from Anathema
Volume 11 Issue 1 (PDF for reading 8.5×11)
Volume 11 Issue 1 (PDF for printing 11×17)
In this issue:
Submission
This text hasn’t seen much circulation in Philadelphia, despite going into a good bit depth about the anti-gentrification struggles that took place here. Although the text has some points I would personally disagree with, I find it to be a good introduction to both Philly’s history of anarchist anti-gentrification struggle and the influence of insurrectionary anarchism within it. The original text was published on Hypocrite Reader and then re-published on Philly Anti-Capitalist. These kinds of histories are important; to remind ourselves as anarchists and fellow travelers what is possible, to continue to strive to outdo ourselves moving forward, and to learn from our mistakes and shortcomings.
Submission
On the night of July 22 autonomous actors gathered in Center City to express their rage against borders. They took the streets. They marched for many blocks. Then they dispersed. Propaganda was distributed, trash got thrown onto the floor, some walls got themselves painted, and a police cruiser got itself vandalized. No arrests were made.
This demonstration was partly a response to the protests that have taken place over the last two years. We hope it showed that a protest may be called in the middle of the city in a way where the police cannot respond adequately. All that needs to be done is for the invitation to be shared in channels that are not being actively monitored by the police.
Borders will always be a way of controlling an inequitable distribution of capital, labor, and commodities. Borders will always be cruel and inhumane regardless of whether there’s a white or black president in charge. Peace under a state that is snatching people out of their homes and streets and sending them to concentration camps is another way of saying “collaboration”. Peaceful “resistance” in these conditions is little more than moral posturing.
No one is coming to save us. The time to act is now.
Sincerely,
Abolish ICE & Fuck the Police
from Jersey Counter-Info
Late last week it was revealed that a Wildwood, NJ boardwalk pizza shop, Franconi’s Pizza, had a number of neo-nazi and far-right racist stickers all over their restaurant fridge. When a customer asked about the stickers they were verbatim told to fuck off.
Franconi’s Pizza has been owned and operated by fascist Tony Franconi for two decades. Franconi, who is proud of his nazi beliefs, owns several other restaurants in the New York and New Jersey area.
The information soon went viral, with a regional boycott being imposed at Fraconi’s Pizza and Tony Franconi’s other restaurants. The story was then picked up by local news media and shared all over the internet.
Just two days after the story blew up an alleged bomb threat was called in at the restaurant completely shutting down the business for at least a day. Franconi’s sales had already taken a hit due to the boycott and took on further damage due to the bomb threat.
No one has taken responsibility yet for the alleged bomb threat, but it’s obvious the community will tolerate nazis or their supporters in NJ.
Submission
Thought y’all should know that the government contractor L3 Harris is hosting a job fair in Camden, NJ. They are a major government contractor that just recently landed a large ICE contract.
“L3Harris Technologies is a major U.S. defense contractor, L3 Harris has a $4.4 million contract to provide “equipment to determine the location of targeted mobile handsets to investigate crimes and threats” for ICE. ”
The address is: DoubleTree by Hilton Mt. Laurel: 515 Fellowship Rd, Mt Laurel Township, NJ 08054
2-6PM August 20th
Please share widely!
from O.R.C.A.
During open hours August 20th, we will screen the 1985 documentary “Broken Rainbow.” This movie explains some of the historical context that allows coal and uranium mining on native land in the southwest.
We will also be discussion updates on the new uranium boom as the Trump administration and big tech, pucsh to develop domestic sources of uranium for energy and “defense.”
from O.R.C.A.
For Black August we’re screening Eyes of the Rainbow and giving out copies of the new edition of Freeing Assata during open hours. O.R.C.A. is open from 5pm to 9:30pm for open hours and we’ll start the film at 7:15pm.
Eyes of the Rainbow is a documentary that features an interview with Black revolutionary Assata Shakur in Cuba following her escape from prison. Assata discusses her experiences as a prisoner, her life in Cuba, and being part of the African diaspora.
Freeing Assata is a zine that tells the story of Assata Shakur’s liberation from prison by members of the Black Liberation Army. A new second edition includes a second account and is available online as a PDF here.
Date: 2025/08/13 17:00 – 21:30
from O.R.C.A.
We Are Not Afraid of Ruins is a film by Greek filmmaker Yannis Youlountas recently translated into English that follows the squatters’ movement from 2019-2024 in the anarchist stronghold of Exarcheia in Athens as they support refugees, resist incursions by organized fascists and the state, and try to live their day to day lives in free from domination and exploitation.
Run time ~90 minutes, in Greek with English subtitles.
Submission
[PDF for reading]
[PDF for printing]
Announcing the second edition of Freeing Assata! This edition includes another account of Assata’s liberation as recounted by Abdash Shakur that sheds light on more details of how the escape went down and what made it possible for Assata to remain free and leave the country. I’m releasing this edition right before Black August so that anyone observing may read it as part of their study.
Submission
A couple weeks ago an anti-gentrification work party occurred at Bartrams North. For years Bartrams North has been a contested site of development, the end goal of which is to create an “innovation district” on the lower Schuylkill River. The development would further devastate the cultures of Southwest Philadelphia.
