This is part of a series on nonviolent protest methods, which explains approaches and provides inspirational examples from history. For additional resources, please explore the Museum of Protest’s activist guides and view items in the collection.

A selective strike is a deliberately limited strike that targets only certain workers, departments, locations, or days rather than a full, open-ended work stoppage.

Unlike a general strike (where all workers in an industry or region stop work), a selective strike might involve only key segments of the workforce or intermittent stoppages.

A selective strike creates an “unpredictable environment” for the opponent. The management or authority faces uncertainty because they never know exactly who will strike, when, or where. Meanwhile, the majority of workers may stay on the job, and only a small group is on strike at any given time.

This approach offers multiple advantages: it concentrates the strike’s impact on critical bottlenecks, it conserves the strikers’ resources, and it can often catch the opponent off guard.

How Selective Strikes Work and Why They’re Effective

Selective strikes are used as a strategic tool in labor and protest movements. To implement them effectively, organizers typically focus on several key factors. Below are some of the most important elements that contribute to the success of a selective strike:

Target Critical Operations: The power of a selective strike comes from choosing targets that cause maximum disruption to the employer or system. Rather than shutting down everything, strikers halt work at the most crucial points – for example, a plant making a company’s most profitable product, or a service node that the whole network relies on. By “stressing specific parts of a shop, supply chain, or work schedule”, a small number of people can bring a much larger operation to a halt. This strategy was noted as a new tactic in modern labor disputes: selective strikes “target the sites that will cause the company the greatest economic harm”. Hitting these chokepoints means the impact on the adversary is high even though relatively few workers are on strike.

Maintain Strategic Ambiguity (Unpredictability): Uncertainty is a crucial weapon in a selective strike. Organizers often keep the strike plans flexible and secret, so that management cannot prepare effectively. The strike may be called without warning, or rotated unpredictably among different groups. This strategic ambiguity keeps the opponent off-balance. As one guide notes, “the bosses don’t know which workers, when, or sometimes even how the strike actions may occur”, which forces management to react defensively while workers hold the initiative. For example, striking intermittently (stopping work one day, returning the next) or moving the strike to different locations in succession can make it nearly impossible for the employer to bring in replacements or adapt, since the strike’s location and timing are always changing. This unpredictability can also draw more media attention to the workers’ cause, since observers must stay alert for new developments.

Build Public Sympathy: Selective strikes can be calibrated to minimize harm to the general public or consumers, which helps maintain public support for the protest. By limiting the disruption to only what’s necessary (for instance, keeping essential services running or not completely shutting down an industry), strikers can demonstrate that they are acting responsibly and reasonably. This makes it easier for bystanders, customers, or the community to sympathize with the strikers’ grievances. Labor experts point out that “selective strikes can garner more public sympathy and support if the union can demonstrate that the grievances are reasonable, and that they are not causing excessive disruption to the economy”. In other words, people are more likely to back the strike if they see that the strikers chose a careful approach aimed at the employer or authority, rather than a blanket stoppage that inconveniences everyone. Public sympathy can translate into pressure on the target (through public opinion or political support) to negotiate and meet the strikers’ demands.

Limit Financial Risks for Strikers: Because a selective strike only pulls some workers off the job at any given time, it reduces the financial strain on those involved. In a normal strike, all participants forgo their wages (often with only modest strike pay from the union, if available). But in a selective strike, many workers continue earning their paycheck while only the designated group is on strike. This means the union’s strike fund is only paying a fraction of workers, allowing those funds to last longer. For example, during a 2023 U.S. auto workers’ strike, analysts noted the union had limited strike funds (enough to pay all members for about 11 weeks), so by striking only certain plants the union could stretch its resources and avoid exhausting the fund too quickly. Non-striking workers can also support their striking colleagues by maintaining some production (putting ongoing pressure on the employer) or by preparing to join the strike later. This rotational approach minimizes hardship for individual workers and their families, since many remain employed under an expired contract while the fight is ongoing. All of this strengthens the strikers’ staying power in a prolonged dispute.

