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 sympathetic strike – also called a solidarity strike or sympathy strike – is a form of work stoppage in which workers who have no direct grievance against their own employer decide to strike in support of another group of workers.

In other words, employees walk off their jobs to show solidarity with others who are already on strike or facing a dispute. Unlike an ordinary strike (where workers protest their own wages or conditions), a sympathetic strike is an act of unity. This tactic operates on the principle that “an injury to one is an injury to all,” using collective power to amplify pressure on the targeted authorities or company.

Sympathetic strikes can range in scope. Sometimes a single union or industry strikes in sympathy with another. In larger cases, multiple industries or even an entire nation’s workforce may stop work in support of a cause, effectively becoming a general strike. The key feature is that the strikers are not directly involved in the initial dispute – their action is taken purely to support others. This makes sympathetic strikes a powerful tool of nonviolent resistance, withdrawing the cooperation of labor on a broad scale to achieve social or political goals without resorting to violence.

Sympathetic Strikes in Gene Sharp’s Framework

Sympathetic strikes hold a notable place in the canon of nonviolent action. The political scientist Gene Sharp, in his famous list of 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action, identified the sympathetic strike as one specific method of resistance.

By Sharp’s definition, all these strike methods are forms of economic noncooperation, meaning they withdraw economic contribution as a form of pressure. Including sympathetic strikes in a nonviolent resistance framework underscores their strategic value beyond just labor disputes. Sharp and other scholars note that nonviolent protest can succeed by causing disruption and denying support to those in power.

A sympathy strike exemplifies this: workers from across different workplaces unite to deny their labor to an employer or regime, thereby widening the impact of the initial protest. Importantly, it stays nonviolent – the “weapon” is the absence of work, not physical force. This puts the opponent (whether a company or government) in a dilemma: if they do nothing, the economy or services suffer, but if they crack down harshly on peaceful strikers, they risk public sympathy swinging even more toward the strikers’ cause. In short, sympathetic strikes fit neatly into the toolkit of civil resistance as a voluntary, organized refusal to cooperate, leveraging the collective power of workers for social or political change.

How Sympathetic Strikes Work and Why They Matter

Sympathetic strikes can be highly effective, but their success depends on careful strategy and favorable conditions. Here are some key considerations for how this method can be used most effectively:

Broad Solidarity and Impact

The primary strength of a sympathetic strike is its ability to multiply pressure on the target. By joining a strike they aren’t directly involved in, supporting workers dramatically increase the economic and social impact of the protest. For example, if transit workers, dockworkers, and factory workers all walk out in sympathy with striking miners, it can cripple large portions of the economy or city life beyond the original dispute. This united front can force employers or governments to take the strikers’ demands more seriously. The bigger and more widespread the work stoppage, the harder it is to ignore.

Coordination and Organization

Organizing a sympathy strike requires high coordination among different groups. Communication and planning are crucial so that supporting workers know when and how to strike in unison. Often, labor councils or union federations play a role in coordinating actions across industries. Historical cases show that having a central strike committee or agreement helps maintain unity. In the 1919 Seattle general strike, for instance, a workers’ committee coordinated essential services and the timing of the citywide strike. Effective coordination also means setting clear goals and a timetable – sympathetic strikers need to understand what outcome they are supporting (e.g. a negotiated settlement, policy change, etc.) and how long they might be out of work.

Public Support and Perception

Because sympathetic strikes can shut down services that the general public relies on, maintaining public goodwill is important. Strikers often try to demonstrate that their cause is in the public interest or morally right, to prevent backlash. During some large sympathetic strikes, workers have provided minimal services (like hospital staffing or food distribution) to avoid endangering the public and to show responsibility. Nevertheless, there is a risk that opponents will portray a sympathy strike as an unwarranted disruption or even a threat to social order. (For example, in 1919 the Seattle strikers were unfairly accused in the press of trying to “subvert American institutions” in a Bolshevik-style uprising.) Strikers must be prepared to explain their actions to the public as an act of principled support for justice, rather than an attack on the community.