Different crews came together to paint graffiti, cut the fence, sabotage a bulldozer with bleach, paint over cameras on light posts with a fire extinguisher, and disable the electrical box to cut the lights. This work party is an example of coordination between individuals and affinity groups, and an example of how action can look beyond demonstrations.
from Unoffensive Animal
Cara and Celeste were arrested last year and accused of liberating mink from a fur farm. On July the 21st, they had a hearing where some positive developmets were shared. read it directly from their support team:
“On July 21, Judge Paige Rosini heard arguments on an omnibus motion for Cara and Celeste. This motion detailed the state’s lack of evidence for the charges and petitioned the court to dismiss them. We anticipate the judge will hand down a decision in the coming months. In the meantime though…
The RICO charges against Cara & Celeste were dropped! The DA withdrew them before the hearing even started. The judge also asserted that the DA, by way of pretrial services, cannot restrict C&C’s travel. Moving forward, travel requests will be decided by the judge directly.
The defense and prosecution will have 30 days following receipt of the July 21 hearing transcript to submit briefs outlining their legal arguments. Based on these motions, Judge Rosini will decide if any of the charges will proceed to trial.
Trial comes with many financial costs including added lawyer fees, expert witness testimony, travel and accommodations, and possible fees or fines. Please continue to donate if you are able so these defendants are supported through the remainder of their case!”
Credit/debit: Phillyabc.org/nu2
Venmo @phillyantirepression with note “for cc”
Their support website: https://wesupportcc.wordpress.com
from Unicorn Riot
Sunbury, PA – Two women from Massachusetts and several dozen supporters from around the country traveled to a small central Pennsylvania town for the first major hearing in a felony case stemming from their arrest last November. The ‘Northumberland 2’ – Celeste Legere and Cara Mitrano – face a litany of PA state charges after being accused of an October 18-19, 2024 break-in at the Richard H. Stahl & Sons, Inc. fur farm in which 683 mink were released from their pens and breeding records were destroyed.
Monday’s hearing saw prosecutors drop the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charge leveled against both activists from Massachusetts. While each still face over a dozen counts and possibly decades in prison, their attorneys and supporters appeared cautiously optimistic as the state appeared to be holding a very weak hand when forced to show its cards.
“We hope the court sees through the prosecution’s gross overcharging of defendants accused of releasing animals who, with absolute certainty, would have suffered extreme torture and unconscionable death,” said Chris Carraway, a staff attorney at the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project, which represents defendant Cara Mitrano. Mitrano is also being represented by Harrisburg attorney Natalie Burston; Celeste Legere is represented by Sunbury criminal defense lawyer Jim Best.
Pennsylvania State Police and Northumberland County District Attorney Mike O’Donnell initially charged Legere and Mitrano with RICO, Ecoterrorism, Agricultural Vandalism, Criminal Mischief, Theft, Burglary, Loitering and Prowling at Nighttime, Accidents Involving Damage to Attended Vehicle or Property, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, Cruelty to Animals, Agricultural Trespassing on Posted Land, and Depositing Waste on a Highway — as well as Conspiracy counts related to the Ecoterrorism, Agricultural Vandalism and Burglary charges.
Released on bond in November after their October 19 arrest, Monday was the first chance Legere and Mitrano had to challenge the allegations against them in court.
In February, defense attorneys filed an omnibus motion for habeas corpus (‘show me the body’ in Latin) – arguing that the prosecution didn’t have enough evidence to go to trial. This meant District Attorney O’Donnell had to call several witnesses and present evidence to show how much substance there was to the case against the alleged mink liberators.
“There was very little that was clarified today,” defense attorney Carraway told Unicorn Riot. “And that’s because there’s just very little there.”
Before calling any witnesses, DA O’Donnell quietly moved to dismiss the RICO charge, one of the more serious elements in the case. At the same time O’Donnell’s office added a new count of Aggravated Animal Cruelty, arguing that the defendants were responsible for the deaths of some mink the Stahls say died after release — mink raised in fur farms are usually killed for their pelts before they turn one year old.)
Legere and Mitrano each still face one criminal count of Ecoterrorism — under the Pennsylvania state law, not the similar federal statute.) A line of questioning by defense attorneys Jim Best and Natalie Burston seemed to poke holes in this charge, as the subsection charged in this case requires that an “intent to intimidate” be proven on top of the underlying crime. The prosecution was unable to show any communication between the defendants and the victims in this case, and no graffiti, leaflets or manifestos were found at the fur farm.
[Note: ‘Ecoterrorism‘ is a relatively new concept pushed into law shortly after 9/11 by industries that harm animals and/or the environment, eager to criminalize effective anti-corporate activism after the mass protests of the 1990s. Read ‘Green Is the New Red‘ by journalist Will Potter to learn more.]
