
Why did 9,000 of Philadelphia's municipal workers go on strike?
While Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker has tried to spin it as a win for the workers (and has embraced it as a victory for her administration), some union members' public reaction to the deal has been far from positive. On Monday, July 14, they'll vote on whether to ratify the new contract, and the outcome is currently anyone's guess.
The union—known better as DC33—represents the city's blue-collar municipal workers, who handle a wide range of job descriptions—from 911 dispatchers to library assistants to water department employees. Perhaps most notably, it also represents thousands of sanitation workers, and it's that group in particular that became the most visible symbol of the strike due to the nature of their work—and the visceral ramifications of their work stoppage. As the sixth-largest city in the U.S., Philadelphia generates a lot of trash. And with the trash collectors on strike, things quickly got ugly.
Enormous piles of trash popped up all over the city once the workers walked out, spilling out of the city's designated temporary drop-off centers and onto the city's streets and sidewalks. In an unflattering homage to Mayor Parker, who became the face of the city's fitful negotiations with the union, some residents dubbed the garbage heaps 'Parker piles.' Thanks to soaring temperatures, spiking humidity, and heavy rain, residents complained that the stench was becoming a serious problem before the agreement was reached.
So how did the city get here?
DC33's most recent contract expired at midnight on July 1, following a one-year extension that the union agreed to at the beginning of Parker's term in 2024. While the mayor's office indicated a willingness to continue bargaining, the union's leadership decided to call a strike, determined to secure a meaningful economic boost for their members. This marks the first time DC33 has hit the bricks since 1986, when workers stayed out for three weeks, and 45,000 tons of garbage towered over the streets.
The primary issue is money: Members of DC33 are the lowest paid of the city's four municipal unions, as well as the only one with a predominantly Black membership; the other three include AFSCME DC47, which is made up of white-collar city workers, and the unions representing the city's police officers and firefighters.
The average salary among DC33 members is only $46,000 a year, which workers have decried as poverty wages. (Sanitation workers, by the way, generally take home about $42,000 a year, and Philadelphia's sanitation workers are among the lowest-paid employees in the country despite serving a city of more than 1.5 million residents.) Those numbers place them well below a living wage for Philadelphia, which the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated as $48,387 for a single adult with no children.
The union was most recently asking for a 5% yearly wage increase over a three-year contract, but the city refused to budge from its own proposal of 2.75%, 3%, and 3% increases over that same period—only inching up to a 3% first-year raise in the tentative agreement. The city of Philadelphia currently has a budget surplus of $882 million, from which the mayor budgeted $550 million to cover all four city workers' union contracts. The cost of the proposed DC33 contract will be $115 million over its three years.
In contrast, Parker's current budget proposal has already bookmarked $872 million for the Philadelphia Police Department, a $20 million increase that includes $1.3 million for new uniforms.
City officials touted their lowball offer to DC33 as a sign of fiscal responsibility, but even now that bargaining has ended, union negotiators and their membership remain adamant that it's just not enough.
There were other issues at play, too. Unlike other city employees like police and firefighters, DC33 members are required to live inside the city of Philadelphia—which, given the rising cost of living, only adds to the economic pressures they face. The union sought to remove the residency requirement in order to give their members more flexibility, but the city ultimately shot down their request. In addition, the union fought to preserve and improve members' healthcare and pension plans, and saw some success.
With an embattled mayor facing criticism over her own staff's lavish salaries and mixed results on her campaign promise to make the city ' safer, cleaner, greener,' the city took an increasingly combative posture toward the union. Multiple injunctions forced certain strikers (like those at the airport, the medical examiners' office, the water department, and the 911 dispatch center) back to work, while the city paid private contractors to clear the trash drop-off sites and called in non-union workers to perform union labor.
Meanwhile, DC33 maintained picket lines outside libraries, sanitation centers, and city buildings during a week of sweltering heat. Workers danced, sang, marched, set up impromptu cookouts, and waved signs at passersby. The Wawa Welcome America concert on the Fourth of July lost both of its headliners, LL Cool J and Jazmine Sullivan, who both canceled their performances in solidarity with the strikers. There was also tragedy: Two striking DC33 workers, one of whom is pregnant, were the victims of a hit-and-run last week when an intoxicated individual drove into their picket line; Tyree Ford, a sanitation worker and father of four, sustained serious injuries and is still in critical condition.