A selective strike is surgical in its impact: it targets vital nerves of the economy or organization, uses timing and surprise as force multipliers, wins hearts and minds by appearing measured, and preserves the protestors’ stamina by limiting sacrifice. These advantages make it a potent form of economic noncooperation when executed well.

Notable Historical Examples of Selective Strikes

Selective strikes have been used in various struggles around the world, by different groups of workers and protesters, to significant effect. Below are several notable historical examples (across different regions and time periods) where a selective or restricted strike made a measurable or symbolic impact. Each example illustrates how this tactic can be adapted to different contexts while employing the principles described above:

Chile Truck Owners’ Strike (1972) – In October 1972, Chile’s truck owners (supported by other business groups) launched a targeted strike in the transportation sector. Rather than a general labor uprising, this was a strike by one crucial group: truck drivers and trucking companies, who were protesting the socialist government of Salvador Allende. Because Chile’s economy depended heavily on truck transport (with limited alternatives like rail), this selective stoppage effectively paralyzed the nation’s supply lines. The strike lasted over a month and spread as other sympathetic sectors (shopkeepers, professionals, and others in the middle class) joined in, creating a nationwide crisis. The impact was dramatic: shortages of goods, halted commerce, and intense pressure on the government. President Allende was forced to take emergency measures – including bringing military officers into his cabinet – to keep essential services running and to negotiate an end to the strike. Ultimately, the 1972 truckers’ strike dealt a serious blow to Chile’s economy and governance, showing how a selectively applied strike in a critical industry could have outsized political and economic effects. (It’s worth noting that this strike, while nonviolent, was politically charged and supported by Allende’s opponents, illustrating that the tactic itself is politically neutral – it can be used by any side to exert pressure.)

Iranian Oil Workers’ Strike (1978) – During the lead-up to the Iranian Revolution, the country witnessed a series of escalating protests and work stoppages against the Shah’s regime. One of the most impactful selective strikes occurred in the oil industry in the fall of 1978. Iran’s oil workers began striking in October that year, initially as part of a wave of anti-government strikes. On October 31, 1978, the oil sector strike reached its peak – oil workers went on strike and brought Iran’s oil production to a halt. This was highly significant because oil exports were the economic lifeblood of the Iranian government. By targeting the oil industry, the strikers effectively choked off the regime’s main source of revenue at a critical moment. The selective strike by tens of thousands of oil workers helped cripple the economy and demonstrated nationwide support for the revolution. The disruption added immense pressure on the Shah’s government without the need for a complete general strike by all sectors. In conjunction with mass demonstrations in the streets, the oil workers’ action hastened the collapse of the monarchy – the Shah was forced to flee Iran in January 1979, only months after the oil strike began. This example shows how a focused strike in a key national industry can have a powerful symbolic and practical impact in a broader political movement.

Pennsylvania Teachers’ “On-and-Off” Strike (1991) – In September 1991, public school teachers in the Bethlehem Area School District in Pennsylvania, USA, carried out a very strategic selective strike during their contract dispute. Instead of an indefinite walkout, the teachers adopted an intermittent schedule: they walked the picket line on some days and taught on other days in a deliberately irregular pattern. For example, the Bethlehem teachers taught for two days at the start of the school year, then struck (did not work) on the next two days (Monday and Tuesday), returned to work on Wednesday, struck again on Thursday, and went back to work on Friday. Crucially, the school district administration was only informed late each night whether the teachers would work or strike the following day. This day-to-day uncertainty made it impossible for the school district to hire substitute teachers (“scabs,” or replacement workers) to cover the classes, since no one knew when a strike day would occur. It also meant school administrators had to scramble – on strike days, principals and other officials (some of whom hadn’t taught in years) were forced to fill in classrooms, while on work days the regular teachers were back. The selective strike caused significant disruption to the district’s routine and put pressure on the school board to negotiate, yet the teachers still maintained partial instruction on the days they worked, which helped avoid a total shutdown of schooling. The tactic was so effective in giving the union leverage that it drew wider attention – in fact, Pennsylvania’s state legislature quickly introduced bills to ban selective striking by teachers after seeing the Bethlehem example’s impact. The Bethlehem teachers eventually settled their contract after demonstrating their power through this method, all while keeping much of the public on their side by not abandoning students for an extended period, only sporadic days.

