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 workmen’s boycott is a form of economic noncooperation in which workers collectively refuse to handle or work with certain materials, goods, or services.

Workers do their jobs as usual except for one critical choice: they stop dealing with specific products or work assignments that they consider unjust. A workmen’s boycott involves a refusal by workers to use or touch supplies or tools “which have been manufactured under conditions objectionable to organized labor and whose continued manufacture is interpreted by such labor as constituting a menace to its welfare,” as noted on bmartin.cc.

This tactic has been used against many targets over time, from prison-made products and sweatshop goods to materials produced by companies with anti-labor practices, as discussed on Reddit. By withholding their labor in a focused way, workers can put economic pressure on an employer, industry, or even a government, all without resorting to violence.

How Is a Workmen’s Boycott Different from a Strike or Consumer Boycott?

It’s easy to confuse a workmen’s boycott with a strike or a consumer boycott, but they are distinct methods. In a strike, workers stop working entirely to press their demands – production comes to a halt. In a consumer boycott, the public (or consumers) refuse to buy certain products or services to protest the producer or provider. A workmen’s boycott, by contrast, is neither a full work stoppage nor a purchasing boycott by customers. Instead, the workers remain on the job but selectively refuse one aspect of their work. They might refuse to handle a specific product, refuse to service a particular client, or refuse to use a certain input. This means business might go on as normal in other respects, making it less costly for workers than an outright strike (since they can still earn wages for other work) and more immediately disruptive to the target than a consumer boycott (since it can choke off supply or production at the source).

To illustrate the difference, imagine a factory where employees learn that a certain raw material is made by child labor. In a strike, those workers would walk off the job completely until their concerns are addressed. In a consumer boycott, people would stop buying the factory’s products. In a workmen’s boycott, the workers keep working, but refuse to use that specific raw material on the assembly line. Production of any product involving that material would grind to a halt, directly pressuring the supplier or policy behind the material, while other work could continue.

This tactic often targets a supply chain or business relationship, leveraging workers’ inside position in the economy. It is sometimes called a “secondary” boycott or solidarity action, because workers are not primarily protesting their own wages or conditions, but rather standing in solidarity over a broader principle or supporting another group of workers. For example, railway workers might refuse to transport goods from a company where another union is on strike – they are not striking against their own employer, but boycotting someone else’s product in solidarity.

Because it expands the conflict beyond a single workplace, a workmen’s boycott can greatly amplify pressure. Labor historians note that such solidarity tactics allowed workers to hit employers at multiple points in the production and distribution chain, according to Labor Notes. By impeding the flow of parts, goods, or services, they make it difficult for the offending business or regime to carry on normally. This is different from a consumer boycott which might take a long time to hurt sales, or a single-site strike that an employer might withstand if they can find replacement workers. A workmen’s boycott directly blocks the output or input in question. It can be especially powerful if the targeted goods are crucial for the opponent’s operations.

When and Why Do Workmen’s Boycotts Succeed?

Not every workmen’s boycott automatically succeeds – it requires specific conditions and careful strategy. History shows that this method works best when certain factors are in place. Below are key tactics and conditions that make a workmen’s boycott effective:

Solidarity & Numbers

The boycott must be carried out by a united group of workers, ideally a strong union or collective. If only a handful of workers refuse to do the task, they risk being isolated or fired. Success often hinges on strength in numbers – the more workers (and even multiple unions) join the action, the harder it is for the target to bypass or punish them. In the 1890s Pullman boycott, for example, some 125,000–250,000 railway workers across 27 states joined in refusing to handle Pullman railroad cars, bringing a massive part of the U.S. rail network to a standstill, as documented on Wikipedia. This breadth of participation gave the boycott tremendous power (even though it also provoked a harsh crackdown, as we’ll see).

Unity also means that discipline is maintained – no one breaks ranks to undermine the boycott. In successful campaigns, workers often prepare by securing commitments from each other and sometimes from workers in related industries to all act together.

