Hubbry Logo
Solidarity actionSolidarity actionMain
Open search
Solidarity action
Community hub
Solidarity action
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Solidarity action
Solidarity action
Solidarity action
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Solidarity action (also known as secondary action, a secondary boycott) is an action taken by an uninvolved third party to assist one of the primary parties to a dispute. The most commonly encountered form is industrial action by a trade union in support of a strike initiated by workers in a separate corporation, but often the same enterprise, group of companies, or connected firm.[1] This latter type of action is also known as a solidarity strike, or a sympathy strike). Employers can also participate in solidarity action, for example by blacklisting (refusing to hire) employees who have been dismissed by another employer for having taken industrial action. A consumer boycott – refusal to buy the products of one of the participants (a company or even a state) – is another well-known form of solidarity action.

In Australia,[2] Latvia, Luxembourg, the United States, and the United Kingdom, solidarity industrial action is theoretically illegal, and strikes can only be against the contractual employer. Germany, Italy and Spain have restrictions in place that restrict the circumstances in which solidarity action can take place (see European labour law).[3]

The term secondary action is often used with the intention of distinguishing different types of trade dispute with a worker's direct contractual employer. Thus, while the primary action means the original dispute, a secondary action is industrial action taken against the employer's parent company, its suppliers, financiers, contracting parties, or even other employers in a related industry.

Australia

[edit]
See also: Australian labour law

In Australia, secondary boycotts are prohibited by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.[2] In the 1910s, sympathy strikes were sometimes called to extend a strike beyond the bounds of an Australian state to make it eligible for handling by the federal arbitration court.

Germany

[edit]

Secondary action is generally prohibited, unless it satisfies the multiple criteria:[4]

  • no promotion of strikers’ own interests;
  • direct effect on a party in the primary dispute;
  • proportionality and fairness to the objective.

The secondary action is also legal if there is a close relationship between the target in the secondary dispute and the primary dispute, on the premise that in such case the secondary target can influence the primary one.[4]

Italy

[edit]

Solidarity action is generally a crime per article 505 of the Penal Code [it]. However, the Constitutional Court (Decision No. 123 of 1962[5]), while acknowledging the legitimacy of the section, recognized the lawfulness of secondary strikes if genuine commonality of interest is present. In particular, a solidarity action may be legitimate to protest the dismissal of workers by a company in a particular industry.[6]

Latvia

[edit]

Secondary action is illegal, unless its objective is to facilitate a general agreement.[7]

The Netherlands

[edit]

In 2014 the high council of the Netherlands ruled that solidarity strikes are in principle legal, when the involved secondary parties are not disproportionately affected.[8]

Poland

[edit]

In Polish law the solidarity strike is permitted only for a maximum length of half a day, and only in solidarity with the sectors that themselves do not have the right to strike (e.g. police, military).[9][10][11]

Spain

[edit]

Secondary action is generally unlawful, however, the Constitutional Court had recognized their legality if there is at least a minimum convergence of interest, as established by courts on a case-by-case basis, between the participants in the primary and secondary strikes.[12]

Sweden

[edit]
See also: Swedish labour law

Solidarity action rights in Sweden are very broad. In particular, there are no requirements for either reasonable proportion between the primary and secondary actions, or a connection to the targeted parties. Moreover, the peace obligation does not apply to the secondary action, the general prohibition of industrial action against a neutral third party is lifted, and permissible actions are not limited to walk-outs (can include boycotts, blockades, etc.).[13]

United Kingdom

[edit]
See also: United Kingdom labour law

In the United Kingdom, sympathy strikes were outlawed by the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927 in the aftermath of the general strike. That was repealed by the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1946, passed by the postwar Labour Government.

Solidarity action remained legal until 1980, when the government of Margaret Thatcher passed the Employment Act 1980 to restrict it. That was followed by the Employment Act 1990, which outlawed solidarity action entirely. The laws outlawing solidarity strikes remain to this day, as codified by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Section 224[14]).

In 2005, union leaders called for the legalization of solidarity strikes in the aftermath of the strike action against the catering company Gate Gourmet, but Labour ministers stated that they had no intention of repealing the law. British Airways staff walked out in solidarity, however.

United States

[edit]
See also: United States labor law

Secondary boycotting is frequently confused with secondary striking, also a prohibited tactic for labour unions covered by the Taft–Hartley Act.[15] Some legal definitions for secondary boycotting divide it into two different kinds: secondary consumer boycotts according to the above definition of secondary boycotts, and secondary employee boycotts, also defined as a secondary strike.[16]

Because farm laborers in the United States are not covered by the Wagner Act, the United Farm Workers union has legally used solidarity boycotting of grocery store chains to aid to its strikes against California agribusiness and its primary boycotts of California grapes, lettuce and wine. Its secondary boycotts involved asking consumers to stop shopping at a grocery store chain until the chain stopped carrying the boycotted grapes, lettuce, or wine.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Solidarity action

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Solidarity action refers to organized efforts by workers, unions, or activists to support the disputes or campaigns of another group, typically through secondary strikes, protests, boycotts, or disruptions that extend the primary conflict's pressure. Originating in labor movements during the industrial era, these actions embody the principle of mutual aid among those facing similar economic or social adversities, as articulated in early socialist calls for international worker unity. In practice, solidarity actions have historically amplified leverage in wage disputes or union recognitions by coordinating across industries or borders, contributing to concessions from employers or governments in cases like European general strikes or U.S. anti-apartheid campaigns. However, their effectiveness varies empirically, with nonviolent mobilizations often succeeding in garnering public sympathy and policy shifts, while disruptive variants risk alienating broader support or provoking backlash. Defining characteristics include a reliance on voluntary coordination without direct personal stake, which fosters collective resilience but can strain resources or when participant commitments wane. Controversies arise from legal restrictions in many jurisdictions, where such actions lack protections against dismissal or penalties to curb economic ripple effects, leading to debates over whether they genuinely advance or merely escalate conflicts at disproportionate cost. Despite these challenges, actions remain a cornerstone of transnational , enabling smaller causes to gain visibility through allied disruption, though causal evidence links their impact more to contextual factors like participant scale and elite responsiveness than inherent force.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition and Principles

Solidarity action refers to a effort undertaken by individuals or groups not directly involved in a primary to support one of the disputing parties, typically by imposing additional economic or operational pressure on the employer. In labor contexts, this most commonly manifests as a sympathy strike, where workers withhold labor to honor the of another union's primary strike, even absent their own with the employer. Such actions derive from the recognition that isolated disputes weaken overall worker leverage, as employers exploit divisions to suppress wages and conditions across sectors. The core principles animating solidarity actions emphasize unity as an economic counterweight to employer power, positing that workers function as a cohesive unit to mitigate intra-labor that depresses outcomes. Mutual support forms the ethical and strategic foundation, wherein participants act on shared interests in preventing precedent-setting concessions that could erode standards for all, fostering a causal chain where aiding one group's resistance bolsters resilience against capital mobility and fragmentation tactics. This principle extends to broader norms, where transcends immediate self-interest to uphold occupational and socio-economic aims, provided actions align with proportionality to avoid undue disruption beyond . In practice, these principles operationalize through voluntary coordination, often guided by union constitutions mandating respect for affiliated strikes, thereby amplifying the primary action's efficacy without requiring identical grievances. Empirical instances demonstrate that enhances strike success rates by expanding participation, as seen in historical U.S. labor data where secondary involvement correlated with higher concession yields from employers facing multi-front pressures. However, legal constraints in jurisdictions like the , under the National Labor Relations Act, permit such actions only if they avoid prohibited secondary boycotts, underscoring a tension between principled and statutory limits on scope.