Legal and Social Risks

Engaging in a sympathy strike can carry legal risks. In many jurisdictions, so-called “secondary strikes” or secondary boycotts are restricted or illegal, especially if undertaken by unions. For instance, British law banned sympathy strikes after the General Strike of 1926, and such bans were reinstated in the 1980s; to this day in the UK, most solidarity strike actions by unions are unlawful. In the United States, labor law (the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947) also prohibits unions from organizing secondary strikes or boycotts in many cases. This means that formally joining another union’s strike can expose unions to injunctions or penalties.

Beyond legal issues, sympathetic strikers take on economic risks (losing pay, or even their jobs if the action isn’t protected) and potential political risks (being labeled agitators). Effective use of this method therefore requires weighing these risks and sometimes finding creative ways to show solidarity (such as brief walkouts or “sick-outs”) if full strikes are legally barred. It’s worth noting that despite legal restrictions, spontaneous sympathy strikes still occur – laws may reduce official union-led sympathy strikes, but they can’t entirely stop workers from acting in unison when solidarity is strong.

Strategic Timing and Goals

Timing can make or break a sympathetic strike. Often, solidarity strikes are most effective at a critical moment in the primary strike – for example, when negotiations are at an impasse or when the initial strikers are under threat of being broken. By timing a sympathy strike to coincide with these moments, supporters can maximize leverage.

The goals of a sympathetic strike should also be clearly articulated: Are the sympathy strikers demanding the same outcome as the original strikers (such as better pay for a certain group), or are they broadening the demands (such as calling for a change in government policy)? In some historical cases, what began as a narrow labor dispute escalated into a wider political struggle once sympathetic strikes entered in. Clarity of purpose helps ensure the action stays unified and on message. A well-timed sympathy strike can not only bolster the immediate campaign but also send a wider signal that the labor movement or populace will not remain passive when others are treated unjustly.

In summary, a sympathetic strike is a double-edged sword: it greatly boosts the power of a protest through unity, but it requires solidarity, planning, and often courage in the face of legal or economic consequences. When used thoughtfully, it can be one of the most powerful nonviolent tools available to workers and activists, capable of advancing not just labor rights but broader social and political change.

Historical Examples of Sympathetic Strikes

Throughout modern history, sympathetic strikes have played decisive roles in a variety of movements around the world. Below are several significant examples illustrating how this method has been applied and what it can accomplish (or, in some cases, the challenges it faces):

Britain 1926: A General Strike in Support of Coal Miners

One of the most famous sympathetic strikes was the U.K. General Strike of 1926, which was essentially a nationwide sympathy strike for coal miners. In 1925–1926, Britain’s coal miners were threatened with severe wage cuts and longer hours due to economic troubles in the coal industry. After wage negotiations broke down, the miners were locked out of the mines. In response, the national federation of trade unions (the Trades Union Congress, or TUC) called on workers across many industries to strike in solidarity with the miners.

On May 4, 1926, approximately 1.5 to 1.75 million workers from critical sectors – including transport, printing, steel, and energy – went on strike to support the miners. This massive action aimed to pressure the government and mine owners to halt the wage reductions. It was explicitly a “sympathy strike” by those not directly affected, to support the locked-out miners.

The effect was immediate: much of Britain’s economy and daily life was paralyzed. The government, led by Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, declared a state of emergency and organized volunteers to keep essential services running (for example, middle-class volunteers drove buses and ran trains to break the strike’s impact).

Despite the scale of the solidarity, the strike lasted only nine days. The government stood firm and refused to negotiate until the TUC called off the protest. Facing the possibility of violent confrontation and lacking a clear long-term strategy, the TUC leadership ended the general strike on May 12, 1926. The miners felt betrayed – they held out alone for several months more, but ultimately, by the end of the year, hunger forced them to return to work at the imposed lower wages.

The 1926 sympathy strike thus did not achieve its immediate goal of securing better conditions for the miners; it was a defeat for the unions in the short term. However, the episode had a lasting influence. It demonstrated both the potential and the limits of sympathetic strikes. On one hand, it showed unprecedented worker unity – millions had acted together across industries, which was startling to the establishment. On the other hand, its failure led to backlash: the British government quickly passed the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act of 1927, which outlawed sympathy strikes and mass picketing in the UK. (This ban on solidarity strikes in Britain remained in force for two decades, and even after it was lifted in 1946, later laws in the 1980s would again prohibit most secondary strikes.)