Strategic Targeting (Choke Points)

Workmen’s boycotts are most powerful when they hit a critical choke point in the opponent’s operations or the economy. The aim is to find where the opponent is vulnerable – perhaps a product they rely on, a supply line they need, or a market they depend on – and deny them labor at that point.

This was clearly demonstrated by dockworkers during the anti-apartheid movement. Shipping was identified as an “Achilles heel” of the apartheid economy, since South Africa’s economy relied heavily on exports and imported oil, according to Commons Library. By refusing to unload cargo from South Africa, longshore workers directly struck at that vulnerable point, magnifying the pressure on the apartheid regime.

In general, a well-chosen workmen’s boycott target is one that the opponent cannot easily replace or workaround, so the refusal creates immediate difficulties. Workers will often coordinate their boycott with larger campaigns to maximize impact – for instance, timing it to coincide with consumer boycotts, sanctions, or public protests, so the target is squeezed from multiple directions.

Public Support and Alliances

Successful workmen’s boycotts often garner sympathy and support from the broader public or other groups. This support provides moral legitimacy and can protect the workers from retaliation. Peaceful picket lines, media coverage, and backing from community organizations or international allies can all bolster the campaign. Public support also pressures the target to concede rather than punish the workers.

For example, when 11 Irish supermarket employees refused to sell apartheid-made products (a case discussed later), their courageous stand won broad public admiration and eventually the support of the Irish government – leading to tangible change, as reported by Tribune Magazine. Similarly, the dockworkers boycotting South African cargo in the 1980s were joined by thousands of community members in rallies of solidarity, according to Commons Library. This kind of widespread backing turns a workmen’s boycott from just an internal labor dispute into a public cause, increasing its power and reach.

Nonviolent Discipline

As with all forms of nonviolent protest, maintaining peaceful discipline is crucial. Workers engaging in a boycott must resist any provocations to use force or vandalism. The effectiveness of a workmen’s boycott lies in withholding cooperation, not in coercion. Staying nonviolent keeps the focus on the issue at hand and preserves the moral high ground, often attracting more support. It also avoids giving the opponent an excuse to respond with violence or dismiss the protest as mere lawlessness.

Gene Sharp emphasizes that achieving the desired impact of nonviolent action requires determination, patience, and skillful organization, as noted on Beyond Intractability. In practice, this means careful planning (for instance, arranging strike funds or support networks since participants might lose pay), training participants to remain calm and firm, and having contingency plans if authorities or employers crack down. The discipline to remain nonviolent and steadfast, even under pressure, often convinces onlookers and wavering colleagues to side with the protesters, which in turn increases the likelihood of success.

Legal and Risk Management

It’s worth noting that in some places, laws have been enacted to restrict workmen’s boycotts (often termed secondary boycotts in legal language) because they can be so disruptive. For instance, in the United States, secondary labor boycotts – meaning a union’s refusal to handle goods from another company’s dispute – were banned by the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, according to Labor Notes. Such legal barriers mean that workers have to be extra strategic.

Sometimes they find creative ways to pursue the spirit of a workmen’s boycott without technically breaking the law (for example, citing safety rules to avoid handling certain cargo, or using solidarity strikes in short bursts). In other cases, they may proceed despite legal risks, if the moral issue is compelling enough, but then managing risk is crucial. This can include quietly organizing the action, ensuring virtually all workers participate (so the employer cannot easily punish everyone), or aligning with public figures who can mediate.

The bottom line is that the peaceful discipline and unity mentioned above help navigate these legal challenges – a well-organized, broad action can sometimes push the envelope successfully, whereas a fragmented or impulsive one might falter.

By minding these factors – unity, strategic focus, public outreach, nonviolent conduct, and legal awareness – workers improve their chances of a successful boycott. When done right, a workmen’s boycott can compel significant change, as shown in the historical examples below.