Distinction from Primary Actions and Other Collective Efforts

Solidarity actions fundamentally differ from primary actions, which are direct interventions by parties immediately affected by a dispute, such as workers striking their own employer over grievances like wages or working conditions tied to their . Primary actions target the source of the conflict head-on, with participants bearing the economic risk themselves due to their stake in the outcome. For example, under the U.S. National Act, primary strikes are protected as they involve employees withholding labor from the employer with whom the union has a bona fide dispute. In actions, by contrast, uninvolved third parties—such as workers from unrelated unions or industries—engage in supportive measures like sympathy strikes or boycotts to amplify pressure on the primary disputants' targets, without a direct grievance of their own. These actions derive legitimacy from shared class interests or ideological alignment rather than personal involvement, often involving refusal to handle struck goods or honoring picket lines of others. This indirect nature distinguishes them from primary efforts, as participants risk retaliation without proportional benefit to their own conditions; legally, sympathy strikes in the U.S. are frequently unprotected if they induce neutral s to cease with the primary , classifying them as secondary boycotts prohibited since the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments. Solidarity actions also contrast with broader collective efforts like general strikes or mutual aid networks, which lack the targeted support for a specific dispute. General strikes mobilize workers across sectors for economy-wide demands, such as policy reforms, rather than aiding isolated primary actions, as seen in historical events like the 1926 UK General Strike involving over 1.7 million participants for miners' support but escalating beyond sympathy. Mutual aid, meanwhile, emphasizes non-disruptive resource sharing—food drives or financial contributions—without coercive tactics like work stoppages, prioritizing community resilience over leverage in bargaining. These alternatives foster unity through coordination or altruism but do not inherently pressure third-party employers, underscoring solidarity's unique role in extending dispute dynamics via empathetic disruption.

Historical Development

Origins in Early Industrial Disputes

The rapid industrialization of Britain in the late 18th and early 19th centuries generated widespread labor disputes, as factory owners imposed harsh conditions, long hours, and wage reductions on workers displaced from agrarian economies. Following the repeal of the Combination Acts in 1824, which had outlawed collective worker organization, trade societies and early unions proliferated, fostering rudimentary solidarity actions where workers in one trade supported those in another to counter employer power. These actions often took the form of coordinated work stoppages or refusals to handle goods from struck employers, marking a shift from isolated craft disputes to broader mutual aid amid economic depressions. A pivotal early manifestation occurred during the 1842 strike wave, known as the "Plug Plot Riots," which began in Lancashire coal mines over wage cuts and rapidly spread to factories across northern England and Staffordshire, involving up to half a million workers. Miners' strikes prompted factory operatives to sabotage steam engines by removing boiler plugs, halting production in sympathy and linking economic grievances to Chartist demands for political reform, such as universal male suffrage. This diffusion demonstrated emergent worker recognition of shared class interests, with actions coordinated through informal networks rather than centralized unions, though government troops ultimately suppressed the movement after weeks of disruption. Such solidarity tactics influenced subsequent disputes, including conflicts where operatives boycotted non-union goods or joined strikes beyond their sectors, embedding the principle of mutual support in nascent labor organizations like the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union of 1833–1834. While not yet formalized as "sympathy strikes," these efforts highlighted causal links between localized grievances and systemic exploitation, prioritizing empirical worker unity over fragmented , though they faced severe legal and military reprisals that underscored employers' superior resources.

Evolution in 20th-Century Labor Movements

In the early , solidarity actions transitioned from isolated sympathy efforts to structured tactics promoted by . The (IWW), established in 1905, emphasized cross-trade solidarity strikes as essential for class-wide leverage against employers, contrasting with craft unions' narrower focus. This approach manifested in events like the , where IWW organizers mobilized immigrant workers across mills, supplemented by financial and logistical support from unaffiliated laborers, yielding wage concessions after two months. Such tactics amplified pressure but often provoked violent suppression, as seen in the 1919 Centralia Massacre, where IWW solidarity pickets clashed with authorities amid broader lumber disputes. The interwar decades marked a peak in scale, driven by postwar economic distress and radical ideologies. In the United States, the 1919 involved 65,000 workers from multiple unions halting city operations in with shipyard machinists demanding wage parity, paralyzing transport and utilities for five days before concessions on hours and recognition. Europe's 1926 exemplified transnational , with 1.7 million workers across transport, printing, and building trades joining 1.1 million miners refusing wage cuts of up to 13% and extended shifts; the nine-day action reduced output to under 5% in key sectors but collapsed under government emergency powers, disunity, and volunteer labor replacements. These episodes demonstrated 's potential for disruption but highlighted vulnerabilities to state intervention and internal fractures, as courts increasingly applied antitrust laws to deem actions illegal restraints on trade. Mid-century shifts curtailed widespread use through legal and institutional constraints. The U.S. National Labor Relations Act of 1935 bolstered primary organizing but presaged limits, culminating in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act's bans on secondary boycotts and most sympathy strikes, except in cases, which reduced their incidence by channeling disputes into NLRB-mediated bargaining. In , analogous restrictions emerged, such as Britain's 1980s curbs on secondary action, reflecting a broader evolution toward routinized collective agreements over disruptive solidarity amid and expansions. By the late , empirical analyses indicated a marked decline, with sympathy strikes comprising under 10% of U.S. actions post-1950 versus 20-30% earlier, attributable to legal penalties, union bureaucratization, and employer diversification reducing leverage points. This trajectory underscored causal trade-offs: while solidarity fostered unity, its suppression compelled unions to prioritize sustainable, localized gains over systemic confrontation.