Ultimately, the city's strong-arm approach led to the current tentative agreement, which falls far short of what the workers wanted and is not guaranteed to survive the membership vote. Union leadership has been open about its own disappointment, too. 'The strike is over, and nobody's happy,' Greg Boulware, president of DC33, told The Philadelphia Inquirer as he left the marathon bargaining session. 'We felt our clock was running out.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump
Brown University has settled with the Trump administration, which is currently waging war on elite institutions of higher education. Under the guise of combating antisemitism on campuses—an important problem, though not one the federal government is well-suited to address—President Donald Trump's Education Department has gone after Columbia University, Harvard University, and also Brown. Brown's deal with the federal government has been described as more favorable to the university than Columbia's; Harvard has yet to reach an agreement at all, but is reportedly willing to spend up to $500 million to settle the matter. Large sums of money are at stake for all three universities, as the federal government is responsible for doling out billions of dollars in research grants. Brown is the recipient of $510 million in public funding. So it's not surprising that Brown wanted to make a deal. It's unfortunate, of course, that the Trump administration is using the threat of a funding reduction to dictate terms to what is ultimately a private institution. This is obviously a version of jawboning, in which political figures use non-legislative means to achieve some sort of policy end. When the Biden administration threatened social media companies and browbeat them into making different moderation decisions, it was swiftly recognized as a free speech issue by many conservatives, libertarians, and even some on the left. It's similarly vexing when the Trump administration—which has pledged to restore free speech and end federally driven censorship—does this. It's true that institutions of higher education are not entitled to federal funding, which, after all, is paid by taxpayers. The Trump administration, or any administration, could decide, in a moment of unusual frugality, that the U.S. is too indebted to continue sending billions of dollars to wealthy private organizations that have their own massive endowments. But the government shouldn't use the threat of a funding cut as a form of coercion. That's no different from how the Obama administration handled Title IX enforcement: Obama's Education Department instructed campuses to adopt policies that were hostile to free speech and due process, and they implied that federal research dollars would evaporate in the event of noncompliance. Indeed, the extent to which the Obama higher ed coercion blueprint has been adopted by Trump is under-acknowledged. All that said, the details of the Brown settlement are disturbing in their own right. It's true that Brown avoided some of the harsher penalties that Columbia got stuck with, and it's good that the settlement recognizes that the government has no "authority to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, complains that the settlement includes "no barrier to government interference in faculty hiring," but the only thing it really says about hiring is that it must be race neutral. The Supreme Court has already held that race-based hiring and admissions policies are almost always impermissible, so this is hardly some unreasonable, out-of-nowhere demand. But Dubal is also concerned about a provision of the settlement that permits the feds to collect and read Brown faculty course evaluations, and that's legitimately concerning. In fact, it speaks to the most troubling aspect of the settlement: It lends itself toward the creation of a campus antisemitism police that will be laser-focused on identifying, cataloguing, and eliminating uncomfortable and offensive speech that is nevertheless clearly protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the Trump administration is directly encouraging the formation of campus safe spaces. The settlement instructs Brown to survey students on their feelings of emotional safety. The survey questions are really something, and include: "whether they feel welcome at Brown; whether they feel safe reporting anti-Semitism at Brown; whether they have experienced harassment on social media." These are vague questions that will prompt subjective answers. Social media harassment is a particularly fraught topic; what constitutes harassment? If one student is being unkind to another student on Instagram or TikTok, is it really the university's job to intervene? Brown should act to counter identity-based harassment in cases where it's egregious, criminal, or abjectly violates the code of conduct. If students are drawing swastikas on Jewish people's doors, the university should certainly intervene. But the language in the settlement is too non-specific, and almost requires university administrators to overreach. No one should be naive about this, because it's obvious what's going to happen: An anti-Israel student will go after a pro-Israel student on social media, the pro-Israel student will say they are being harassed, and Brown will feel obligated to respond. No student should be made actually unsafe—i.e., be a victim of violence—because they are Jewish, or for any other reason. But it should be self-apparent to everyone who criticized the liberal safe space trend of the 2010s that re-orienting the campus speech police around the protection of Jewish students' subjective feelings of discomfort is not