Historical Examples of Workmen’s Boycotts

Throughout history, workers have employed the workmen’s boycott in a variety of struggles – from early labor movements fighting for fair conditions, to campaigns against racial injustice and authoritarian regimes. These examples highlight how the tactic has been applied and the impact it achieved.

Early Labor Movement: “We Won’t Touch Unfair Goods”

The concept of workers boycotting certain materials dates back to the 19th century or earlier, often as part of the labor movement’s effort to uphold fair standards. Organized labor used workmen’s boycotts to uphold solidarity and protect jobs. For instance, in 1830 the journeymen stone cutters of New York City discovered that cheap cut stone from prisons (where convicts labored in harsh conditions) was undercutting their livelihood. In response, they imposed a boycott on convict-cut stone, refusing to use it, and even urged others in the building trades to also refuse stone coming from the state prisons, as discussed on Reddit. By doing so, these craftsmen took a stand against what they viewed as unfair competition and exploitation. The tactic sent a message to employers and authorities that free laborers would not cooperate in putting themselves out of work via unethical practices.

Later in the 19th century, labor unions increasingly used workmen’s boycotts as a tool of solidarity. A notable case occurred in 1885 involving the Knights of Labor, one of the largest labor organizations of the time. The Knights were in conflict with the Wabash Railroad, part of tycoon Jay Gould’s railway system, which was hostile to unionization. Rather than a conventional strike alone, union railroad workers across Gould’s lines refused to handle or service any trains belonging to the Wabash Railroad. This effectively boycotted Wabash’s operations – trains from that company could not move because workers on connecting lines would not touch them, according to Reddit. The coordinated refusal across multiple railroads pressured the company by spreading the impact beyond a single line.

In fact, the 1885 Wabash boycott was successful; it forced Gould to back down and reinstate fired union men, marking a rare victory for labor in that era. This success emboldened unions and demonstrated the leverage they could exert by joining forces across employers. (It’s worth noting that such solidarity actions became so powerful that, as mentioned, they were later outlawed in U.S. labor law, according to Labor Notes, precisely because they could bring giant industries to heel.)

Another early example came from skilled trade unions guarding their craftsmanship and jobs. Around 1900, the U.S. Journeymen Stone Cutters Association instructed its members not to finish or install machine-cut stone. Why? New machine-cut stonework was cheaper and threatened the jobs of traditional stone carvers. By boycotting the machine-cut stone (refusing to do the final touches or installation), the union made it hard for builders to use that product, thus slowing the adoption of the job-killing machinery.

Similarly, from 1896 to 1910, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners refused to install wood trim that was manufactured in mills employing child labor or nonunion labor. This was effectively a boycott of “unfair” millwork – carpenters on site would leave the trim untouched, putting pressure on builders not to buy from those mills.

These examples show how workmen’s boycotts were used to enforce ethical standards within industries (be it opposing exploitative labor or resisting deskilling of trades). They complemented strikes and other tactics, giving workers another way to assert their values at the workplace.

The Pullman Railroad Boycott of 1894

One of the most famous workmen’s boycotts in U.S. history – and indeed one of the largest – was the Pullman boycott of 1894. This event took place during the bitter Pullman Strike, which started as a strike by workers at the Pullman Palace Car Company (manufacturer of luxury railroad sleeping cars) in Chicago. When the Pullman Company refused to negotiate with the strikers, the American Railway Union (ARU), led by Eugene V. Debs, decided to escalate their action in a nonviolent but disruptive way: they called on railroad workers nationwide to boycott Pullman cars.

In practice, this meant that switchmen, engineers, firemen, and other rail employees across the country refused to hitch Pullman sleeping cars onto trains or to handle any train carrying Pullman cars, as documented on Wikipedia. The effect was dramatic. Rail lines across the United States were paralyzed, especially in the West and Midwest. At its peak, roughly 250,000 railway workers in 27 states were participating, according to Wikipedia – not by leaving their jobs entirely, but by declining to touch Pullman cars.

