Philadelphia city workers in a second union are voting on strike authorization.

A significant labor development is unfolding as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 47 (AFSCME DC 47), which represents a segment of Philadelphia’s white-collar city workers, has initiated a strike authorization vote. This move was conveyed to union members via an email last week, signaling possible labor unrest amid ongoing negotiations. The leaders of DC 47, however, seem cautious about embracing an immediate strike, suggesting that they are not as eager to take drastic actions as their counterparts in the larger blue-collar union, AFSCME DC 33, currently engaged in a strike.

DC 47 operates as an umbrella organization comprising nine local unions, though only two focus on Philadelphia city workers. Among these, Local 2187, which represents administrative personnel and professionals, is the only one with the legal authority to call for strikes. Conversely, Local 2186, representing supervisors across various city agencies, faces strict limitations regarding union activities, as Pennsylvania’s regulations prohibit supervisors from engaging in work stoppages.

The strike authorization vote, scheduled for completion by July 15, was announced in a communication from Local 2187 President Jesse Jordan, who clarified that this action stems from member requests. Unlike DC 33’s leadership, which has vigorously encouraged strike authorization, Jordan’s message emphasized the necessity for members to participate in the decision-making process, indicating a more measured approach to labor mobilization amidst negotiations.

The current labor landscape sees DC 47 negotiating a two-week extension of its contract, aimed at allowing further talks with city officials. This extension comes after the expiration of their previous contract on July 1, coinciding with the expiration of DC 33’s contract, which immediately prompted their strike—Philadelphia’s first substantial work stoppage since 1986. A strike authorization from DC 47 would allow for a walkout around mid-July if leadership decides to proceed with that course of action.

The intricate dynamics between DC 33 and DC 47 reflect a broader context within labor relations in Philadelphia. Though united under the AFSCME banner, their differing constituencies and priorities have, at times, created rifts. DC 47 characterizes itself as a “progressive union,” representing higher-educated and better-paid members, while DC 33, comprised of frontline workers such as sanitation and maintenance staff, tends to adopt a more confrontational stance regarding labor issues, especially concerning compensation.

In labor circles, there is a prevailing understanding that DC 47 should strategically defer to DC 33, allowing the latter to resolve its disputes first. This approach is seen as vital in maintaining solidarity and protecting the interests of their lower-paid colleagues from fragmentation. Historical precedents highlight the importance of unity within these unions, particularly during past strikes, which have influenced the negotiations and outcomes of labor contracts profoundly.

As conditions evolve, it remains to be seen how DC 47 will navigate this complex landscape and whether it will align its strategies more closely with those of DC 33 in an increasingly intricate labor environment. The forthcoming decisions made by union leaders and members will be pivotal as they seek to address the pressing needs of Philadelphia’s city workforce.

This labor situation continues to unfold, raising questions about the future of collective bargaining and worker solidarity in the city. For those closely following Philadelphia’s labor developments, this moment signifies more than just a vote; it represents a potential turning point in the relationship between city workers and municipal governance.