Post-Cold War and Contemporary Shifts

Following the end of the in 1991, ideological barriers that had fragmented international labor solidarity during the bipolar era began to erode, allowing unions in formerly divided regions to pursue more unified cross-border strategies against shared capitalist pressures. However, the ascendant neoliberal paradigm—characterized by , , and capital's enhanced mobility—intensified challenges to traditional solidarity actions, contributing to a marked decline in sympathy strikes and secondary boycotts. In the , annual strike participation, which averaged 1–4 million workers from the post-World War II period through 1981, plummeted below those levels by 1990, driven by legal restrictions on secondary actions under the National Labor Relations Act and employers' use of permanent strike replacements. Similar restrictions proliferated globally; for example, sympathy strikes were outright banned in several European countries by the early 1990s, reflecting employer lobbying and state policies favoring economic flexibility over collective leverage. Contemporary solidarity has shifted toward transnational mechanisms, leveraging global union federations to target multinational supply chains and enforce labor standards where national actions falter. Organizations like IndustriALL have orchestrated campaigns since the 2000s, coordinating workplace-level alliances with national unions to pressure firms on issues such as and , as in cross-border efforts against automotive giants in the . The International Labour Network of Solidarity and Struggles, established in 2013, exemplifies this evolution, fostering actions like coordinated protests against in and by 2023, its tenth year. Digital tools have amplified these networks, enabling rapid information sharing and boycotts, though empirical data on outcomes remains mixed: while some campaigns yield concessions, such as improved conditions in targeted factories, overall union density in countries fell to 16% by 2020, underscoring causal limits from fragmented worker precarity and state suppression. In the and platform work dominant since the , solidarity has manifested in hybrid tactics blending online coordination with localized disruptions, as seen in global rideshare driver actions against in 2019–2021, which drew support from unions across 20+ countries but achieved uneven gains due to algorithmic opacity and jurisdictional hurdles. These shifts reflect a pragmatic to globalization's realities—where capital evades national borders—yet reveal tensions: while international frameworks like the ITUC's post-2020 campaigns advocate democratic , critics note that without enforceable supranational enforcement, such efforts often serve symbolic rather than transformative roles.

Forms and Mechanisms

Sympathy Strikes and Work Stoppages

A occurs when employees halt work to support a involving a different group of workers or , without advancing their own direct grievances against their . This form of solidarity action leverages collective leverage across workplaces, often coordinated through union networks, to impose economic pressure on the primary target's operations by disrupting related supply chains or services. Unlike primary strikes, sympathy actions derive their motivation from inter-union solidarity rather than localized contract disputes, though they risk legal challenges under no-strike clauses or secondary boycott prohibitions in jurisdictions like the . Historical instances illustrate their role in amplifying labor campaigns. In the 1894 Pullman Strike, members of the (ARU) engaged in widespread strikes, refusing to handle Pullman cars nationwide, which halted approximately 125,000 rail workers and disrupted freight traffic across 27 states, culminating in federal intervention via troops and injunctions. Similarly, during the , seamen in northwest ports initiated a strike supporting longshoremen, coordinated by the Marine Workers Industrial Union, which extended port shutdowns and contributed to broader maritime labor concessions amid violent clashes. These actions demonstrated how strikes could escalate localized disputes into regional or national crises, though they often provoked employer countermeasures and government suppression, as evidenced by the 's $80 million in estimated economic losses (equivalent to over $2.5 billion in 2023 dollars). Work stoppages in solidarity contexts represent shorter-duration variants, typically lasting hours or a single shift, aimed at signaling support without full strike commitments. For example, in 1919, Seattle shipyard workers and 25,000 others conducted sympathy work stoppages alongside a general strike, restoring disrupted lunch hours through coordinated halts that pressured management without indefinite shutdowns. Such tactics minimize participant wage losses while maintaining production visibility for public relations, but their effectiveness hinges on rapid escalation potential; isolated stoppages rarely compel concessions absent threats of prolongation. In contemporary settings, like the 2018 Kansas City laundry workers' campaign, approximately 25,000 public sector employees participated in brief sympathy stoppages, bolstering demands for wage equity among low-paid, majority-minority women workers. Empirical assessments, such as those from the U.S. Department of Labor, indicate sympathy mechanisms succeed when targeting interdependent industries but falter against diversified operations or legal bans, with post-1947 U.S. trends showing declining incidence due to the Taft-Hartley Act's restrictions on secondary actions.

Boycotts, Picketing, and Secondary Actions

Boycotts in actions entail organized refusals by consumers, workers, or allied groups to purchase or distribute products associated with an employer in a primary , aiming to economically isolate the target and compel concessions. A prominent example is the ' (UFW) national grape boycott from 1966 to 1970, which supported the initiated on September 8, 1965, by farmworkers seeking better wages and conditions; the campaign mobilized widespread consumer participation across the U.S. and Canada, culminating in union contracts with 26 growers by July 29, 1970. Such boycotts leverage market pressure rather than direct work stoppages, distinguishing them from primary strikes while amplifying through voluntary abstention. Picketing functions as a visible protest mechanism where participants, often carrying signs and chanting, position themselves outside workplaces or related sites to publicize grievances, discourage business operations, and rally public or worker support for the primary disputants. In solidarity contexts, unrelated workers or community members may form sympathy picket lines to honor primary ones, effectively broadening the dispute's visibility and impact without direct involvement in the core conflict; for instance, during university labor actions, non-striking employees have joined pickets to signal collective backing. Mass picketing has historically intensified pressure, as seen in pre-1947 U.S. disputes, though it risks legal challenges for blocking access. Secondary actions extend tactics to neutral third parties—such as suppliers, distributors, or customers—who indirectly enable the primary employer's operations, through targeted boycotts, , or work refusals to disrupt those relationships. Under U.S. , the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley) bans secondary boycotts and related that coerce neutrals into ceasing business with the primary target, deeming them unfair labor practices enforceable by the ; violations can result in injunctions and damages, as affirmed in cases like National Labor Relations Board v. Retail Store Employees (1973). In contrast, European frameworks often permit broader secondary actions, including sympathy strikes and boycotts, provided they align with proportionality standards under national s or EU directives, reflecting differing emphases on autonomy over individual neutrality protections. These mechanisms heighten leverage but invite scrutiny for potential overreach, balancing gains against risks of economic spillover.

Non-Strike Solidarity Tactics

Non-strike solidarity tactics comprise supportive measures employed by non-striking workers, allied unions, or community organizations to bolster those engaged in labor disputes, without initiating their own work stoppages. These approaches emphasize sustaining strikers' resolve through economic , logistical , and amplified messaging, often leveraging broader networks to impose reputational or indirect pressures on employers. Unlike direct economic leverage via stoppages, such tactics rely on voluntary contributions and to extend the dispute's duration and public resonance. Financial contributions form a foundational element, with external groups funding strike relief to offset lost wages. For instance, during the 1984–1985 , local support groups across regions like raised £1 million through collections from workers and communities, enabling families to endure the 12-month action despite government sequestration of union assets. In the , similar mechanisms operate via dedicated strike funds supplemented by inter-union transfers; the AFL-CIO's Union Plus program provides grants to eligible strikers from affiliated organizations, distributing non-repayable aid during prolonged disputes to prevent capitulation due to hardship. These funds, often derived from dues or public appeals, have demonstrably prolonged strikes by covering essentials, as evidenced in the 2019 walkout where external donations helped sustain 48,000 workers over 40 days. Material and logistical aid further mitigates strikers' vulnerabilities, including organized distributions of food, clothing, and services like childcare or transportation. Community mutual aid networks have historically mobilized during US strikes, such as in recent Hollywood actions where volunteers coordinated grocery drives and meal deliveries to alleviate immediate needs, fostering resilience amid income loss. Such efforts draw from grassroots organizing, where non-workers volunteer time to manage supply chains, reducing the economic calculus that prompts returns to work; empirical accounts from strikes indicate these interventions can extend actions by weeks, as participants report heightened morale from tangible community backing. Advocacy-oriented tactics, including public relations campaigns and political pressure, seek to shape external perceptions and policy responses. Supporters amplify grievances through media outreach, petitions, and rallies—distinct from —while legislators for interventions like extended eligibility for strikers, which aligns with UI's original intent to back labor actions. During the 1965–1970 , nationwide volunteer networks generated consumer awareness via forums and endorsements, contributing to the eventual contract wins without requiring work stoppages from allies. These methods, though less disruptive, have proven effective in shifting , as seen in polling during high-profile disputes where messaging correlated with employer concessions.