This workmen’s boycott turned a local strike in one company town into a national crisis for the rail industry. Train traffic ground to a halt on many key routes, since Pullman cars were commonly attached to passenger trains. The boycott demonstrated the extraordinary power workers could wield by simply withholding their labor at key points. It also showed the importance of organization – the ARU was able to coordinate workers across different railroad companies to act in unison.

Ultimately, the Pullman boycott was so effective that it provoked a strong backlash: railroad companies and the U.S. federal government intervened to break it. The U.S. Attorney General obtained an injunction (court order) against the boycott, and President Grover Cleveland sent federal troops to ensure trains would run, as recounted by Britannica. This led to clashes and even violence in some cities, and the boycott was eventually crushed under this pressure. Debs and other leaders were jailed for defying the injunction.

Though it was suppressed, the Pullman boycott left a lasting legacy. It was a stark demonstration that nonviolent action by workers – simply refusing to handle certain goods – could incapacitate a major industry. The episode frightened corporate and political leaders of the time and influenced labor law (as mentioned, broad secondary boycotts like that became targets of legal bans in later years). It also taught unions a lesson: such actions had to be used wisely, since they would be fiercely opposed. Yet, the memory of the Pullman boycott continued to inspire labor activists and showed up in later solidarity campaigns. It remains a classic example of a workmen’s boycott on a grand scale, illustrating both the potential and the risks of the method.

Dockworkers vs. Apartheid: Hitting an Oppressive Regime’s Weak Spot

Fast-forward to the late 20th century, and we find workmen’s boycotts playing a crucial role in the global fight against apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid was a system of severe racial segregation and oppression, and by the 1970s and 1980s an international movement had formed to isolate South Africa’s government. Alongside consumer boycotts and sanctions, union workers took direct action by refusing to handle South African goods.

Nowhere was this more evident than on the docks. Unionized dockworkers in countries like the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and others used the workmen’s boycott to protest apartheid. They realized that ports and shipping were key pressure points. South Africa depended on trade – exporting minerals and goods and importing oil and machinery. If those goods could not move, the apartheid economy would suffer. As one historical analysis noted, dockworkers were “strategically positioned” to make a difference and “exerted real influence on the South African state” by refusing to unload South African cargo, according to Commons Library.

This wasn’t just a one-off incident, but a sustained pattern over years. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, Australian maritime unions (like the Waterside Workers’ Federation and the Seamen’s Union) repeatedly boycotted shipments to and from South Africa, responding to appeals from the African National Congress and South African trade unions, as documented by Commons Library. These acts of solidarity from across the ocean signaled to the apartheid regime that ordinary workers globally found its policies abhorrent.

One particularly powerful episode took place in San Francisco in 1984. That year, South Africa had brutally repressed a massive strike by black gold miners, jailing many union leaders. Outraged and seeking to apply pressure “where it hurt,” members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10 decided to boycott South African cargo in the port of San Francisco. For 11 days, longshoremen refused to unload a ship carrying South African goods, according to Commons Library. They simply left the cargo sitting on the ship, effectively freezing South African trade at that berth.

This workmen’s boycott gained huge support in the Bay Area – thousands of people rallied in solidarity at the docks to cheer on the longshoremen, Commons Library reports. The disciplined, nonviolent stand of the dockworkers galvanized the community. It demonstrated the moral conviction of the workers and drew widespread attention to apartheid’s injustices.

The impact was significant: shipping remained a chokepoint for the South African economy, and this boycott underscored that vulnerability, as noted by Commons Library. News of the action spread worldwide, putting pressure on other ports to consider similar measures and adding momentum to the anti-apartheid movement. The 1984 boycott by ILWU Local 10 is often credited with helping strengthen sanctions and public awareness at a key time. Veteran longshoremen later recalled it as one of their proudest moments, using their labor leverage to stand on the right side of history.