Flight Attendants’ “CHAOS” Strike at Alaska Airlines (1993) – In 1993, the flight attendants’ union (Association of Flight Attendants, AFA) unveiled a selective strike strategy they cheekily named C.H.A.O.S., standing for “Create Havoc Around Our System.” This occurred during a contract dispute with Alaska Airlines. After legally exhausting other steps (like a required cooling-off period), the AFA launched an unannounced, intermittent strike: a group of just 24 flight attendants suddenly walked off their jobs, selectively targeting seven specific flights on Alaska Airlines without prior warning. The result was indeed chaos for the airline’s operations. Planes were left stranded because crews suddenly went missing, and management had no way to predict which flights would be hit next. Alaska Airlines resorted to desperate measures: they even removed passenger seats from some planes so they could fly with fewer attendants, and they pre-emptively scheduled standby replacement workers on every single flight for weeks, not knowing which might be struck. The small scale of the strike (only two dozen workers actively striking at a time) masked a much larger threat – the union made it clear that any flight could be a target at any time, a huge logistical nightmare for the company. The airline attempted to retaliate (with threats and even suspending some strikers), leading to legal battles. A federal court ultimately ruled in the union’s favor, affirming that intermittent strikes were a lawful tactic under the Railway Labor Act, and ordered the airline to reinstate the flight attendants with back pay. With the legal victory and the ongoing uncertainty of more “CHAOS” disruptions looming, Alaska Airlines finally came back to the table and agreed to a new contract with the flight attendants two weeks later. The AFA’s CHAOS campaign is often cited as a textbook example of a selective strike: by striking a few flights at random, the union “kept management guessing” and exploited the airline’s vulnerabilities, achieving their goals without needing a company-wide walkout.

United Auto Workers’ Stand-Up Strike (2023) – A very recent example of selective strikes comes from the United States in 2023, when the United Auto Workers (UAW) union waged a high-profile strike against the nation’s three major automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis). Rather than calling all 150,000+ members out on strike at once, the UAW employed a “stand-up” strike strategy – essentially a selective strike on a rotating basis across different facilities. The union began in mid-September 2023 by striking at just three key automotive assembly plants (one at each company), which produced some of the companies’ most profitable vehicles. This immediately disrupted the output of popular truck and SUV models, hitting the companies’ revenue where it hurt, while the majority of other auto plants continued to operate. Over the following weeks, the UAW expanded the strike incrementally, announcing additional factories or parts distribution centers to join the strike with little warning, keeping the companies off-balance. For example, after a week, the union called out 38 new sites (all parts distribution centers) with no advance notice, aiming to cripple the supply of repair parts. The companies had to guess which plant might be next, and this uncertainty gave the union considerable bargaining power. Importantly, the selective approach also conserved the UAW’s strike fund and limited strikers’ lost pay – as an economist observed, by striking a few plants at a time, the union “minimized financial hardship for workers” and could sustain the strike longer than if everyone struck at once. Public opinion also largely favored the autoworkers, in part because the targeted strategy underscored that the union was only halting critical production lines rather than completely shutting down the entire auto industry. In the end, the stand-up selective strike strategy proved effective: over roughly six weeks, it pressured all three automakers to negotiate new contracts that delivered significant wage increases and other gains for the workers. The 2023 UAW strike demonstrated how even a massive workforce can leverage selective strikes to win battles step by step – using surprise, focus, and escalation to achieve a broad victory.