The first two witnesses in the case were Mark and John Stahl of the Richard H. Stahl & Sons, Inc. fur farm, which is located on PA State Route 890 just a few miles from the courthouse. The Stahl ranch is the last mink fur facility in Pennsylvania (the fur industry has seen a dramatic decline in recent years, due to lower demand, COVID-19 and opposition from animal rights and animal liberation activists.) It was founded in 1955 and currently has 7 employees with an annual revenue of $298,790, according to business directory information.
The Stahl fur farm is estimated to have 21,000 mink on site at any given time, according to testimony by Mark Stahl, and kills some thousands of mink to “harvest” their pelts every year. As per industry norms, mink are killed either by gas, electrocution, being beaten to death or having their necks snapped. Banned in 22 countries but not in the USA, fur farms confine mink — semi-solitary aquatic predators who roam miles in a day in the wild — to crowded rows of small, often unhygienic cages not much larger than the size of their body. Caged mink routinely injure themselves by fighting with each other or biting and scratching on their cages until they bleed and their teeth and claws break.
The Stahl mink ranch was listed online for sale online in December, less than two months after the break-in that set 683 mink free which Legere and Mitrano are accused of. A spokesperson for the Stahl business insisted that “the decision to list the property was not influenced by these attacks“; another animal liberation direct action successfully targeted the facility in September 2023, setting free between 6,000 and 8,000 mink; no charges have been filed in that incident. A security camera system was only installed after the 2023 raid, according to 2024 reporting by PennLive.
Footage from the fur farm’s security cameras was supposed to be shown at the evidentiary hearing on Monday, but DA O’Donnell couldn’t get the file to play. Judge Paige Rosini instead agreed to watch the video before ruling on the motion by the defense. Based on court proceedings referring to the video, it is understood to show, but not identify, two individuals entering the Stahl & Sons property, opening hundreds of mink cages and destroying breeding cards attached to most or all of the cages in the facility.
According to Mark Stahl, the destruction of “90 percent” of the fur farm’s genetic cards caused a financial loss at a scale beyond the 683 released mink, because the business relies on these records to cultivate a “herd” with more profitable pelt traits, and because a live mink has less sale value without its breeding information. He repeatedly said “the set is broken” when asked about the destroyed records – “the most value is when a whole ‘set’ – mink, cage, and card – is intact. It’s just salvage value without that.”
Mark Stahl testified that he rushed to the fur farm in the early hours of October 19 after being alerted by “our IT security guy” that an alert had gone off. Upon arriving he looked for holes in the fence, anticipating that the ranch had been breached in a similar fashion to the 2023 raid. He explained that the night of the September 2023 mink release, there had been a concert at a nearby winery with lots of cars parking on the road, and that he believed the mink liberators from that incident parked amongst concertgoers to cover their tracks.
No fence holes were found, but Stahl said he quickly noticed the ranch’s east gate was “swung wide open” and that no lock was on the gate. No lock was ever recovered from the scene. Pressed by the defense if he remembered that the gate was definitely locked before the incident, Mark Stahl admitted he didn’t remember for certain.
Mark Stahl claims that his family’s business suffered $146,000 in total damages from the direct action on October 18-19, 2024: a “primary loss” of “around $47,000” from the missing mink and destroyed genetic cards and hiring people to catch loose mink, a “secondary loss” of “$2,100” in reduced profits from “fur quality of mink that were recovered alive and harvested later” and “tertiary expenses” of “around $111,000 calculated over about 8 years” from “disruption to herd value” due to the destruction of so many genetic cards and from some minks’ medical/breeding status being contaminated while roaming free. Asked by Cara Mitrano’s attorney Natalie Burston how he arrived at this figure, he said “from experience.”
Mark Stahl told Celeste Legere’s attorney Jim Best that he made an insurance claim to Farmers Mutual but hadn’t yet collected — “we’re still in negotiations” — and said the Stahls were demanding an insurance payout of “$160,000 for both instances” — the other being the September 2023 mink release, which Legere and Mitrano are not charged in.
“There is quite a bit of legal protection [for animal industry businesses targeted by activists] but enforcement of those laws and correct prosecution has not seemed to have happened lately.”
Mark Stahl towards the end of his testimony at the July 21, 2025 evidentiary hearing
Mark Stahl’s younger brother John Stahl is the official owner of the family business. John Stahl testified that after he got a security alert on his phone around 12:45 a.m. on October 19, he and his wife April Stahl quickly drove towards the farm, but stopped on a property bordering the fur farm where they saw a Subaru parked by the road. He said he parked immediately behind the Subaru and got out to confront the driver to see why there were there, but then had to run to get back in his car because he forgot to put it in park and it was rolling away.
The Subaru then made a three-point turn in order to leave. John Stahl had testified that he parked in such a way that the Subaru would have had to either hit his car to leave or drive into a ditch. He later contradicted himself, claiming he wasn’t actually blocking the Subaru from leaving–“they could have gone around me” — before later admitting that he had deliberately maneuvered his vehicle so that the Subaru couldn’t leave the area without striking him.