International and Supranational Guidelines

The (ILO) establishes foundational international standards on solidarity actions through Convention No. 87 (1948) on and Protection of the Right to Organise, which implies workers' rights to engage in collective actions like strikes, including sympathy or solidarity strikes, as an extension of organizing freedoms, provided they pursue legitimate worker interests and the supported primary action is lawful. The ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA), in its Digest of Decisions, holds that outright bans on sympathy strikes risk abuse and violate these principles; instead, such actions are permissible if the initial strike meets legality criteria, such as not being political in nature or aimed at objectives beyond improving employment conditions. This stance aligns with CFA Case No. 2648 (2006), where it ruled that restrictions must not unduly impair workers' ability to support allied disputes, emphasizing proportionality and non-discrimination. At the supranational level in , the Revised (1996) of the , under Article 6, protects the right to , including sympathy strikes, subject only to restrictions necessary in a democratic society for public safety or rights of others, as interpreted by the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR). The ECSR has critiqued broad prohibitions, as in its 2011 assessment of Germany's laws, deeming them non-compliant for imposing undue preconditions on actions unrelated to the primary dispute's legitimacy. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 28, effective 2009) similarly recognizes strike rights but defers detailed regulation to member states under principles, with the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) intervening sparingly, such as in Case C-438/05 (, 2007), where it balanced strikes against free movement of services, requiring proportionality to avoid disproportionate economic harm. No uniform EU directive mandates or prohibits strikes, leaving variances (e.g., permitted with day limits in but restricted in secondary boycotts in others) subject to national transposition of ILO standards.

National Restrictions and Permissions

In the , sympathy strikes and secondary boycotts—actions targeting employers uninvolved in the primary —are prohibited under Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which deems such tactics unfair labor practices to shield neutral parties from economic leverage. Violations can result in injunctions, backpay orders, and union damages, with courts interpreting the ban broadly to include consumer appeals or work stoppages pressuring secondary employers. The similarly restricts solidarity actions through Section 224 of the and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which declares secondary unlawful if it induces breaches of contracts with employers not party to the primary dispute, a measure rooted in reforms to mitigate economy-wide disruptions from cascading strikes. face unlimited damages liability for inducing such actions, and recent 2023 amendments under the Act further tightened thresholds and notice periods for all strikes, indirectly reinforcing limits on sympathy measures. In contrast, Sweden permits sympathy strikes under the Co-Determination Act (1976:580) when supporting a lawful primary collective action, without mandatory proportionality assessments, allowing unions to coordinate blockades or stoppages across sectors as long as they advance bargaining objectives. This framework, upheld by the constitutional Instrument of Government (1974:152, Chapter 2, Section 14), prioritizes centralized wage negotiations via the Swedish Model, though actions must avoid political aims unrelated to employment terms. France recognizes sympathy strikes as a under the 1946 Preamble, with no blanket prohibition; internal sympathy actions (within the same enterprise or sector) are broadly lawful if tied to a legitimate primary dispute, while external ones face scrutiny for proportionality but remain viable absent illegality in the supported strike. The Labor Code (Article L2511-1 et seq.) imposes no statutory notice or requirements, enabling rapid mobilization, though courts may invalidate actions deemed abusive or politically motivated. Germany allows solidarity strikes following a 2007 Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) ruling affirming their legality under Article 9(3) of the , provided they support a lawful primary dispute, pursue comparable goals, and maintain proportionality to avoid disproportionate harm. Strikes must occur within organized structures, excluding unrepresented workers or political aims, with the upholding such limits as compatible with Article 11 ECHR freedoms. Canada generally prohibits sympathy strikes during the term of a under provincial labor codes (e.g., Labour Relations Act, 1995, s. 63) and the federal Labour Code (s. 91), treating them as breaches subject to fines or damages, though some jurisdictions permit them post-agreement expiry if not enjoined by no-strike clauses.
CountryKey Permissions/Restrictions on Sympathy StrikesPrimary Legislation/Source
Prohibited if targeting neutrals; limited exceptions for common situs .NLRA §8(b)(4)
Unlawful secondary action; induces breaches with non-disputants.TULRCA 1992 §224
Allowed in support of lawful primary action; no proportionality test required.Co-Determination Act (1976:580)
Permitted, especially intra-sector; subject to abuse review but no general ban.Labor Code & Constitutional Preamble
Legal if proportional, goal-aligned with primary, and within bargaining framework. Art. 9(3); BAG jurisprudence
Generally illegal during agreements; possible post-expiry with limits. Labour Code s. 91; provincial codes

Effectiveness and Empirical Assessment

Evidence of Successful Outcomes

Empirical analyses of strikes in the early U.S. labor movement, drawing from 4,528 documented cases between 1881 and 1886, indicate that actions such as high worker participation rates and multi-firm coordination significantly elevated the probability of successful outcomes, including gains and concessions. Strikes backed by unions saw a roughly 14 increase in success rates compared to non-union efforts, while financial support from allied groups—present in about 11% of non-union strikes—further amplified these effects by sustaining worker resolve against resistance. However, such proved most effective when unhindered by strikebreaking, as replacement labor reduced success odds by approximately 33 s, underscoring the causal role of coordinated refusal to cross picket lines in tipping outcomes favorably. A notable case exemplifying this dynamic was the 1895 Brooklyn Trolley Strike, where widespread solidarity from 6,000 community sympathizers and fellow workers prevented effective strikebreaking, leading to employer capitulation on demands for better wages and conditions. Similarly, in the 1902 Anthracite Coal Strike involving 150,000 miners, solidarity from railroad unions through refusal to handle coal shipments pressured operators, resulting in a 10% wage increase and reduced workday hours under arbitration. In 1936, a sympathy strike by three unions against AT&T—coordinating work stoppages across telecommunications sectors—secured improved contracts, demonstrating how inter-union solidarity could enforce bargaining leverage without isolated action. More recent evidence from coordinated actions reinforces these patterns; for instance, the 2022 nurses' strike, bolstered by allied union endorsements and public sympathy campaigns, culminated in a December 2022 yielding staffing ratios and pay raises averaging 10-15% for 15,000 workers after a follow-up threat. Financial mechanisms, such as strike funds covering up to 70% of lost wages in the campaign from 2022 onward, enabled sustained actions across over 175 stores, fostering broader associational power that pressured concessions on scheduling and benefits, even if full contracts remained elusive by late 2024. These outcomes align with broader findings that enhances strike duration and disruption, directly correlating with material gains when employers face unified fronts.