Other dockworker boycotts against apartheid also made waves. In 1984 in Liverpool, UK, longshoremen refused to unload South African fruit, and in New Zealand, port workers turned away South African ships, according to Cambridge University Press. These actions were part of a broad alliance of unions against apartheid.

Crucially, such workmen’s boycotts were peaceful and disciplined – the workers simply withheld their labor, which is a legal and nonviolent form of protest, yet one that carried economic teeth. Over time, as apartheid began to crumble (Nelson Mandela was freed in 1990 and apartheid laws were repealed in the early 1990s), anti-apartheid activists acknowledged the important role of international boycotts – including those by workers – in pushing the regime toward its end.

Irish Shop Workers and the Fight Against Apartheid

Workmen’s boycotts were not limited to heavy industries like shipping and railroads. Even retail workers found ways to employ this method for a just cause. A remarkable example comes from Dublin, Ireland, in 1984, at a local chain of grocery stores called Dunnes Stores. This case shows how ordinary sales clerks used a boycott to make a loud political statement that echoed all the way to their national government.

It began when a young cashier, Mary Manning, was instructed by her union (IDATU – the Irish shopworkers’ union) not to handle products from South Africa, as part of the international protest against apartheid. One day, a customer came to Mary’s register with some South African grapefruit. Mary, following her conscience and her union’s directive, refused to ring up the sale, politely explaining that she would not handle apartheid goods.

This small act of defiance led to Mary’s suspension from her job. In solidarity, ten of her co-workers (mostly also very young, in their teens and twenties) walked off the job and joined her in protest on the sidewalk, as reported by Tribune Magazine. They carried signs and stood outside Dunnes Stores, declaring that as workers they would rather lose their jobs than support the apartheid regime by selling its products.

What started as 11 brave retail workers on a picket line turned into a nearly three-year-long struggle. These workers remained steadfast – every day, in all weather, picketing the store and calling attention to apartheid. Their workmen’s boycott meant no one in that store would sell South African goods. The public began to take notice and many sided with the young clerks. Their union supported them with strike pay and publicity.

The government of Ireland at first was not responsive, but the pressure built as the story gained international attention. Finally, in 1987, Ireland’s government bowed to public pressure and banned the import of South African products – becoming the first Western nation to do so, according to Tribune Magazine. This was a huge victory.

The Dunnes Stores strikers are today celebrated in Ireland as heroes who stood up for human rights. A plaque on the store and a documentary commemorate their action. Their workmen’s boycott was clear and disciplined: they simply would not handle the “tainted” goods, and that moral stance, upheld over time, forced change at the highest level. It is a shining example of how even a small group of rank-and-file workers, armed with conviction and solidarity, can influence international policy.

Defying an Aggressor: The 1938 Australian “Pig Iron” Boycott

Workmen’s boycotts have also been used as a form of resistance to authoritarian or aggressive regimes by disrupting the supply of materials needed for oppression or war. A classic instance occurred in Australia in 1938, in what became known as the Dalfram Dispute.

At that time, Japan was waging a brutal war in China (the Second Sino-Japanese War), and it was buying raw materials from abroad to fuel its military machine. In late 1938, a ship called the SS Dalfram docked at Port Kembla (New South Wales, Australia) to load pig iron (a basic form of iron) bound for Japan. The Australian dockworkers, members of the Waterside Workers’ Federation, learned that this pig iron would likely be used to manufacture weapons, perhaps even ones that could threaten Australians in the future.

Moved by both solidarity with the Chinese people and concern for their own nation, the dockworkers refused to load the pig iron onto the Dalfram. Essentially, they boycotted the handling of any war material destined for Japan, as documented on Wikipedia. This bold action immediately became a political flashpoint. The Australian government, under pressure from Britain to maintain trade, ordered the men back to work. The Attorney General at the time, Robert Menzies, insisted the shipments go on (earning him the derisive nickname “Pig Iron Bob” from the workers and public).