Burston asked John Stahl about the collision with the Subaru, which is the basis for some of the charges in the case — Accidents Involving Damage to Attended Vehicle or Property and Recklessly Endangering Another Person. Under cross-examination he conceded that when he moved to trap the Subaru it wasn’t parked on his property and that he himself didn’t have the property owner’s permission to be there.
The Stahl couple then pursued the Subaru down surrounding roads before stopping to pick up clothes and other items they claimed were thrown out the fleeing vehicle’s windows. The Subaru was later pulled over by a local cop who arrested Celeste Legere and Cara Mitrano before handing them over to Pennsylvania State Police.
John Stahl said his F took some damage from being hit by the Subaru but remained operable afterwards. He testified under cross-examination that neither he nor his wife April were injured or sought medical treatment and that he wasn’t wearing a seat belt that night. He no longer drives the vehicle after selling or trading it at a $1,500 value, and reported the damage to authorities but never submitted an insurance claim, the court heard.
Pictures taken by April Stahl during her husband’s vigilante confrontation with the Subaru were entered into evidence. They show the driver’s side of the Subaru and a side profile of the driver, which the defense did not disagree was Celeste Legere. April Stahl was called to testify as a witness at Monday’s evidentiary hearing but ended up not taking the stand at the last minute for reasons unclear.
Mark and John Stahl also mentioned that both the October 2024 incident Legere and Mitrano are accused of and a September 2023 release of 6-8,000 mink from their farm were claimed in Animal Liberation Front (ALF) press releases. The Stahls admitted under cross-examination that they couldn’t tie the ALF or any of its websites or publications to either of the defendants, and said they only knew about the ALF after reading about it in the news.
Two Pennsylvania State Troopers testified about evidence they collected after Legere and Mitrano’s arrest. Notably, neither mentioned or knew of any fingerprints, shoe prints, DNA or other forensic evidence collected at the Stahl’s fur farm after the incident.
State Trooper Cody Fischer briefly testified to arresting Celeste Legere and Cara Mitrano after they were pulled over by Ralpho Township Police. Fischer said that the defendants had a backpack, a purse and a map with “directions in and out of the fur farm” with them at time of arrest.
The rest of the testimony came from State Trooper Jacob Hook of the PSP Criminal Investigations Unit, who offered an ample serving of speculative opinion with a few actual hard facts mixed in. An initial affidavit by Hook — the foundation for the case — made lurid mention of so-called “anarchist propaganda” found in the Subaru, indicating a desire to criminalize the defendants’ political associations. Hook’s affidavit also made sure to mention stickers with anti-police messages on them as among the evidence collected.
When asked by defense counsel to clarify what counted as “anarchist propaganda,” Hook said he used that term to describe 4 items – 3 “online privacy… manuals” — one about using a burner phone, one about Virtual Private Networks and one about the Tor Browser).
The 4th evidence item Hook cited as “anarchist propaganda” was as a notebook with handwritten notes that seemed to be from a ‘Know Your Rights’ seminar encouraging radical activists to avoid speaking with police. Hook conceded upon cross-examination that the privacy literature was not “anarchist-specific” and that he didn’t know whose handwriting was on the notebook.
Natalie Burston: “Regarding anarchist propaganda, what’s your history of investigating anarchist groups?”
PA State Trooper Jacob Hook: “This would be my first.”
Despite DA O’Donnell dismissing the RICO charge, Hook continued to insist that an unknown criminal organization was tied to the defendants, because Legere and Mitrano had a support network that they accessed upon arrest.
Hook’s testimony repeated claims from his affidavit that jail phone calls in which the defendants were “promised” bail money actually meant that they had been paid in advance to commit the alleged acts. A portion of a recording of one of Legere’s calls from jail – that Hook referred to as proving this theory – was played in court. On the clip, Legere was heard asking friends for bail money.
Jim Best [Attorney for Celeste Legere]: “None of the [jail phone] recordings of Legere reveal any discussion of crimes or conspiracy to commit crimes?”
State Trooper Jacob Hook: “Legere said bail ‘was $150,000’ and that [she] ‘was already promised $50,000, which means that [she] was promised $50,000 bail before the crime.”
Best: “Would you agree that if someone would have promised to assist Legere in making bail, that’s not a crime?”
Hook: “Someone’s not promised bail money if they’re not gonna commit a crime.”
Trooper Hook also cited the defendants contacting people offering jail support while they were in jail – a routine part of many protest movements – as itself proof of a larger criminal enterprise because “they were talking to people who referred to themselves as jail support and in all my years in law enforcement I’ve never heard anyone described as jail support.” — Hook told the court that he’s been a State Trooper for 5 years.
Northumberland County District Attorney Mike O’Donnell: “Anything of significance that you remember from the phone calls, anything that would make you think this was an organized activity?”
Hook: “they were talking to people who referred to themselves as jail support and in my years in law enforcement I’ve never heard anyone described as jail support.
Natalie Burston [Attorney for Cara Mitrano]: “Listening to the calls, you said you believed there could have been an organization or larger group, could you identify who leads it?”
Hook: “No.”
Burston: “Could you tell if this organization or larger group was part of the jail support calls?”