Metrics of Failure and Ineffectiveness

Solidarity actions, such as strikes, exhibit lower success rates than primary strikes due to their indirect nature and vulnerability to external pressures. Empirical analysis of U.S. strikes from to 1886 indicates an overall success rate of approximately 53% (defined as achieving some or all demands), but those involving cross-trade faced heightened risks from internal strikebreaking and fragmented worker unity, often resulting in failure when eroded under employer countermeasures. Longer durations further compound ineffectiveness; strikes exceeding 1-2 months carry a 30 lower probability of success, a metric particularly relevant to actions that prolong disputes across industries without direct leverage over the primary employer. Historical cases quantify failure through unmet objectives and participant losses. The 1894 Pullman Strike, initiated as a primary action but expanded via nationwide sympathy strikes by the , collapsed after federal injunctions and troop deployment, yielding zero concessions for workers while causing over 13 deaths, thousands of arrests, and the union's effective dissolution; union leader received a six-month prison sentence for contempt. Similarly, the 1919 Great Steel Strike, supported by inter-union solidarity appeals from the , failed to unionize steelworkers despite involving 350,000 participants, as employer resistance and fragmented solidarity led to 18 deaths, widespread blacklisting, and no wage or recognition gains, stalling organizing efforts for decades. Legal frameworks provide a structural metric of ineffectiveness, with prohibitions on secondary actions correlating to high invalidation rates. The U.S. Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 banned secondary boycotts, rendering many sympathy strikes unlawful and exposing unions to damages; for example, post-1947 enforcement actions resulted in numerous rulings against solidarity tactics, contributing to a decline in such actions and their success from the 1950s onward. Economic costs amplify failure, as participants incur wage losses—averaging weeks or months without compensation—while primary disputes persist unresolved; in failed cases like the 1934 Southern textile strikes, limited sympathy support led to rehiring rates below 50% for strikers and union demoralization, underscoring opportunity costs without causal impact on employer concessions. Declining union density exacerbates these metrics, reducing participation and leverage in solidarity efforts. As union membership fell from 35% in 1954 to 10% by 2023, sympathy strikes became rarer and less potent, with empirical reviews showing diminished effectiveness in the 1980s-2000s due to weakened worker power and employer resilience. This pattern reflects causal realities where solidarity actions, absent broad enforcement, fail to alter dynamics, often entrenching divisions rather than achieving cross-group gains.

Criticisms and Controversies

Economic Disruptions and Opportunity Costs

Solidarity actions, by involving workers in disputes unrelated to their own employment conditions, often generate economic disruptions that extend beyond the primary conflict, halting production and services in interconnected sectors. For instance, secondary strikes in supply chains can interrupt logistics and manufacturing, leading to cascading shortages and revenue losses for unaffected businesses. In Europe, where such actions are more permissible in countries like Belgium, they have historically amplified disruptions in essential services, contributing to widespread economic instability through repeated stoppages in transport and public utilities. These effects impose externalities on third parties, including consumers facing delays and price increases, as production halts reduce overall output without proportional benefits to the economy. Empirical assessments of labor strikes, including those with solidarity elements, reveal substantial short-term GDP reductions; for example, localized shutdowns during the 2023 UAW actions resulted in $1.5 billion in GDP losses across affected counties due to halted operations and supplier ripple effects. Secondary actions exacerbate these by broadening the scope, as seen in the UK's pre-1980s era when sympathy strikes frequently disrupted multiple industries, prompting legislative bans to mitigate economy-wide damage from uncoordinated stoppages. Broader studies indicate that major unrest events, encompassing strike waves, correlate with a 1 GDP drop persisting up to six quarters post-event, reflecting sustained losses from disrupted capital and labor flows. Opportunity costs for participants in solidarity actions are acute, as workers forgo daily wages—often exceeding strike fund reimbursements, which typically cover only a of normal pay—without direct improvements to their own terms of . For a median-wage full-time worker, prolonged participation translates to thousands in lost annual income, diverting resources from personal consumption or investment toward uncertain collective goals. Society bears additional costs, including forgone economic activity from idled workers and firms, potential job displacements in vulnerable sectors, and heightened risks from supply bottlenecks, underscoring the between solidarity aims and immediate productive capacity.

Coercion Versus Voluntary Association

Solidarity actions, particularly those involving secondary boycotts or sympathy strikes, frequently entail coercive pressures on non-participants, diverging from the principle of that underpins liberal contractual frameworks. in this context involves the deliberate restriction of reasonable alternatives for individuals or firms, compelling them to align with the action under threat of economic harm or social ostracism, as distinct from purely persuasive appeals. In primary labor disputes, workers withhold their own labor—a choice arguably rooted in voluntary termination—but solidarity extends this to third parties, such as neutral employers, who face inducements to sever ties with the primary target, thereby imposing externalities beyond consensual agreements. Under U.S. labor law, the National Labor Relations Act's Section 8(b)(4) explicitly prohibits secondary boycotts that coerce neutral entities into ceasing business with a struck employer, recognizing such tactics as inimical to exchanges. This legal stance reflects a broader critique that actions erode by leveraging collective power to override individual or firm , as seen in cases where or work stoppages at secondary sites force compliance through lost productivity or reputational damage. Proponents of such actions contend they amplify in asymmetric disputes, yet empirical analyses of labor disputes highlight how coercive secondary pressures often prolong conflicts without proportionally enhancing worker outcomes, as neutrals bear unintended costs that distort voluntary labor markets. Philosophically, the tension arises from the moral distinction between voluntary charity or association—where aid stems from uncoerced —and enforced , which critics argue nullifies the ethical value of mutual support by substituting compulsion for . In jurisdictions with right-to-work provisions, such as 27 U.S. states as of 2023, laws safeguard against mandatory union fees or participation, underscoring a policy preference for voluntariness over coerced to preserve individual agency in associations. However, even in these settings, informal solidarity tactics like social shaming or blockades can subtly coerce, illustrating how actions ostensibly voluntary in intent often manifest causally as constraints on exit options for dissenters or bystanders. This dynamic challenges the ideal of associations as freely formed entities, prompting debates on whether 's efficacy justifies overriding the baseline of non-interference in others' voluntary dealings.

