The Amer­i­can Red Cross in Philadel­phia, PA, is accus­ing a local union, Team­sters Local 929, of block­ing a blood deliv­ery to a two-year-old girl, whose life depended on the blood deliv­ery.  Accord­ing to the arti­cle, the union mem­bers refused to move until they were told about the girl.  As a result the Red Cross got an injunc­tion against the union so they would stop inter­fer­ing with blood deliv­er­ies to hos­pi­tals.  The union went on strike Decem­ber 3 after a fail­ure to nego­ti­ate a new contract.

The rea­son for the strike?  Accord­ing to the union, unfair labor prac­tices and pay.  But, accord­ing to the Red Cross, there have been no unsafe labor prac­tice com­plaints by the Team­sters Union. The court that awarded the injunc­tion agreed with the Red Cross. 

The Red Cross is struggling, like other orga­ni­za­tios, through the eco­nomic slump.  As a result,  non-union work­ers are under a pay freeze until June 30, 2010.  This has been a major con­tention dur­ing the con­tract nego­ti­a­tion, and the union refuses to agree to a pay freeze.

“We are sim­ply ask­ing union employ­ees to make the same sac­ri­fices that their non-union col­leagues have already made,” said Anthony Tor­netta, Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Man­ager for the Red Cross Penn-Jersey Blood Region. “Their refusal to do so remains a sig­nif­i­cant issue in these negotiations.”

The union work­ers are cov­ered both by the Inter­na­tional Broth­er­hood of  Team­sters and the SEIU, and being encour­aged to strike by the orga­ni­za­tion Change to Win.  Their mantra?  They will not stop “until every man, woman and child has qual­ity, afford­able care they can count on”.

Change you can believe in.