Hook: “For somebody to be answering the phone as jail support, it has to be part of some larger group.”
Burston: “Did Mitrano reference any crime [on the calls]?”
Hook: “No.”
Burston: “Did she mention bail?”
Hook: “It was brought up.”
Jim Best [Attorney for Celeste Legere]: “None of the recordings of Legere reveal any discussion of crimes or conspiracy to commit crimes?”
Hook: “The clip that the DA referred to… Legere said bail ‘was $150,000’ and that [she] ‘was already promised $50,000’ which means that [she] was promised $50,000 bail before the crime.”
Best: “Would you agree that if someone would have promised to assist Legere in making bail, that’s not a crime?”
Hook: “Someone’s not promised bail money if they’re not gonna commit a crime.”
Hook also described physical evidence that he collected the day after Legere and Mitrano’s arrest. Items found in the Subaru reportedly included headlamps, plastic crowbars, walkie talkies, and a Massachusetts E-ZPass. One smart phone was recovered and analyzed – Hook told the DA “nothing came back from it, I believe their primary phones were not with them.”
The fact that the defendants were driving a borrowed car was also cited by Hook as evidence of a criminal organization – “clearly there’s some kind of network.” Hook said he did contact the owner of the Subaru but did not try to ascertain whether items found in the vehicle belonged to the vehicle’s owner or the defendants.
Hook also testified that accessing the car’s navigation computer turned up an “address of interest” – one of the collective houses in Massachusetts where the defendants have lived. Legere and Mitrano’s bond hearing in November featured DA O’Donnell demanding to know the names and political affiliations of people living at collective houses the defendants resided at, and insisted on sensationally referring to the homes with several roommates as “anarchist compounds.”
After hearing from the four prosecution witnesses, the hearing quickly wrapped up after some exhibits were officially entered into evidence. The defense didn’t call any witnesses. Both sides have 30 days to file briefs and a ruling by Judge Paige Rosini on the defense’s motion is expected, roughly, sometime in the next two months. Judge Rosini’s ruling could in theory throw out the case entirely, or allow it to continue with the same list of charges or with some of the charges thrown out for lack of evidence.
“Be scared – that’s the message the prosecution wants to send,” attorney Carraway told Unicorn Riot. “They’re going to call someone who’s accused of a nonviolent act a terrorist to scare people away from activism in general. The message people should take away from this is to have tenacity and know that there is support for people going through the criminal process, and to not be scared.”
Submission
Coasting off our excitement about autonomous self-organization, on the night of July 22nd we painted over all four cameras at Malcolm X Park. We want the park to stay the kind of place where people can meet and hang out without being surveilled, that’s why we took the game of Camover there. We’re holding in our hearts two people who have been accused of attacking ICE and policing and who were recently captured after being on the run, Jahki and Benjamin Song.
Solidarity with everyone fighting ICE and police!
from Unicorn Riot
Philadelphia, PA — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) District Council 33 (DC 33), the city’s largest blue-collar union, launched a historic strike earlier this month, halting sanitation services on a scale not seen since 1986. Despite the pro-union image Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker wishes to project, legal injunctions were used to force many city employees back to work – creating pressure to end the strike.
“The city was trying to pick us apart with injunctions all over the place,” requiring water department employees, 911 dispatchers, and city medical examiners to return to work immediately, DC 33 President Greg Boulware explained in a recent interview.
After reports of alleged sabotage and confrontations with scabs (non-union workers hired to replace strikers), another court order demanded a stop to “unlawful activity” at picket lines, but included additional stipulations such as limiting pickets to 8 workers and requiring pickets to stay 10 feet away from entrances. With weaponized judicial pressure mounting, on the early morning of July 9, DC 33 reached a tentative three-year agreement with the city of Philadelphia that ended the eight-day strike.
“You can’t claim to be pro-labor, pro-union, pro-worker and then not make steps to do things that would change the economic status to do things,” said Boulware.
“The Mayor also tried to connect the housing initiative [a public benefit designed for ‘low-wage workers, under-employed or unemployed, municipal and union workers…’] to our membership, which had nothing to do with it at all. If you have a program in place try to get poor folks into housing, once they’re in that housing they have to afford to live in that housing…”
DC 33 President Greg Boulware
Sanitation workers in Philadelphia earn the lowest salary of any major city in the US. According to the MIT living wage calculator, the current average salary of a DC 33 member is more than $2,000 below the wage needed for a single adult without children to live in the city. For a family with one child, the living wage gap nearly doubles. One worker on the picket line said she couldn’t afford to buy diapers on her current salary. Depending on family size, the average city worker may be eligible for public assistance.
As garbage collection returns to its regular schedule this week, DC 33 members have until Sunday, July 20, to vote to accept the new agreement, or reject it – which may lead to a second strike authorization process. Many striking workers demanded no less than a 5% increase in their current pay, down from the 8% annual increase DC 33 initially proposed in negotiations. The tentative agreement only offers a 3% increase year-over-year, not far from the city’s original offer that led to the strike in the first place. The union vote will be announced on Monday, July 21.