Political Instrumentalization and Broader Societal Impacts

Solidarity actions frequently serve as instruments for advancing political objectives that extend beyond the economic interests of the involved workers. Governments in several nations have enacted restrictions on strikes precisely to mitigate their exploitation for ideological leverage, viewing them as mechanisms to coerce policy changes unrelated to the primary dispute. In , for example, legislation passed in 2023 capped the duration of such actions—labeling extended solidarity efforts as "disproportionate"—and raised fines for non-compliance, amid concerns over unions using them to influence broader fiscal and labor policies. Similarly, international labor standards, as monitored by the , highlight prohibitions on politically motivated strikes in various jurisdictions, such as under section 45 of certain national acts that bar actions supporting non-socio-professional demands. These measures stem from observations that union leadership, often aligned with progressive political factions, deploys solidarity to amplify partisan influence, as evidenced in historical patterns where labor disruptions morph into platforms for anti-government or social reform campaigns. Critics contend that this instrumentalization undermines genuine worker by subordinating members' immediate welfare to extraneous causes, such as environmental or opposition to , which dilute focus on wages and conditions. Empirical analyses of early U.S. labor movements reveal that while point-of-production aids specific strikes, broader extensions often pit workers against neutral or colleagues, reducing overall efficacy and inviting countermeasures like strikebreaking. In jurisdictions permitting wider , such as parts of , frequent political extensions have prompted legislative backlash, including bans on secondary actions in support of multi-enterprise political agreements, reflecting a causal link between overreach and eroded bargaining rights. This pattern aligns with first-principles reasoning that uncoordinated escalation risks alienating public support and fracturing class cohesion, as union actions detached from direct stakes impose asymmetric costs on . On a societal scale, solidarity strikes exacerbate divisions by disrupting services and economies affecting uninvolved parties, including non-union workers and consumers, thereby fostering resentment and class antagonism rather than unity. Studies document adverse ripple effects, such as strained marital and familial relations, elevated psychological distress, and deterioration among participants and communities, persisting beyond the action's resolution. In health sectors, for instance, such disruptions compound gender inequalities among care workers while halting , yielding net negative outcomes like deferred treatments without proportional gains in equity. Over time, habitual political invocation erodes institutional trust, as evidenced by shifts against strikes perceived as ideologically driven, potentially curtailing future collective leverage and perpetuating cycles of confrontation over .

Case Studies and Variations

Europe

In Europe, solidarity actions, often manifesting as sympathy strikes or secondary industrial actions, are legally permissible in many jurisdictions, enabling workers in one sector or enterprise to support disputes elsewhere to amplify leverage. This contrasts with stricter bans in countries like the , where secondary action has been prohibited since the Employment Act 1980, as upheld by the in cases affirming national restrictions on such strikes under Article 11 of the . In nations such as , Sweden, Finland, , and , solidarity strikes are explicitly allowed when supporting lawful primary actions, reflecting a continental emphasis on collective bargaining solidarity enshrined in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 28, which protects workers' rights to strike for defined interests without undue legal restriction. However, limitations persist, including requirements for proportionality and notice periods; for instance, in and , such actions must align with supporting a valid strike, while Germany's Federal Labour Court has curtailed them unless directly linked to the actors' own conditions. A prominent recent example is the 2023-2024 Nordic campaign against Tesla, where Swedish union IF Metall's strike over agreements prompted sympathy actions across . Danish union 3F blockaded Tesla vehicle shipments at ports from November 2023, halting imports to pressure the company, while Norwegian and Finnish unions joined with refusals to handle Tesla repairs or license sales, demonstrating cross-border coordination under the Nordic labor model. This action, involving over 10,000 workers indirectly, underscored Europe's tradition of transnational but also highlighted tensions with multinational firms resisting local bargaining norms, as Tesla operated without Swedish agreements since 2017. The blockades persisted into early 2024, costing Tesla an estimated €1.5 million daily in lost shipments, though the company maintained production by rerouting logistics. In , solidarity strikes have historically fueled broader social movements, as seen in the , where 10 million workers—two-thirds of the labor force—participated in sympathy actions across industries, paralyzing the economy for weeks and leading to wage increases of up to 35% and labor reforms. More contemporarily, Finland's 2019 postal strike triggered sympathy actions by transport unions, disrupting flights and ferries from November 27 to December 8, affecting thousands of passengers and underscoring the ripple effects in interconnected sectors. These cases illustrate how European solidarity actions can escalate disputes but face critiques for economic disruptions, with empirical data from Eurofound showing such strikes correlating with higher wage settlements (averaging 5-7% gains in Nordic disputes) yet prolonging conflicts in 40% of instances. EU-level rulings, like the Viking and Laval cases (2007-2008), have balanced solidarity rights against free movement, restricting strikes targeting posted workers if deemed disproportionate to internal market goals.

North America

In the United States, solidarity actions, often manifesting as sympathy strikes or secondary boycotts, played a significant role in the early 20th-century labor movement but faced legal curtailment thereafter. The Danbury Hatters' case of exemplified such tactics, where the United Hatters of union organized a nationwide targeting retailers selling non-union hats produced by Loewe & , aiming to pressure the employer through neutral parties; this led to a Supreme Court ruling applying the against the union, resulting in damages exceeding $250,000 paid by members. Similar actions occurred in , as in the 1920-1921 sympathy strikes where United Mine Workers members walked out in support of Pennsylvania miners, contributing to widespread disruptions but ultimately failing to achieve broad union recognition amid federal intervention. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited secondary boycotts and strikes, defining them as unfair labor practices under Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, thereby limiting unions' ability to enlist support from workers uninvolved in the primary dispute; this restriction persists, with the enforcing penalties, as seen in cases where unions faced injunctions for inducing neutral employees to cease work. Canada has permitted greater flexibility for solidarity actions compared to the U.S., reflecting less stringent federal prohibitions on secondary strikes, though provincial laws vary and back-to-work legislation has occasionally intervened. The of 1919, part of the broader Canadian Labour Revolt (1918-1925), began as a sympathy action by metalworkers and expanded to involve over 30,000 participants across trades, including police and firefighters refusing orders, in support of demands for ; it lasted six weeks, ending with arrests of leaders and no wage gains, but heightened awareness of labor . Operation in (1983) represented a peak of coordinated support, where unions across sectors rallied against provincial measures targeting health workers, culminating in a one-day on October 26 involving 100,000 participants and halting ports, transit, and utilities; the action pressured the government to withdraw some cuts but dissolved amid internal divisions, illustrating both the potential for broad mobilization and its logistical challenges. Cross-border solidarity has occasionally bridged U.S. and Canadian efforts, as in the ' joint actions during the 2023-2024 UAW strikes, where Canadian members expressed support through statements and potential coordination, though legal barriers in the U.S. confined participation to non-strike forms like donations and rallies. In recent decades, Canadian postal disputes have elicited sympathy pickets, such as those in 2018 protesting federal back-to-work orders against Canadian Union of Postal Workers, involving community and allied union members at facilities nationwide, which delayed mail but did not alter the imposed settlement. These examples underscore how North American solidarity actions have evolved under divergent legal regimes, with U.S. constraints favoring isolated disputes and Canadian precedents enabling wider, though sporadically effective, inter-union support.

