A Hypothetical Question

Suppose a city's transit system goes out on strike [SEPTA]. During the strike, a catastrophe occurs [natural disaster, terrorist attack, accident at a chemical plant releasing toxic substances], and the transit union leader REFUSES to send his men back to work after a plea from the Mayor or the Governor to go back. What would happen?

Would the union face severe retribution?

Would there be an emergency takeover of the system [either by the State or Federal Gov't], and the workers forced back [or they would lose their jobs]?

Would state laws be changed in the aftermath to prevent this from occurring again?

That's a good question. I think in light of a disaster, SEPTA workers would return to work under the terms of the now expired contract. Furthermore, a contract requires at least two parties, in this case SEPTA and the TWU. What about SEPTA's culpability in the situation? What if, hypothetically, the governor or the mayor urged SEPTA to allow the workers to return to work under the terms of the previous contract and SEPTA played hardball and refused? I don't think the majority of TWU workers is actually looking forward to not being paid and their health coverage being suspended for the duration of a protracted strike. Both sides would play hardball in my opinion, I don't think its justified to expect the workers to just 'suck it up' and 'take one for the team' and not expect SEPTA to do the same. After all, SEPTA is funded primarily with PUBLIC MONEY.

I honestly doubt that the workers would refuse. People strike because they're getting screwed. They don't want to hurt commuters, and I'm sure in the time of a disaster, they certainly wouldn't want deaths on their hands if they refused to work. I know I wouldn't.