Editing Sitdown strike (section)

== Form and purpose ==
Writers in the 1930s,{{Sfn|Adamic|1938|p=404-417}} 1960s,{{Sfn|Fine|1965|p=121}} and early 2000s{{Sfn|White|2010|p=7}} have all described the same basic forms of sitdown or sit-in strikes. Author [[Louis Adamic]], in his account of the late 1930s wave of sit-down strikes in the United States wrote the following definition in the fall of 1936:

<blockquote>SITDOWN, n. Act of quitting work in one or a few departments of a delicately organized mass-production factory with the aim of stopping operations in the entire or most of the plant; specif. such an act done by mutual agreement by workers in one or a few departments of such a factory as a means of enforcing compliance with demands made upon their employers; sudden strike workers in one or a few departments of such a factor, decided upon and called by themselves while on the job, usually without the sanction of any recognized labor-union leader or official and, as a rule, of short duration, the strikers and the rest of the workers remaining idle (sitting down) by their machines or belt conveyors pending the compliance with their (the strikers') demands. See STAY-IN and QUICKY.{{sfn|Adamic|1938|p=404}}</blockquote>

Ahmed White distinguishes three types of sit-in strikes: "short, '<nowiki/>'''quickie' strikes''', characterized by brief, on-the-job work stoppages," like those described by Adamic; "the classic '<nowiki/>'''stay-in' strike'''", defined "a work stoppage in which the strikers occupied the workplace to prevent the employer from using it for a considerable period of time"; and "''''skippy' strikes''', characterized by intentionally sloppy performance on the production line."{{sfn|White|2010|p=7}} Sit-down strikes also built upon the tactics, used by the [[Industrial Workers of the World]], of the "folded arms strike" and "striking on the job" (which, according to Adamic, "required men to pretend they were working, and to accomplish as little as possible without being discharged").{{Sfn|Adamic|1938|p=407-408}}

In factories built around [[Assembly line|assembly lines]], sit-down strikes enabled small numbers of workers to interrupt production across an entire plant. In industries with complex [[Supply chain|chains of production]], such as [[Automotive industry|automobile manufacturing]], it likewise projected power outward from a factory on strike: "just as a militant minority could stop production in an entire plant, so if the plant was a key link in an integrated corporate empire, its occupation could paralyze the corporation."{{sfn|Silver|2003|p=47}} Adamic describes the sit-down strike as educating workers about their power as well as providing an opportunity to organize non-union workers:
<blockquote>"And sitting by their machines, caldrons, boilers, and work benches, they talked. Some realized for the first time how important they were in the process of rubber production. Twelve men had practically stopped the works! … The active [i.e., pro-union] rank-and-filers, scattered through the various sections of the plant, took the initiative in saying, 'We've got to stick with 'em!' And they stuck with them, union and non-union men alike."{{sfn|Adamic|1938|p=406}}</blockquote> White describes this process as "an extraordinary forum for cultivating loyalty and solidarity among workers, offering rank-and-file workers a salient symbol of the union's ability to confront the employer, as well as numerous occasions for the actual practice of mutual support."{{sfn|White|2010|p=13}}

When feasible, sit-down strikes offered numerous strategic and tactical advantages. Adamic observed in the 1930s that "[Quickie] sitdowns are quick, short, and free of violence."{{sfn|Adamic|1938|p=404}} The tactic prevents employers from replacing them with [[Strikebreaker|strikebreakers]] or removing equipment to transfer production to other locations. [[Neal Ascherson]] has commented that an additional attraction is that it emphasizes the role of workers in providing for the people and allows workers to in effect hold valuable machinery hostage as a bargaining chip.{{sfn|Ascherson|1982}} Other advantages listed by Adamic include:

* Sitdown strikes happen inside factories, where workers have the advantage of familiarity and knowledge of the space. This contrasts with the tactical advantages that police and private security have in outdoor picket lines.{{sfn|Adamic|1938|p=404}}
* While many workers are morally opposed to sabotage, "The sitdown is the opposite of sabotage… It destroys nothing."{{Sfn|Adamic|1938|p=406-407}}
* By stopping work but keeping workers in a single space, the sitdown strike generates a new and enjoyable social space for hundreds or thousands of workers: "The sitdown is a social affair. Sitting workers talk. They get acquainted. And they like that."{{Sfn|Adamic|1938|p=409}}

Labor strategists who recognized the value of the sit-down strike include Dutch [[Council communism|Council Communist]] [[Anton Pannekoek]],{{Sfn|Pannekoek|2003}} American labor historian Jeremy Brecher,{{Sfn|Brecher|1997}} and sociologist Beverly Silver.{{sfn|Silver|2003|p=45-53}}