Despite the anti-union tactics and lawfare by the city, many strikers stood true to their purpose of trying to win better economic treatment on the picket line. Unicorn Riot was able to speak with one DC 33 ‘Strike Captain,’ an unofficial point person informally designated by the union, about where things are potentially headed and how the strike went down. This interview was conducted on the condition of anonymity and represents their individual perspective and experience.
Unicorn Riot: How did DC 33 union members react to the announcement of the tentative agreement reached with Mayor Parker’s administration to end the strike, considering the terms were far below many of the strikers’ demands?
Anonymous DC 33 Worker: A lot of people are like, “What happened in there?” Because from a lot of picket lines it looked like we were doing OK. People could see the rotting trash getting worse and the understanding was that with more time, we had more leverage.
Even though people were missing paychecks, what I’ve heard from coworkers across the board is that if we were already striking, we should’ve waited longer. They don’t really understand what happened.
I don’t hear a lot of talk that [DC 33 President] Greg Boulware sold us out or anything. I have heard people say it’s suspicious that the AFSCME national President [Lee Saunders] sat down at the table with them the day that we folded.
I’ve heard that we should’ve struck for longer. People just don’t really understand how we went from guns blazing to folding immediately.
There’s a lot of questions about what a ‘No’ vote would look like. It’s hard, because the issue is that things are not really structurally coordinated, so even the idea that we would purposely try to track like, “OK, here’s our membership and let’s try to talk to everybody about whether they’re asking to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ or just to get out the vote” is not intuitive, I’m finding, even though it’s like, to me, kind of what labor organizing is.
At this point, enough [DC 33 members] are individually pissed that the majority of the people who show up might vote ‘No.’ The majority of the people who show up probably won’t be a majority of the union. So if the issue is that people weren’t showing up to strike, having a majority of a minority vote ‘No’ doesn’t solve that problem. The way I’m talking about it with people is, you certainly should vote to show that people are engaged in the union on this.
I’m personally not in support of any kind of coordinated “Vote No” campaign unless it has an ask associated with it. If we wanna do a coordinated “vote ‘No’ until we see this very specific possibly winnable clause added,” then that would be one thing. But I’m wary of the idea of “just vote no,” because I think our leadership tried to get the best they could. Like, I do kind of believe that Greg Boulware got the best he could under the circumstances from where he was sitting and could see everything. So I hesitate to be like, yeah, vote no and that will suddenly mean we have all this leverage. If it wasn’t there, it wasn’t there.
There’s a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about what things trigger what actions. A lot of people saw the letter saying that the [DC 33] local Presidents, the executive board, had voted to send this Tentative Agreement to the membership. And they were like, “oh, do we not get to vote then?” And it’s like no, that’s who voted to end the strike, that’s not the vote [to ratify the tentative agreement].
UR: The tentative agreement (TA) isn’t ratified until you all vote, right?
DC 33 Worker: Yeah, but a lot of folks just saw that and thought, “oh, every local voted and so that’s done now.” So there’s a lot of talking to people about that. I’m not saying they don’t understand, but they are not receiving any information about how this stuff works.
UR: One thing that was somewhat unique about this strike was the amount of intersectional movement support that we don’t always see with Philly unions. For instance, the Sunrise Movement staging a sit-in at City Hall supporting the workers’ demands is not something we typically see in other municipal services or other strikes in Philadelphia. Why do you think that is?
DC 33 Worker: Municipal strikes, and public sector strikes in general, depend upon public opinion. We could’ve done more with public opinion. Ideally there would’ve been more flyering, more encouraging people to co-worker-organize themselves by talking to their own social networks and getting their churches and community groups on board with the strike.
DC 33 Worker: I appreciate that community groups with less organic connections to us stepped up to do tactics that the union technically could not do. I can’t do certain behaviors without risking getting my own picket line and all the picket lines further injunctioned. But if the people of Philadelphia feel so inclined, then that’s their business.
UR: How do you see the DC 33 strike within the larger context of racial injustice, extreme poverty, and economic inequality in Philadelphia?
DC 33 Worker: One of the reasons we were able to come out with the force that we did – even while some chunks of the union did not have the same level of organization as others – is that historically DC 33 workers don’t make enough money to send their kids to college, and so the best jobs they can get are in DC 33, so there are these tight inter-generational networks within DC 33.
DC 33 Worker: It’s hard to live in Philly for more than a few years and not know somebody in DC 33, or be related to someone in DC 33 in some way. That’s one of the reasons there was such a staunch “we do not cross picket lines” feeling inside the union and in the city going into this.
I see a lot of people online saying, “oh, they folded because people are running out of money.” But people in a tough financial situation are often still sharp enough in their political development to understand when something is worth their while even if it’s going to cost something in the short term. I didn’t hear of anybody crossing [a picket line] because they were running out of money and thought that they financially needed to scab.
UR: Other than the injunctions and the city bringing in scabs (non-union workers) to do strikers’ jobs, what challenges did you see facing the strike?
