Workers at the Philadelphia Museum of Art have authorized a strike. What does that mean?

On Tuesday evening, members of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s employee union, which represents more than half of the museum’s roughly 350 total employees from across most, if not all, museum departments, voted “overwhelmingly” to authorize a strike, according to union leaders.

The vote came almost exactly two years after the nascent union, which was formed in August of 2020, sat down at the bargaining table with museum management to hammer out a maiden contract.

Union leaders have increasingly complained that the museum has not been bargaining in “good faith.” In fact, on Aug. 26, the union filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board citing eight instances of alleged unfair labor practices, violations of NLRB regulations. Such formal grievances typically take the NLRB months to adjudicate.

A spokesperson for the museum said that the filing of the grievance was a “disappointment,” and that the museum has been bargaining “in good faith” and will continue to do so.

In the meantime, two business days after the NLRB filing, the union had its strike-authorization vote. Leaders said more than 100 members attended the meeting (out of roughly 180 members in the union), more than any previous union meeting. The strike-authorization vote was unanimous, with one abstention, union officials said, adding that membership appeared “fired up” by the charges lodged with the NLRB.

What does it all mean? Here are some basic questions and answers, offered by participants and observers with the understanding that labor relations can be volatile, evolving, and even resolving quickly.

Tuesday’s authorization vote does not mean that workers are going to walk off the job. It gives the union leadership the authority to call a strike should that be deemed necessary. No strike is imminent, according to union leaders, and talks with the museum continue.

PMA officials would not say whether the museum will try to remain open should workers walk off the job. Union members are drawn from virtually every department in the museum — education, curatorial, conservation, clerical, visitor services, retail, etc. It is unclear whether all departments would retain enough staffing to remain open, should the museum go that route, or if some would close for the duration of any work stoppage because of inadequate staffing.

It is also unclear what impact a strike with attendant picketing might have on museum visitors. Would other workers cross the picket lines? Would there be picket lines? Union leaders and museum management say they are wrestling with these issues independently right now.

Meanwhile, food and security services are contracted to outside companies; it is uncertain how those companies might handle a strike. (Security personnel affiliated with AlliedBarton are unionized.)

Perhaps most significant is how other art institutions with lending agreements with the museum would address a strike. Most such agreements bear detailed art-handling protocols and insurance requirements; it is uncertain how a strike, particularly one with picket lines, might affect those loan agreements.

Union leaders say the museum is replacing permanent staffers who either quit or were laid off early in the coronavirus pandemic with temps or short-term employees. This has emerged as a roadblock in contract talks, and the union contends it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The museum has not responded directly to this allegation except to say that it will be responding to the union’s NLRB filing in the future.

Workers are also unhappy with the economic package offered by the museum, which they say keeps salaries and benefits below levels found at “peer institutions.”

Adam Rizzo, president of the union, which is affiliated with AFSCME DC Local 47, said the museum has offered inadequate wage increases, paid parental leave, and “no improvements” to health care. Beyond that, he says that museum management is mischaracterizing the state of the negotiations in internal staff communications.

Rizzo says there is “no impasse” in the negotiations and that the union is continuing to make proposals and continuing to sit at the bargaining table.

Labor and management have already reached agreement on 25 separate issues, the spokesperson said, and are continuing to talk. The next bargaining session will be next week. The museum’s bargaining team consists of the Philadelphia-based law firm of Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius working with a management group led by William Petersen, now the museum’s chief operating officer, and Albert Suh, the museum’s general counsel.

They are, at least in part, awaiting the arrival of the new head of the museum, Sasha Suda, former head of the National Gallery of Canada, a union shop. She starts her new job Sept. 21.

In the meantime the museum issued an official statement Thursday afternoon: “The museum is committed to reaching a fair and appropriate contract with the union, and we hope that the union shares our commitment to continue making progress together in the negotiations. If the union decides to strike, we will remain focused on serving our community.”