Philadelphia, city's largest blue-collar workers union to continue talks Sunday as strike looms, union says
The clock is ticking as we get closer to a Tuesday deadline when Philadelphia's largest city workers union is preparing to strike.
Negotiations did not happen Saturday, but AFSCME District Council 33 says negotiations are set to continue Sunday. Thousands of workers from the union plan to walk off the job if an agreement can't be reached.
Rec center programs, trash pickup and 911 dispatch could all be affected, among other services.
As families celebrated community and culture at the annual Wadsworth Day festival, the looming strike was on the minds of many people.
"They should be working hard night and day to get hard-working city workers a good, honest contract," said James Royster, who lives in Mount Airy.
"I think we really got to be concerned about this clock ticking, first of all, and I really would like to see no strike, but I understand both sides of the table," said Donna Payne, who also lives in Mount Airy.
Union wants higher pay, health care benefits
District Council 33 represents some 9,000 city workers in services handled by the Sanitation Department, Water Department, Police Dispatch, Streets Department and maintenance at the airport.
The union is fighting for higher pay and health care benefits. The workers plan to strike on Tuesday morning if an agreement is not reached.
In a post on social media, the union stated, "The lack of progress on critical matters such as fair wages and comprehensive healthcare benefits remains a significant concern. These issues are at the core of our negotiations, and we are committed to ensuring they are not overlooked."
On Saturday morning, Mayor Cherelle Parker said in a video on social media that her administration proposed a deal to increase workers' pay by more than 12% over her term. She called it the largest one-term pay increase from any mayor in more than three decades. She added that health care coverage would not be taken away.
CBS News Philadelphia caught up with Parker at Wadsworth Day to ask about the ongoing negotiations.
"I know that District Council 33 and my administration, they are at the table communicating and they are talking consistently, and we're doing our best to reach some much-needed compromise, and we're trying to get to yes for the benefit of the people of our great city. Thank you so much," Parker said.
CBS News Philadelphia asked if any contingency plans were being made, but the mayor didn't answer that question.
If an agreement is not reached, the strike would start at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday morning, which is only days before the city's Wawa Welcome America July Fourth Festival.
Residents worry about trash piling up
Donna Payne remembers the last time the union went on strike in 1986, when mountains of uncollected trash lined city streets.
"That was not pretty, so I remember taking the trash to a place on Bellefield Avenue, and it was really rather disgusting," Payne said.
With talks set to resume Sunday, union workers are also planning a rally at City Hall on Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Indian Negotiators Extend US Stay as Trade Talks Gather Pace
India's trade team has extended its stay in Washington to iron out differences as the two sides look to clinch a deal before a July 9 deadline when higher US tariffs are set to kick in, people familiar with the matter said. The in-person negotiations were initially supposed to run through June 27 but were extended by a day, raising hopes of an interim trade deal, said the people, who asked not to be identified as the discussions are private.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me
My first day as a high school teacher, kids were opting out of pretty much everything I asked them to do. Too tired to read, they said. Writing made their heads ache. They had beefs with whoever I partnered them with on a project and they sure weren't about to get up in front of the class. Most teachers quickly become accustomed to all the opting out. We wise up and toughen up to help kids toughen up. We also figure out how to know when, for the moment, it is better to leave them be. We also get used to the exceptions that kids and their parents ask for. The first year I assigned James Baldwin's "If Beale Street Could Talk," a girl told me her parents wouldn't let her read it. Her brother had found all the f-bombs and showed their parents. The novel also contains critiques of Christian piety and hypocrisy. It was on the district approved reading list, but I didn't want to give that girl any more grief than her brother and parents already were so I let her read something else. Even so, I am concerned about the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, validating an assertion of religious freedom over a school district's reading program. The case was brought by a group of Maryland parents against Montgomery County's school board, which refused to allow the parents to opt their kids out of the reading and/or discussion of books that depicted people married to same-sex spouses, dramatized a dog at a pride parade, and told other stories whose settings included the recognition and normalization of LGBTQ+ people. In general, I have always tried to honor the beliefs of parents ‒ not just about what to read but also about how they choose to raise their children ‒ whether or not I agree with them. I do this out of respect and also for the sake of kids who are better off without being in the middle of ideological conflict. There are limits, however. The most serious of these is that if I believe a parent's idea of discipline rises (or descends) to the level of physical abuse, I am compelled by law, as are all teachers, to report it to the authorities. Teachers are also mandated to report emotional abuse, elusive as it may be to detect. The students whose emotional abuse has often been the most obvious to me are gay teenagers whose parents have shunned or humiliated them. Some of this abuse is instigated by religious beliefs and influences