DC 33 Worker: The biggest thing would be the chunk of [union] people who decided to stay home instead of show up and picket, we’re more concerned about that than people who potentially crossed [a picket line]. But that’s a question of, like, how do you build power in unions in between strikes? That was never gonna just come together.
UR: Moving forward, what you said about, if people decide to vote ‘No’ there should be a specific demand, what do you see happening? Does it sound like people would overwhelmingly vote ‘No,’ or does it sound mixed?
DC 33 Worker: I haven’t talked to anybody who is thrilled about this and wants to vote ‘Yes.’ I hear people who are not convinced a ‘No’ vote would do anything and so may not show up or may show up and vote ‘Yes’. I’m not hearing people who feel good about this or are excited about this.
DC 33 Worker: I don’t think – short of having a second historic strike – that we’re gonna come out with a drastically different contract than we have now, even with a ‘No’ vote. If there’s any internal organizing that happens, I would hope that it would be responsible about inoculating people about what is and isn’t possible from here, so that people don’t get even more disappointed with things. More than anything, we don’t want people to swear off union politics for good. That’s not going to get us the contract that we want next time.
So I’m concerned about that when people talk about ‘No’ campaigns. But when it comes to individuals voting, I’m gonna vote ‘No’ because I was very specific with myself and my coworkers about what our red lines were, what contract am I out here fighting for? I personally really wanted to see the lower wage classes abolished. Out of the things in our original proposal, that was something that was financially not that expensive to do and would have raised the bottom, which is what I was out there for.
DC 33 Worker: But I do think that long-term, that kind of “every individual decide to show up and vote if you want to” attitude is not gonna be sufficient for building rank-and-file power that can win a strike like this. I’m not confident that the number of people who show up and vote at all – ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ – will be any kind of majority of the union. If you get a minority of the union to show up and vote ‘No’ and that ‘No’ vote wins, that doesn’t mean that the power is there to execute a second strike.
There’s a good chance that the people who decide to show up in person to the union hall and vote at all will be the kind of people who want to vote ‘No.’ But I’m not sure what that will mean for the negotiation table that Greg Boulware and the [DC 33 Executive Board] will be returning to.
UR: Does a ‘No’ vote automatically mean the strike is back on?
DC 33 Worker: No. Just because there’s a ‘No’ vote, it doesn’t mean we go back on strike. Our strike vote that authorized the strike we just had is still in play. We wouldn’t have to re-authorize a strike. But just because we say no to this contract doesn’t automatically mean we will be on strike, in the same way that anytime they’re in the negotiating room, it doesn’t mean we are automatically on strike.
The union [leadership] would still have to authorize the second strike. [If they did], that forces everyone back to the negotiating table. And maybe the threat of striking again is something that’s in play. Certainly the membership would have a couple more paychecks to get us through – I’m at work right now getting paid – and by then I don’t think the entire backlog of problems on the streets, with all the streetlights out, will be cleaned up.
DC 33 Worker: So it’s not like we’ll be starting from scratch. It really depends on who shows up to vote, but if a low enough percentage of people show up to vote, that goes to show that people are probably not gonna be ready to strike a second time.
That’s all hypothetical. I personally think what will happen is a smaller percentage of the union will show up to vote, and those folks will be close to a ‘No’ if not definitely a ‘No.’ And that’ll be that and they’ll have to go back [to the table], but the leverage in that situation is a little unclear compared to the last time, other than the Mayor having the option to say, “OK, I have to give DC 33 something that the membership will ratify.” It’s not clear what those concessions would look like.
We might have gotten all that we can get. I personally think we could’ve struck longer and it would be a different situation.
UR: You said that DC 33 President Greg Boulware probably got the best deal possible given the circumstances. Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker used the judiciary to essentially nullify workers’ right to strike by asking judges to order the water department and the 911 dispatchers back to work really quickly. And then after 8 days, bringing the sanitation workers back with an injunction, or the threat of it, seemed to act as leverage for the city to use to stop the strike, which is a pretty stark contrast to the last strike in 1986 where it took 20 days for the city to bring that injunction.
UR: Can the union use the law to defend the right to strike? It seemed like they were stuck between a rock and a hard place, overpowered by the local judiciary. Do you have any insight into all that?
DC 33 Worker:
I don’t think that there is a legal framework to have rebuffed those [injunctions] in the course they ended up in, but I don’t understand why they didn’t have more of a plan for preempting and responding to those injunctions when they happened.
It’s true that once we strike, the injunctions are coming. It’s also true that, well, it’s not like I show up to work having been injunctioned ready to pick up maggots off the street doing my best job with a historically gigantic backlog, you know. Even injunctioned workers can do work slowdowns. There’s still all these levers that are available. Even if certain people get injunctioned, there’s still plenty of ways to continue to strike. Most unions that strike at this point are not doing true work stoppage strikes the way that we did, so there is a whole playbook there.
I think the fact that they were not prepared with a game plan for those injunctions speaks to how ill-prepared they were to strike.
