President Obama intervenes to end Philadelphia transit strike

Comments (16)
Bfstk wrote:

no contract since 2009 as the GOP plays it loose and fast to screw the workers. The President should not intervene as it’s none of his business in a local dispute. as for the GOP as they sow so shall they reap. GOP politicians have helped to make this mess and they need to fix it. In case they are thinking of privatization just imagine a private company running the transit system when its workers call in sick or go on strike. It would be even worse.

Jun 14, 2014 5:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MonitorLizard wrote:

No contract since 2009. Well, I can guess why this is happening.

Jun 14, 2014 5:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

When both labor and management have agreed to collective bargaining, and labor continues to work for 5-years without a new contract without exerting its leverage of a work-stoppage strike during that period, it seems clear that the city of Philadelphia does not have two parties bargaining in good faith.

If the President agrees to the Governor’s request to use his presidential executive authority to intervene, as numerous past US Presidents have done to resolve critical transportation strikes, then there should be a price for that intervention paid by the City of Philadelphia. If the city is unable to reach agreement with the Union within the 30-day cooling-off period, and sign a new multi-year contract with the unions, then the Federal Government should mandate arbitration and impose a new contract.

Jun 14, 2014 6:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Fire them all and replace them.

Jun 14, 2014 8:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
runfast3 wrote:

Union workers…..Obama supporters….Kick the whole damn union out……Let supply and demand furnish the most qualified workers.

Jun 14, 2014 9:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Victor631 wrote:

Now Obama is anti-labor, and after taking all that money from the unions too.

Jun 14, 2014 9:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BATTMAN wrote:

REnninga is the only poster with a clue about collective bargaining. The rest of you clowns did not even read the article, or you would see that the IBEW, welcomes a third party to settle the 5 years of work without a contract. I think they have been more than patient, and the city the rouge element here.

Jun 15, 2014 6:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

The state should put in a “right to work law” . In fact, the country should have a “right to work law”. If a person wants to work for the agreed upon wage then they should be able to. If they do not want to work for the agreed to wage then they should quit or be fired and then be replaced with someone that will. The agreement to work goes both ways. If you are not happy with your wage then quit.

Jun 15, 2014 9:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
FRPSR wrote:

Right to work is another of the double talking points from powerful owners whose poicies are to offer confusion rather than clarity . This is a determined adversarial relationship , rather than a cooperative one . The wealthy owners may act with impumity feeling no obligations to the communities they are familiar with by flying over the actors responsible for making their wealth possible . The Clean air boondoggle of the last administration , to pump more poisons into the air being a classic of the genre .
The benefits and protections offered from organized labour’s contribution to the relationship between management and the workers have nothing to do with the right , or the lack of rights to work . That would be a confusing contribution from those who wish that the people who labour for producers remain uninformed , impoverished , and consequently starving , pliable , and desperate . That producers are only acting as agents of organized capital , who greatly desire that the work forces remain disorganized so that they are acting as individuals against organized capital , diminishing the ability of workers to protect and educate themselves . So on the one hand it is great that producers organize , but on the other hand , working people who recognize their contribution , organize to protect themselves are demonized for doing the same thing management does .
Right to work is a dishonest attempt of the wealthy producers to silence through disinformation , fear and intimidating working people who are involved creating the service or product that creates wealth .
It is disgusting , self serving propaganda .

Jun 15, 2014 11:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mikentina02 wrote:

4825 you have no idea what a right to work law is do you? This should be a pretty clear example of what corporate America as well as the Government can and will do to the laboring class if they choose to. About five years Septa has been skirting obligations as an employer and now they try screw the employees with the help of our own government. This is why contracts are so important and the process should have been adhered to. Corbett has some balls.

Blind Union bashing is a sign of stupidity. Septas electricians are already working for damn near 30% less than prevailing wage. Union or not the workers just want what is owed to them, just like any other person who works in the employ of others. While we are forced to take pay cuts and work for years on only the promise of salary increases to help us deal with rising costs the unions solidarity makes them able to employ work contracts. I guess everyone who thinks unions suck would much rather enjoy the employment conditions in Mexico.

Jun 15, 2014 11:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

“what is owed them”…very subjective and emotional responses will abound when a politician uses this phrase. What is owed them is what they have agreed to. If someone shows up for work, they are concurring to work at the rate the employer is paying them.

I concur, corporations will take advantage of it’s employees, and unions are necessary, but government ownership and control is not the answer either. Any comment against a union is “union bashing”.

I like to make as much as I can, but understand if there is someone equally or more qualified willing to work for less, maybe I will have to also, or loose my job (or not get the job).

Jun 15, 2014 12:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dr_Steve wrote:

Texas is a right to work state. It is also a right NOT to work state. You can leave an employer high and dry with virtually no notice. It cuts both ways.

Jun 15, 2014 2:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

The days of union dominance are over. You know this is the case when even a President like Obama orders a union back to work. Well done, for a change, Mr. Obama.

Sometimes there are some setbacks, but overall, as a society, we are improving. The unions’ days are numbered.

Jun 15, 2014 3:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
FRPSR wrote:

From an historically robust period to a second great depression , anyone sure we are better off is someone who sure likes a depressed economy .

Jun 15, 2014 4:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash0866 wrote:

Hey he did something!!

Jun 16, 2014 10:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash0866 wrote:

BATTMAN
Yeah the Unions are the salt of the earth can do no wrongs…give us all a break…

Jun 16, 2014 10:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.