The standoff lasted for weeks, with the workers holding firm “under protest” and large sections of the Australian public supporting the anti-Japanese stance. Though eventually the workers returned to work after negotiations (the dispute ended in early 1939), their boycott had delayed the shipment for months and drew global attention to Japan’s aggression. It was one of the first significant acts of international labor solidarity against fascist expansionism.

The Dalfram incident demonstrated how a workmen’s boycott could be used as a peaceful weapon against war and oppression. No one was harmed by the dockers’ refusal – they simply did not load the cargo – yet it created a serious obstacle for a powerful nation’s war plans (at least temporarily). It also showed the courage of workers willing to risk legal penalties or their jobs to take a moral stand.

In the bigger picture, this boycott presaged the kind of actions that became more common in the 1970s and 1980s, when workers in various countries refused to ship arms or supplies to repressive regimes (for example, there were later instances of trade unionists refusing to service weapons headed for Chile under Pinochet, or to South Africa under apartheid).

Each of these historical examples – from 1830s craftsmen, to late-1800s railroaders, to 1980s dockworkers and store clerks – underscores a common theme: when workers collectively decide “We will not be complicit,” it can become a powerful force for change. By choosing not to use their hands to further injustice, they withdraw the very labor that organizations and governments rely on, creating leverage that can alter policies and outcomes.

The Power of Strategy and Nonviolent Discipline

The workmen’s boycott is a vivid demonstration of a broader principle in social change movements: strategic noncooperation. Rather than attacking an opponent physically, protesters identify the opponent’s dependencies – the labor, skills, and services that it must have to function – and then deny those on moral grounds. This flips the power dynamic, because even a mighty corporation or government cannot easily replace an entire workforce’s tacit cooperation.

As Gene Sharp and other theorists point out, all regimes and systems ultimately depend on the cooperation of many people; if that cooperation is skillfully withdrawn, the system is weakened, as explained by Beyond Intractability. A workmen’s boycott is one precise way to withdraw cooperation.

However, skill is the key word. The cases above did not succeed by accident or simple spontaneity; they required planning, unity, and discipline. The strategic logic is often to apply pressure gradually and peacefully, building leverage over time. For example, the Dunnes Stores workers didn’t force immediate change – they persisted for years, remaining nonviolent and steadfast, which gradually won more allies to their cause. The ILWU dockworkers prepared their 1984 action by building a committee and gathering community support, so that when they made their move, they had a supportive crowd and media attention amplifying their message, according to Commons Library.

In each instance, the workers had to remain disciplined – if they had turned to violence or sabotage, public sympathy could have evaporated and authorities would have cracked down harder. By keeping their protests peaceful and focused strictly on refusing the work, they highlighted the injustice of what they were opposing rather than creating a new injustice.

It’s also important to note the nonpartisan nature of such actions when viewed historically. Workmen’s boycotts have been used by people of various political stripes – it’s the issues (fair labor standards, human rights, peace) that define the cause, not a partisan agenda. For instance, refusing to unload apartheid goods wasn’t a matter of left or right politics; it was a human decency issue recognized across the spectrum.

The accessible lesson here is that ordinary people in their everyday roles (like doing a job) can become agents of change. Students, educators, and those new to protest theory can see in these stories that one doesn’t need to be a famous leader or an elected official to make history – sometimes it’s a group of dockworkers or store clerks who tip the scales by sticking together and saying “No” to doing something wrong.

In summary, the Workmen’s Boycott is a potent method of peaceful protest whereby workers use their collective strength to stop the wheels of an unjust situation, without picking up a weapon. It works best when used thoughtfully: targeting the right pressure points, maintaining broad unity and public support, and exercising patience and discipline. Its historical relevance is rich – from aiding labor rights in the 19th century, to challenging segregation and apartheid in the 20th, to contemporary campaigns where workers refuse to contribute to war or environmental harm. For a museum of protest, the workmen’s boycott stands as an inspiring example of nonviolent resistance, showing how the simple act of not cooperating with wrongdoing can shake the status quo and drive social progress.