Given the circumstances, they maybe did get the best contract they could. But the circumstances were that they started planning for that strike a week before it happened. I know this as a rank-and-file member who was ready to step up and strike. I had been asking for six months, “can we please start making a plan for these pickets in case we need them?” and I did not get the go-ahead or the assignment that I even would be a strike captain, or where my location would be, until the Thursday before the Tuesday that we struck.
So if there’s a criticism of the union, I hesitate to locate it in the negotiation room. A lot of newer folks have found it really difficult to get any information or to participate at all. I’ve been really blocked in a lot of ways in my local.
I think it means something that the Presidents on the [DC 33 Executive Board] who did try to vote ‘No’ on this contract are the Presidents of the locals that have larger participation and have been planning for this for months and were ready to go last year when we almost struck. It’s not a coincidence that the [DC 33 local] Presidents who voted to stop the strike were the ones who didn’t prep for it in any meaningful way.
That’s why I feel that under the circumstances, it was an excellent strike for having been kinda seat of the pants. I’m not sure that they could’ve gotten more given the circumstances.
UR: I did see in an interview with DC 33 President Greg Boulware that he said the Water Department injunction came out like 30 seconds after the call to strike. It seemed that the Mayor’s administration was already prepared and aligned, coordinated with the local judiciary to get that out right away?
DC 33 Worker: Yeah, and [DC 33] should’ve internally had a contingency plan for that. When we started talking about striking a year ago, there should’ve been a plan for “OK, when the injunction happens, how do we behave?” If you had a base of strikers trying to strike, who understood how to respond to those situations that were basically inevitable (even in ’86 they did get an injunction eventually), you have to have a plan for what to do when that happens. It’s obvious that there’s gonna be some injunction at some point. The plan couldn’t have been to just fold as soon as it happened and let the Mayor dictate the timeline for that.
UR: Another union member shared an image from the city that seemed to say shouting at scabs wasn’t allowed, as part of the injunction?
DC 33 Worker: Yeah, I saw that image too. They sent it out, but I simply disagree, and luckily I am in a union. So if they try any kind of disciplinary action towards the strikers, I mean, I know a girl who threw a hot bowl of soup at her boss and she didn’t get fired. Obviously striking is different and there’s political reasons to come after us, but I’m pretty confident I’ll be OK.
DC 33 is really good at this 1980s to early 2000s union mindset of “holding onto what we’ve got.” That includes not letting anybody get fired – we will not let ANYONE get fired. They’re very good at holding onto shops that are organized, but they’re not necessarily noticing when things get contracted out to nonprofits or whatever.
That post-Reagan defensive mindset was necessary to survive the general dismantling of organized labor in this country. One new thing we’ve learned in the last months is that now there is energy for a more offensive approach.
UR: It seemed that, at least in the beginning, there were a lot of things outside the scope of what would be legally tolerated in a strike, people kind of pushing the envelope on their own, not under union guidance, working to hold the line at pickets in whatever way they could.
DC 33 Worker: Totally. And I think that’s a really beautiful thing about this strike. Even though it has gone the way it has gone, what we need in the labor movement is these big swings for the fences. And even if it means that when we threaten to strike next contract, both sides have a clear idea of what kind of power was available this time, there is something nice about knowing just what that looks like when we make decisions going forward. I hope that it doesn’t cause us to be more conservative in the future towards striking.
UR: There’s a lot of militancy in the origin story of the AFSCME chapter in Philadelphia starting with 222 and then eventually, after the huge garbage riots in 1938, DC 33 later became formalized. Do you see any parallels between past and present Philly garbage strikes?
DC 33 Worker: It’s complex. I wish it was a little bit simpler. I also wish that [union leadership] would’ve communicated to us that it was hitting the fan [in negotiations with the city] the night before it did.
There are plenty of escalations that members would’ve been willing to take on as it was hitting the fan, had they communicated that to us in any way. Not that we wanted them to come out and say “hey, it’s going really badly” and demoralize everybody. But there’s a way to say, “hey, here’s how it’s going in there, let’s ramp up a little.”
DC 33 Worker: This is my last thought about all this: when we had our strike captains meeting a couple weeks before the strike, they brought in a guy and they said this guy was working for DC 33 last time that we struck, in ’86, and he’s been holding out on retiring because he knows we’re due for a strike again.
He was so cool to hear from. It really did ground the whole room in what we were about to do. And if in the next 10 years they wanna strike again, they now have thousands and thousands of people who can play the role that that man played. The fact that people know what it’s like and know how to do it and know what brand of megaphone they wanna have and how to set up a tent in two minutes flat, that’s the kind of stuff that you only learn by doing it. That’s why I hope that this doesn’t cause a pendulum to swing where they’re much less likely to strike for another 50 years, because it’s so rare to have a union that has this many people with eight days’ strike experience.
He said something along the lines of, “I didn’t retire until this moment because I wanted to strike again” and that he had a positive experience of it. This meant we were all going into it not feeling like, “aw man, now we have to strike…” but rather, “hey, now is this moment that you get to exert power that you hold every day, but you very rarely get to make visible.” It amped people up that he had struck and had a positive attitude towards the idea of doing it again. I feel excited that there are now thousands of people who have that same experience.