that make their child's sexuality a source of torment. Another view: Schools are pushing LGBTQ+ books on kids. Supreme Court should side with parents. | Opinion I feel for those parents, but I am far more sympathetic to the young men and women who are the subject of the condemnation and alienation. Even in cases where the level of emotional abuse isn't sufficient to file a report, and with all due respect to the parents, I am compelled to offer emotional support and a voice of acceptance. If narrowing a child's educational experience in that way is a pillar of religious freedom, does that 'freedom' also prevent me or any other teacher from telling an LGBTQ+ student they need not be ashamed of who they are? Perhaps not ‒ not yet ‒ but I worry, as should all educators. It has been nearly 100 years since the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in John Scopes' case that the state may not criminalize the teaching of human evolution, though Darwin's theory was at odds with the Judeo-Christian Bible's version of human inception. The parallels between Scopes and Mahmoud are far from perfect. The former challenged the academic freedom to teach science when science contradicted religious beliefs. The latter challenges the authority of a school district to override the religious beliefs (or interpretations, anyway) of parents on curricular decisions about their kids. Even so, it doesn't take much of a leap to get from opt-outs for LGBTQ+ book references to opt-outs for the study or even mention of human evolution. Evolution is foundational to anthropology, human history and civilization, and human biology. Preventing a student from learning about it could set the student behind their peers in their knowledge and understanding of science. Preventing a child from understanding the world beyond their own family and experience is potentially more crippling. The world in which today's children are growing up is diverse. An inability to comprehend it and navigate it can limit their academic and professional horizons. Some kids have two moms and some have two dads. Some kids have a transgender parent. Some are being raised by a single parent or grandparent(s) or in a blended family, some kids are being raised by someone with whom they are not related, and still others are being raised by no one at all. Refusing to allow a child to understand and normalize this diversity marginalizes those kids ‒ many of whom are already marginalized by circumstances. This is what educators think about. We try to look out for all kids, but especially the ones who might otherwise feel out of place. Opinion: If you had a teacher who changed your life, 'find that person, tell that person' More urgently, books that validate all families and all kids can save the life of a child who realizes they are gay or trans and feels alone and terrified by that realization. The imposition of those books to someone's faith seems, by comparison, trivial. Pushing back against that imposition seems utterly selfish ‒ ironic for people of faith. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. At the core of this issue are two fundamental questions: How much power and authority should parents legally have over their children? Are we, as a nation, willing to fully recognize the humanity and dignity of all people, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation or identity ‒ and regardless of our own comfort level? To the first question I can tell you, as a high school teacher and a parent, that parental power is ultimately mostly illusory, and quite often the tighter the parental grip the stronger the children's resistance. I do not have the answer to the second question, but I do know that on this day, Supreme Court justices tilted us toward no. Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher' and "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond," a book for new and struggling teachers. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court ruling on LGBTQ books worries me as a teacher | Opinion
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? Tell us.
Billionaires are having a day. The White House is a good example of this happy time for the wealthiest among us, since it is the residence (once more) of our first billionaire president, Donald Trump. It was there that he was joined briefly by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, who slashed his way through much of the federal government, then exited to go tend to rockets, electric cars and other ventures. But not to worry. Left behind are five billionaires brought into office by Trump, the most of any administration. Those magnates spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reelect Trump and to throw him an inaugural party. Opinion: What's an oligarchy? With Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' bill, we're living in one. As a national phenomenon, the number of billionaires has grown from one in the 1920s (industrialist Henry Ford) to more than 900. Since the start of the 21st century, that group's wealth has expanded nine times, aided by Trump's 2017 tax cuts. For the country's lower half of earners, the expansion was double, mostly due to stimulus checks. I say all this to set up the question for you: What do we think of this conspicuous power of America's billionaires? Is it something to fear, as President Joe Biden warned on his way out the door, saying there is a growing oligarchy that "threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead"? Or are these exceptional people whom we should celebrate? They are, after all, the group that brought us Starlink, a satellite system that kept Ukraine afloat in its war against Russia. And Amazon. (Boy, I like not going to the store to buy that thingy to fix my dryer. And I get it the next day!) Opinion: You're not really mad at the Bezos, Sánchez luxury Venice wedding. You're just poor. We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum billionaires" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Should billionaires be running the country? Tell us | Opinion