For the labor movement, 1926 was a cautionary tale that while sympathetic strikes can shake a country, they require resolute strategy and broad support to succeed. It remains a landmark example of solidarity: an entire nation’s working class tried to stand together, even though they ultimately could not prevail in that instance.

Germany 1920: General Strike Defends Democracy Against a Coup

Sympathetic strikes have not been confined to labor disputes – they have also been used to achieve high-stakes political objectives. A dramatic example came in Germany in March 1920, when a reactionary coup attempt known as the Kapp Putsch threatened the young Weimar Republic. Wolfgang Kapp and allied army officers seized Berlin in an effort to overthrow the elected government and restore an authoritarian regime.

In a crisis moment, the legitimate government, labor unions, and civil servants all appealed for a general strike to resist the coup. The response was overwhelming: millions of German workers from all sectors downed tools in a nationwide sympathetic general strike in defense of democracy. Within a matter of days, this solidarity strike completely paralyzed the country. Essential services stopped, trains did not run, factories and mines lay idle. Even government bureaucrats refused to obey the coup leaders’ orders. As a result, the Kapp Putsch could not govern or maintain even basic functions. After only four days, the coup collapsed under the pressure of the strike.

The legitimate republican government was able to return to Berlin, and the conspirators fled. Historians note that around 12 million workers participated in this strike across Germany, making it one of the largest general strikes in history up to that time.

This 1920 event is highly significant. It shows a sympathetic strike (in this case, workers striking on behalf of the ousted government and constitution, not for their own wages) literally altering the course of history. Without a shot being fired, German workers used nonviolent mass noncooperation to fend off a right-wing coup d’état. Gene Sharp himself often cited this case as a classic example of successful nonviolent resistance: the strikers withdrew the “pillars of support,” such as labor and bureaucracy, that the coup leaders needed, thus nullifying their power.

The German general strike of 1920 gave a practical demonstration of how collective action and solidarity could defend democratic institutions. Its success carried an inspiring lesson for future generations: even when “powerless” people (workers with no guns or authority) face a military threat, refusing to participate—en masse—can stop would-be dictators in their tracks. This remains one of the clearest victories ever achieved by a sympathetic strike for a political goal.

Poland 1980: Solidarity Strikes Lead to Historic Reforms

In the summer of 1980, a wave of sympathetic strikes in communist Poland not only aided fellow workers but ultimately forced a repressive government to negotiate and recognize new freedoms. It began at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdańsk in August 1980. Shipyard workers, led by electrician Lech Wałęsa, started a strike after an outspoken crane operator, Anna Walentynowicz, was unjustly fired.

The workers’ initial demands were job reinstatements and economic grievances (“bread and butter” issues). After a couple of days, they seemingly won some concessions and were ready to end the strike. But crucially, the women of the shipyard – including Walentynowicz – urged the workers to continue the strike out of solidarity with other workers in Poland who were also striking and had not yet won anything. This moment transformed a single-factory strike into a broader sympathetic movement. The Gdańsk shipyard strike resumed and declared itself a solidarity strike on behalf of other workplaces.

This example of courage inspired a chain reaction. Within days, strikes spread throughout most of Poland. Workers in ports, factories, transportation hubs, and other shipyards up and down the country went on strike in sympathy, all coalescing around a set of common demands. These demands quickly grew beyond local issues to include fundamental rights: the right to form independent unions, freedom of expression, and the release of political prisoners.

Essentially, what started as an ordinary labor dispute evolved into a nationwide civil resistance campaign, with over 700,000 workers participating in strikes by late August 1980. Facing this unprecedented solidarity and a country at a standstill, Poland’s communist government was forced to the negotiating table. The result was the Gdańsk Agreement, signed on August 31, 1980, between the strike leaders and the government. In this accord, the authorities granted the workers’ core demands: the right to establish free, independent trade unions and the legal right to strike, along with greater freedom of speech and other concessions.