Other Regions

In , solidarity actions have often emerged in response to and neoliberal reforms, with labor unions coordinating cross-sector strikes to counter and measures. For instance, in the early 2000s, Argentine workers in the piquetero movement engaged in road blockades and factory occupations, supported by broader societal including unemployed groups and community assemblies, which pressured governments to restore social programs amid the 2001 economic crisis; these actions contributed to the fall of President Fernando de la Hoz and policy reversals, though long-term union fragmentation persisted due to informal employment growth. Similarly, in during the 2010s, metalworkers and public sector unions staged sympathy strikes in solidarity with teachers protesting pension reforms, halting public services and factories temporarily, which delayed but did not prevent legislative passage, highlighting the limits of solidarity amid judicial interventions favoring capital. In , solidarity strikes have demonstrated resilience in authoritarian contexts, frequently amplifying worker demands through inter-industry coordination despite state repression. The 2013 Hong Kong dockworkers' strike involved 500 port workers halting operations for 40 days over stagnant wages since 2003, bolstered by international labor solidarity from unions in and that publicized the action and pressured global shipping firms, ultimately securing a 28.9% pay increase after negotiations; this case illustrated how transnational support can enhance in export-dependent economies. In , during the 2022-2023 protests following Mahsa Amini's death, over 4,000 petrochemical workers in Bandar Imam launched a two-day strike on October 10-11, 2022, aligning with nationwide actions by oil, gas, and education sectors, which disrupted production and signaled broader anti-regime coordination, though government crackdowns suppressed escalation without immediate concessions. African solidarity actions have historically intertwined labor struggles with anti-colonial and anti-apartheid legacies, often manifesting as cross-border or interracial support amid resource extraction conflicts. In 1986, South African black unionists under the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) organized strikes in solidarity with U.S. Hormel meatpackers in , shutting down factories for days to protest wage cuts and solidarity-breaking tactics, a rare reversal of typical North-South dynamics that amplified global anti-apartheid pressure but yielded limited direct gains for South African workers due to domestic repression. More recently, in Nigeria's , ride-hailing drivers in coordinated informal solidarity boycotts in 2023 against platform algorithm changes reducing fares, drawing on union-like networks to sustain action for weeks, which forced partial fare adjustments; this reflects adaptations to digital , where solidarity relies on mobile organizing over traditional structures, though enforcement remains weak absent formal bargaining rights. In , particularly , solidarity bargaining has evolved as a strategic variation, timing strikes across industries to maximize leverage under restrictive labor laws. During the 2022-2023 wage campaigns, and maritime unions synchronized actions in support of nurses and teachers, including port slowdowns that disrupted supply chains, securing above-inflation deals in multiple sectors; this approach, rooted in pattern bargaining traditions, demonstrated how coordinated timing can overcome legal barriers to general strikes, with empirical data showing 15-20% higher settlement rates compared to isolated disputes, though it risks employer lockouts if overextended.

