There are hundreds if not tens of thousands of historical examples of the plight of organized labor, radical and otherwise. Some are more celebrated than others such as the Pullman Strike of 1894 and the Bread and Roses Strike of 1912 in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Some, however, have gone unnoticed or underappreciated in the grand scheme of militant labor’s history. Organized by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) while still in its infancy, the 1906 Sit-Down Strike in Schenectady, New York is an example of the latter. What makes it so surprising that this piece has been mostly forgotten is that this particular struggle is considered by many to be the first ever sit-down strike in American history, or at the least the first of the twentieth century.

Just two weeks before Christmas of that year, workers of various backgrounds from the city’s General Electric plant (GE) initiated a strike in response to the unceremonious release of three workers from the switchboard draughting department. The discharged men were given the option of being brought back and getting placed in a different position, but the union was adamant in bringing the discharged men back to their original jobs. One common theme in the events of this strike is that accounts of it differ from source to source. Some sources stated that there were between 2,000 and 2,500 workers on strike, while others, specifically according to the union, stated that there were upwards of 5,000 engaged in this effort. The plant employed 15,000 people at the time. In a similar vein, some sources say that the three fired workers were let go due to charges of incompetence, and others, again primarily those from Schenectady, say that they were released because they were affiliated with the IWW and were attempting to organize the draughtsmen section of the GE plant. Given the history of antagonism directed at the IWW by capitalists and reactionary organizations that felt threatened by the Wobbly’s ideas, there is a general inclination to believe the more radical forces, at least concerning the cause of the strike. Nevertheless, the One Big Union was committed to this fight.

At the time a novel practice, the strikers utilized a combination of deserting their posts and simply going home and sitting idly at their posts as a means of protest. It’s important to note that this was all carried out peacefully, in contrast to the often violent, dramatically insurrectionary picture painted of the IWW by its detractors. Overall this entire event took on a peaceful character, with no reports of violence from either side. Be that as it may though, the Wobblies were still met with opposition from the managers of the GE plant and the American Federation of Labor (AFL). On the part of the managers, their opposition manifested in two ways. The first being that they simply continued to refuse the union’s demands of reinstating the discharged workers. The second being that the managers made claims of several hundred strikers returning to work, effectively saying the strike was finished before the union even officially ended the fight. The union denied these claims, stating that the number of those who left the strike was miniscule in contrast to the numbers mentioned by the company. The IWW claimed that the plant’s proceedings took a massive hit in production and that it needed to be temporarily shut down in response, however the company stated that this was an unfounded accusation. The AFL, a union with more reactionary, capitulatory practices that often stood against the IWW, refused to recognize the strike as a valid demonstration and thus refused to provide the strikers with any aid. Some sources say that rank and file members of the AFL were threatened with disciplinary actions should they provide any aid to or publicly sympathize with the wobbly strike.

Despite the AFL’s refusal to work with the strikers, the Wobblies were both strong in their convictions and weren’t without some shows of solidarity. Truly encapsulating the slogan of “an injury to one is an injury to all,” reports came in that organizations throughout the northeast, parts of the didwest, and the farther west coast. To quote a brief piece detailing this support;

“Assurances of support from the Western Federation of Miners were received from Denver and served to encourage the 2,000 or more striking members of the Industrial Workers of the World who left their places in the plant of the General Electric Company on Tuesday last. The strike leaders say that the miners have an organization of about 40,000 men who can be depended upon to give them financial aid. Messages of a similar character have been received by the strikers from branches of the Workers in New York, Chicago, and Paterson, N.J.”

After approximately a week and a half on the strike, although some outlets claim two weeks, events seemed to be looking closer to a resolution. A conference was held on December 19^th between union and company representatives in an attempt to reach a settlement. The following day, it was announced that a settlement had indeed been reached. The caveat being though that this wasn’t the settlement the union was looking for. Ultimately, the men whose release were not going to be brought back in any capacity. The only result that could be claimed as a victory for the union is that the others who engaged in the strike were to be brought back, seemingly with no retaliation as reported in the Socialist Labor Party’s (SLP) paper, the Weekly People. There was some debate in the aftermath of the strike as to whether or not it should’ve ever been initiated in the first place, with some claiming the workers should’ve taken the loss from the get-go, and others arguing that the strike at the least could serve as an educational tool for the union to be studied for future endeavors.

What makes the negligent study of the strike in Schenectady even more confounding, besides the facts that it’s the first if not one of the first sit-down strikes in the history of the United States and it involved the preeminent radical union of the early twentieth century, is that it both involved and was inspired by two significant figures in labor history. The sit-down method was first pontificated by one Lucy Parsons, legendary anarchist, labor organizer, and founding member of the IWW, at the union’s first official convention. Parsons explained;

“I wish to say that my conception of the future method of taking possession of this is that of the general strike: that is my conception of it. The trouble with all the strikes in the past has been this: the workingmen like the teamsters in our cities, these hard-working teamsters, strike and go out and starve. Their children starve. Their wives get discouraged. Some feel that they have to go out and beg for relief, and to get a little coal to keep the children warm, or a little bread to keep the wife from starving, or a little something to keep the spark of life in them so that they can remain wage slaves. That is the way with the strikes in the past. My conception of the strike of the future is not to strike and go out and starve, but to strike and remain in and take possession of the necessary property of production. If any one is to starve—I do not say it is necessary—let it be the capitalist class. They have starved us long enough, while they have had wealth and luxury and all that is necessary.”

The other individual was Irish Republican hero and Socialist James Connolly, who for a brief few years in the early 1900s lived in the nearby city of Troy and was involved as an organizer for the IWW in the region. Connolly reportedly served as one of the primary organizers of this strike. It must be noted though that, so far as this study is concerned, there seems to be some contention regarding the validity of this claim. Some pieces speak of Connolly’s involvement in organizing these GE workers, but at least as far as the primary sources are concerned, there’s no indication of him having any presence in this particular struggle. He was involved in organizing and supporting a strike put on by the Collar Starcher’s Union in 1905 in Troy, and he did give speeches at meetings of the Socialist Labor Party in Schenectady, an organization close to the IWW given that both greatly involved Daniel DeLeon, but these speeches were in 1904, two years before the sit-down strike. This is not to say that he wasn’t involved, but primary evidence is, so far, lacking. If anything, the validity of James Connolly’s involvement in the General Electric strike should serve as grounds for scholars and others interested in labor history to study this landmark event.

Regardless of Connolly’s involvement, the 1906 Sit-Down Strike is criminally underappreciated. Not only because of its lack of historical coverage, but also in that it helped put into a practice a once novel form of striking, an alternative method of battling the injustices of capitalism as they appear in the workplace. Although the strike was ultimately a failure, it serves as an example that in the various facets of organizing, whether that be in the workplace, a tenants union, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggles, or what have you, there needs to be a diverse toolbox of tactics at our disposal.

---