This was a stunning breakthrough – it created Solidarność (Solidarity), the first independent labor union in the Soviet Eastern Bloc, and acknowledged rights that had been denied under authoritarian rule. Within a year, Solidarity’s membership swelled to about 10 million people (roughly a third of Poland’s working-age population). The sympathetic strikes of 1980 thus directly advanced both labor and political goals. They secured safer conditions and job rights for Polish workers and also opened the door for broader democratic expression in Poland.

Although the story did not end there (the government imposed martial law in December 1981, temporarily suppressing Solidarity), the genii was out of the bottle. The persistence of the Solidarity movement throughout the 1980s, backed by continued strikes and international pressure, eventually led to free elections in 1989 and the fall of communist rule in Poland. The events of August 1980 are remembered as the “birth of Solidarity” – and it was sympathetic strikes that were the midwife of that birth. This case shows the immense power of worker solidarity: by standing together across enterprises, Polish workers achieved what none could have achieved alone, fundamentally changing their country’s trajectory.

Iran 1978–79: Oil Workers’ Strike in Solidarity with a Revolution

Sympathetic strikes have even played a role in revolutions. During the Iranian Revolution of 1978–79, a series of strikes – especially by oil industry workers – helped topple a long-standing authoritarian regime. In the autumn of 1978, Iran was convulsed by mass protests against the Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. After government troops shot and killed demonstrators in September (in what became known as “Black Friday”), opposition to the Shah intensified.

It wasn’t only street protests; soon, workers across Iran began to strike in solidarity with the anti-regime movement. Government employees walked out, and most fatefully, on October 31, 1978, the oil sector workers went on strike, bringing Iran’s oil production to a halt. This oil strike was essentially a sympathy strike in support of the political protesters, since the oil workers’ primary aim was not higher wages for themselves but to undermine the Shah’s regime.

Oil was the economic lifeblood of Iran – its main export and source of government revenue. Shutting it down put enormous pressure on the authorities. The strike quickly spread; workers in other key industries (electricity, transportation, banks, newspapers, etc.) and bazaars joined in stoppages. By late 1978, Iran was experiencing a de facto general strike that cut across many sectors, paralyzing the economy and state functions in solidarity with the revolution.

The effects were dramatic. With millions striking or protesting, the Shah’s government found itself unable to function. In January 1979, the Shah fled the country for “vacation” and never returned. His departure was followed by the collapse of the royal regime in February 1979 when revolutionary forces took power. The oil workers’ strike is widely credited as a crucial factor in the Shah’s downfall. One historical account notes that it was the biggest labor action in Iran since 1946 and that “the general strike of 1978–79 helped topple the Shah’s regime.”

In essence, the solidarity of the working class with the opposition – expressed through nonviolent action of refusing to work – sapped the regime’s strength at a critical moment. This example highlights strategic considerations for sympathetic strikes. The Iranian oil workers understood that by standing with the broader movement (rather than remaining neutral or continuing production), they could leverage enormous influence over political events. It was a risky stance – some strikers were arrested and there was the threat of military force – but their unity provided protection in numbers.

The success of the strike showed how industrial workers can become a powerful force for political change when they use their economic clout in solidarity with a popular cause. Iran’s case also underlines that sympathetic strikes need not be limited to labor-versus-management issues; they can directly challenge an entire regime by denying it the labor and revenue it needs to survive. While the 1979 Iranian Revolution eventually led to a different kind of authoritarian government, the role of the strikes in ousting the Shah remains a striking example of nonviolent collective power.

These cases from Britain, Germany, Poland, and Iran are just a few illustrations of sympathetic strikes in action. There have been many other instances around the world, such as the 1919 Seattle General Strike in the U.S. (when 65,000 workers shut down a city for five days in support of shipyard laborers), the May 1968 general strike in France (where students’ protests sparked ten million workers to strike in solidarity, nearly bringing down the government), and numerous anti-apartheid “stay-aways” in South Africa during the 1980s (mass general strikes by black workers to support the freedom movement). Each example has its unique context, but all share the common thread of people stepping beyond their immediate self-interest to support a greater cause through the withdrawal of their labor.