a positive development. This will produce the same sort of histrionics that existed when campus authorities were dedicated to policing speech that was perceived to be anti-black, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, etc. There will be an uptick in bias incident reports as students discover that they can weaponize the process against perceived enemies, as students absorb the idea that the administration is responsible for making them feel emotionally well at all times. I really thought the idea was to undermine the ideological foundations of the safe space mentality, not expand its identity-based reach. The Trump administration is erecting an edifice that would have been much to the liking of all those Play-Doh-loving, coloring-book-needing, puppy-hugging, safe-space liberals circa 2015. I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss South Park's jokes about Trump, the latest Epstein Files news, Sydney Sweeney, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D–Texas), and more. It has begun: My Nintendo Switch 2 arrived last night. I bought the system, one extra set of Joy-Cons, the Pro Controller, and three games: Donkey Kong Bananza, Mario Kart World, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. (The grand total was in the $800 range.) I spent most of the night transferring my data from the old Switch to the new one, and I've only had time to play about 20 minutes of Donkey Kong, so the full report will have to wait until next week. The post Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump appeared first on
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump gives Mexico 90-day tariff reprieve as deadline for higher duties looms
By David Lawder and Aida Pelaez-Fernandez (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump gave Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs to negotiate a broader trade deal but was expected to issue higher final duty rates for most other countries as the clock wound down on his Friday deal deadline. The extension, which avoids a 30% tariff on most Mexican non-automotive and non-metal goods compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, came after a Thursday morning call between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. "We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow," Sheinbaum wrote in an X social media post, adding that the Trump call was "very good." Approximately 85% of Mexican exports comply with the rules of origin outlined in the USMCA, shielding them from 25% tariffs related to fentanyl, according to Mexico's economy ministry. Trump said that the U.S. would continue to levy a 50% tariff on Mexican steel, aluminum and copper and a 25% tariff on Mexican autos and on non-USMCA-compliant goods subject to tariffs related to the U.S. fentanyl crisis. "Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many," Trump said in a Truth Social post without providing details. Trump is expected to issue tariff rate proclamations later on Thursday for countries that have not struck trade deals by a 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT) deadline. South Korea agreed on Wednesday to accept a 15% tariff on its exports to the U.S., including autos, down from a threatened 25%, as part of a deal that includes a pledge to invest $350 billion in U.S. projects to be chosen by Trump. But goods from India appeared to be headed for a 25% tariff after talks bogged down over access to India's agriculture sector, drawing a higher-rate threat from Trump that also included an unspecified penalty for India's purchases of Russian oil. Although negotiations with India were continuing, New Delhi vowed to protect the country's labor-intensive farm sector, triggering outrage from the opposition party and a slump in the rupee. TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM JUDGES Trump hit Brazil on Wednesday with a steep 50% tariff as he escalated his fight with Latin America's largest economy over its prosecution of his friend and former President Jair Bolsonaro, but softened the blow by excluding sectors such as aircraft, energy and orange juice from heavier levies. The run-up to Trump's tariff deadline was unfolding as federal appeals court judges sharply questioned Trump's use of a sweeping emergency powers law to justify his sweeping tariffs of up to 50% on nearly all trading invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency over the growing U.S. trade deficit and impose his "reciprocal" tariffs and a separate fentanyl emergency. The Court of International Trade ruled in May that the actions exceeded his executive authority, and questions from judges during oral arguments before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit in Washington indicated further skepticism. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," Judge Jimmie Reyna said at one point during the hearing. CHINA DEAL NOT DONE U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States believes it has the makings of a trade deal with China, but it is "not 100% done," and still needs Trump's approval. U.S. negotiators "pushed back quite a bit" over two days of trade talks with the Chinese in Stockholm this week, Bessent said in an interview with CNBC. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. (Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington and Aftab Ahmed in New Delhi; Editing by Nick Zieminski) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump Solving America's Problems
As seen on Gutfeld!, Bill Clinton's frequent Epstein miles. Also, Greg discusses Trump's trade deal with the EU. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit FOX News Radio