refused to organize, and thereby gave the hospitals the green light to continue to underpay, provide adequate, needed benefits, and the ability to "fire at will", anyone who did not buy into their games.

CNA has turned to tables and the sentiment, in favor of nurses. I challenge, you, Sherwood, and your other anti union cohorts, to accomplish what CNA, has. You have an unflated sense of power, and delusions of grandeur, if you think that you can singlehandedly, take on corporate health care and the nursing home industry.

The only way nursing can accomplish anything as an individual, is to become an Independant Contractor, or join/form practice groups, like physcians, and have a contract (that you have drawn up by your own attorney), that will spell out pay, benefits, working conditions, patient ratios, floating language, etc. Then, and only then will nurses truly have the power and control that other health care professionals (who bill for their service), now enjoy.

Until then, for the average nurse, who needs employer provided benefits (like health care when a family member has a pre existing condition), a job with a union contract is the only way they can be guaranteed a decent wage, benefits, and working conditions. JMHO, and my NY $0.02.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

[Simplepleasures]

I really think that all of the antiunion folks in this country are smart enough to connect the dots. As union membership has fallen in the last 20 or so years, workers pay, benefits, and workplace protections has taken a sharp nosedive. It shoudn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Part of the drop is the control of this country by anti union elected officials who are in the pockets of big business.

As for Sherwood, I used to work at Long Beach Memorial, and lived in Garden Grove. I remember well the hospital where you now work. I worked registry at times in Orange County, and the talk at the time, was no one wanted to work at the some of the hospitals there, (including yours), because the pay and working conditions were awful. They treated the agency nurses like dirt, and many never wanted to work there again. No need to because there were plenty of other hospital to work at. The same for the regular staff.

There is a reason that nurses have been treated like crap for years. The martyr maries who are in nursing because it is a "calling", and/or, the ones who have refused to organize, and thereby gave the hospitals the green light to continue to underpay, provide adequate, needed benefits, and the ability to "fire at will", anyone who did not buy into their games.

CNA has turned to tables and the sentiment, in favor of nurses. I challenge, you, Sherwood, and your other anti union cohorts, to accomplish what CNA, has. You have an unflated sense of power, and delusions of grandeur, if you think that you can singlehandedly, take on corporate health care and the nursing home industry.

The only way nursing can accomplish anything as an individual, is to become an Independant Contractor, or join/form practice groups, like physcians, and have a contract (that you have drawn up by your own attorney), that will spell out pay, benefits, working conditions, patient ratios, floating language, etc. Then, and only then will nurses truly have the power and control that other health care professionals (who bill for their service), now enjoy.

Until then, for the average nurse, who needs employer provided benefits (like health care when a family member has a pre existing condition), a job with a union contract is the only way they can be guaranteed a decent wage, benefits, and working conditions. JMHO, and my NY $0.02.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

Hear, Hear!! There ARE nurses out there who can tell folks first hand about how great it was to have a union and the laws of the NLRB behind them when they became involved in a emloyer/employee dispute, and conversly what happened to nurses that did not have this protection. If you think that this will never happen to you, think again.There are nurses on this very forum who have been fired for sticking to their guns and doing the right thing.The healthcare industry is notoriously underhanded and if you just refuse to believe this, you are truly living in LA LA land.Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings here, but this is NOTHING compared to how your feelings may be hurt when you lose your job and find yourself blackballed.

[firstyearstudent]

I really think that all of the antiunion folks in this country are smart enough to connect the dots. As union membership has fallen in the last 20 or so years, workers pay, benefits, and workplace protections has taken a sharp nosedive. It shoudn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Part of the drop is the control of this country by anti union elected officials who are in the pockets of big business.

As for Sherwood, I used to work at Long Beach Memorial, and lived in Garden Grove. I remember well the hospital where you now work. I worked registry at times in Orange County, and the talk at the time, was no one wanted to work at the some of the hospitals there, (including yours), because the pay and working conditions were awful. They treated the agency nurses like dirt, and many never wanted to work there again. No need to because there were plenty of other hospital to work at. The same for the regular staff.

There is a reason that nurses have been treated like crap for years. The martyr maries who are in nursing because it is a "calling", and/or, the ones who have refused to organize, and thereby gave the hospitals the green light to continue to underpay, provide adequate, needed benefits, and the ability to "fire at will", anyone who did not buy into their games.

CNA has turned to tables and the sentiment, in favor of nurses. I challenge, you, Sherwood, and your other anti union cohorts, to accomplish what CNA, has. You have an unflated sense of power, and delusions of grandeur, if you think that you can singlehandedly, take on corporate health care and the nursing home industry.

The only way nursing can accomplish anything as an individual, is to become an Independant Contractor, or join/form practice groups, like physcians, and have a contract (that you have drawn up by your own attorney), that will spell out pay, benefits, working conditions, patient ratios, floating language, etc. Then, and only then will nurses truly have the power and control that other health care professionals (who bill for their service), now enjoy.

Until then, for the average nurse, who needs employer provided benefits (like health care when a family member has a pre existing condition), a job with a union contract is the only way they can be guaranteed a decent wage, benefits, and working conditions. JMHO, and my NY $0.02.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!