References

  1. https://wikilabour.org/index.php?title=Solidarity_Action
  2. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/article/2016/sweden-debate-on-whether-solidarity-action-should-be-restricted
  3. https://hrrely.weightmans.com/members-library/trade-unions/trade-unions/
  4. https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/activism-solidarity/solidarities-across-borders/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661323002619
  6. https://commonslibrary.org/protest-movements-how-effective-are-they/
  7. https://scholars.org/contribution/how-solidarity-activists-who-fight-injustices
  8. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14742837.2025.2541113?src=
  9. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%2520Files/When%2520are%2520social%2520protests%2520effective_67978754-eaf9-4414-aae1-16db9ef13812.pdf
  10. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/glossary
  11. https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sympathy-strike/
  12. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/context/law_scholarship/article/1149/viewcontent/Laborunions.pdf
  13. https://www.marxists.org/archive/foster/1926/strikestrategy/ch02.htm
  14. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%2540dgreports/%2540jur/documents/genericdocument/wcms_453507.pdf
  15. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2016/12/13/race-gender-and-the-psychodynamics-of-solidarity-in-trade-unions/
  16. https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XA5G1J2K000000/labor-relations-overview-sympathy-strikes
  17. https://labornotes.org/2008/10/sympathy-strikes-law-solidarity-legal
  18. https://www.necanet.org/docs/default-source/labor-relations-conference/labor-relations-bulletins/lr-bulletin---secondary-boycotts-and-sympathy-strikes-8-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=99701fd9_3
  19. https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/statutory-conditions-immunity-when-organising-industrial-action
  20. https://labornotes.org/2019/10/ways-strike
  21. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/thehistoryofstrikesintheuk/2015-09-21
  22. https://tribunemag.co.uk/2022/08/1842-general-strike-halifax-history-180-anniversary
  23. https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/british-workers-strike-better-wages-and-political-reform-plug-plot-riots-1842
  24. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Solidarity-in-Europe.The-History-of-an-idea-by-Steinar-Stjerno.pdf
  25. https://www.nps.gov/blrv/learn/historyculture/200-labor-events.htm
  26. https://files.libcom.org/files/%255BAaron_Brenner%2C_Benjamin_Day%2C_Immanuel_Ness%255D_The_E%28b-ok.org%29.pdf
  27. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/General-Strike-1926/
  28. https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/british-workers-general-strike-support-mine-workers-1926
  29. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/labour-movements-trade-unions-and-strikes-usa/
  30. https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/history_of_labor_unions.html
  31. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20319525251332161
  32. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/56CD517DE8E89593CC75DC4B01A48412/S0145553221000523a.pdf/pitting_the_working_class_against_itself_solidarity_strikebreaking_and_strike_outcomes_in_the_early_us_labor_movement.pdf
  33. https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/globallabour/article/view/4042/3891
  34. https://www.socsci.uci.edu/newsevents/news/2023/2023-08-24-strikes-the-conversation.php
  35. https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-hrd-90-34.pdf
  36. https://www.industriall-union.org/feature-why-we-need-international-union-solidarity-now-more-than-ever
  37. https://research.cbs.dk/files/85718957/peter_wad_solidarity_action_in_global_labor_networks_publishersversion.pdf
  38. https://laboursolidarity.org/en/n/2611/10-years-of-struggle-and-solidarity-of-the-the-international-labour-network
  39. https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/labor-unions-going-global-for-workers-rights/
  40. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0023656X.2024.2327487
  41. https://www.ethicaltrade.org/resources/blog/global-assault-workers-rights-call-action-and-solidarity
  42. https://sieps.se/media/ruhf1xaq/international-trade-union-solidarity-and-the-impact-of-the-crisis-2015_1epa.pdf
  43. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2964&context=law_lawreview
  44. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/chapter3
  45. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4267&context=lalrev
  46. https://digital.lib.niu.edu/illinois/gildedage/pullman
  47. https://depts.washington.edu/labhist/encyclopedia/yearbook1934.shtml
  48. https://socialistworker.org/2018/03/29/when-workers-shut-down-kansas-city
  49. https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/united-farm-workers-union
  50. https://www.history.com/articles/strikes-labor-movement
  51. https://www.freedomforum.org/famous-boycotts/
  52. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/picketing
  53. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/chapter4
  54. https://racial-justice.aflcio.org/blog/est-aliquid-se-ipsum-flagitiosum-etiamsi-nulla
  55. https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/american-labor-relations-comparative-international/
  56. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1894&context=njilb
  57. https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com/2019/10/no-unions-do-not-have-a-free-speech-right-to-engage-in-unlawful-secondary-boycott-activity-federal-appeals-court-rules/
  58. https://www.labornotes.org/2019/10/strikers-need-allies-community
  59. https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/20042/04-02-2015/miners-strike-vibrant-array-of-support-groups/
  60. https://www.unionplus.org/benefits/money/strike-benefits
  61. https://poweratwork.us/strikes-are-a-tactic
  62. https://uchri.org/foundry/workers-on-strike-find-abundance-through-mutual-aid/
  63. https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/unemployment-insurance-for-striking-workers/
  64. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/workers-united-the-delano-grape-strike-and-boycott.htm
  65. https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:70002:0::NO:70002:P70002_HIER_ELEMENT_ID%2CP70002_HIER_LEVEL:3945422%2C2
  66. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40ed_norm/%40normes/documents/publication/wcms_632659.pdf
  67. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/german-strike-legislation-does-not-fulfil-standards-european-social-charter
  68. https://asi.is/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Strike_rules_in_the_EU27.pdf
  69. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/secondary_boycott
  70. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/224
  71. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9785/CBP-9785.pdf
  72. https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/Sweden%2520-%2520Right%2520to%2520strike%2520in%2520public%2520sector.pdf
  73. http://scioperi.cgil.it/Europa/Francia-en.pdf
  74. https://www.boeckler.de/fpdf/HBS-009140/p_hsi_wp_21.pdf
  75. https://ehlaw.ca/collateral-strikes-recent-employee-strikes-on-base-and-managing-interruptions-in-operationcollateral-strikes/
  76. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/pitting-the-working-class-against-itself-solidarity-strikebreaking-and-strike-outcomes-in-the-early-us-labor-movement/56CD517DE8E89593CC75DC4B01A48412
  77. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/theminewars-labor-wars-us/
  78. https://apwu.org/news/labor-history-three-unions-successfully-strike-att-solidarity-wins-newspaper-strike/
  79. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irel.12393
  80. https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/bargain-strikes.pdf
  81. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/carnegie-strike-homestead-mill/
  82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2782678
  83. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2369&context=faculty-articles
  84. https://www.investopedia.com/the-10-biggest-strikes-in-u-s-history-4773384
  85. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=lrc_paper_series
  86. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/gurn/00275.pdf
  87. https://fee.org/articles/europes-striking-syndrome/
  88. https://www.uschamber.com/employment-law/data-shows-how-strikes-impact-workers-and-communities
  89. https://blog.implan.com/strike-analysis
  90. http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/05/when-can-european-states-ban-secondary.html
  91. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/08/economics-of-social-unrest-imf-barrett-chen.htm
  92. https://laboursolidarity.org/en/n/585/usa-we-need-a-big-national-strike-fund
  93. https://www.epi.org/publication/summer-strike-activity/
  94. https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/strategy/macroeconomics/economic-impact-of-the-ports-strike
  95. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/coercion/
  96. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/right-to-strike-a-radical-view/8B521F67E28D4FAE1967B17959620424
  97. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4368&context=uclrev
  98. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1605&context=mlr
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/right-to-strike
  100. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/1996CanLIIDocs6
  101. https://worklaw.jotwell.com/coercion-in-labor-law-a-fresh-perspective/
  102. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/finland
  103. https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=1000:13101:0::NO:13101:P13101_COMMENT_ID:4060379
  104. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i124/articles/mike-davis-the-barren-marriage-of-american-labour-and-the-democratic-party
  105. https://illej.unibo.it/article/download/20868/18994/87499
  106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264125047_The_dark_side_of_solidarity_social_norms_and_social_relations_in_the_aftermath_of_strikes
  107. https://www.ovid.com/journals/jcasp/fulltext/10.1002/casp.70145~psychosocial-dynamics-of-strike-action-and-union-renewal-the
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11221126/
  109. https://resources.disqo.com/the-age-of-consumer-activism-how-strikes-shape-brand-perception-and-business-outcomes
  110. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/global-workplace-law-and-policy/from-a-progressive-to-a-regressive-stand-the-right-to-strike-at-the-european-court-of-human-rights/
  111. https://www.workersliberty.org/eu-rights
  112. https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/28-right-collective-bargaining-and-action
  113. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/labour-disputes-across-europe-2023-ongoing-struggle-higher-wages-cost-living
  114. https://prospect.org/labor/2023-11-21-tesla-sweden-union-sympathy-strikes/
  115. https://www.socialeurope.eu/time-to-recognise-a-fifth-eu-freedom-solidarity
  116. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-sweden-transport-workers-union-sympathy-strike/
  117. https://news.err.ee/1004574/sympathy-strikes-in-finland-could-affect-flights-ferries
  118. https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/e-journal/can-we-afford-solidarity-socio-economic-rights-under-eu-law-their-relationship-with-internal-market-rationale-through-economic-lens
  119. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/danbury-hatters-decision-constrains-secondary-boycotts
  120. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4677&context=dlr
  121. https://www.labourheritagecentre.ca/operation-solidarity/
  122. https://usw.ca/international-solidarity-is-always-the-answer/
  123. https://labornotes.org/2018/12/solidarity-pickets-protest-canada-post-strike-ban-1
  124. https://www.ssrc.org/publications/solidarity-transformed-labor-responses-to-globalization-and-crisis-in-latin-america/
  125. https://my.theopenscholar.com/files/palmeida/files/almeida_cordero_chapter_1_2015.pdf
  126. https://thediplomat.com/2023/03/the-10th-anniversary-of-the-hong-kong-dockers-strike/
  127. https://djilp.org/critical-analysis-international-labor-solidarity-influential-in-hong-kong-dockworkers-strike-2/
  128. https://labourreview.org/iranian-labor-unions/
  129. https://jacobin.com/2025/05/south-african-unionists-international-solidarity
  130. https://theconversation.com/trade-unions-and-the-new-economy-3-african-case-studies-show-how-workers-are-recasting-their-power-in-the-digital-age-214509
  131. https://jacobin.com/2023/11/solidarity-bargaining-labor-movement-strategy-uaw-australian-unions-may-day
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.