There has never been a true, nationwide general strike in the United States, though a series of post-World War II work stoppages remembered as the “great strike wave of 1946” mobilized five million American workers demanding leaders to address economic instability and untenable working conditions.
In its aftermath, congress cracked down with the Taft-Hartley act, a legislation prohibiting a broad range of union tactics, including calling for political strikes. The 1947 law is still in place, despite repeated attempts to repeal it.
I got this question answered by the AI that’s trying to replace us:
What happened to the average American who participaten in the great general strike wave of 1946?
The average American who participated in the great general strike wave of 1946 experienced both short-term gains in wages and conditions and long-term setbacks in labor power due to political and legislative backlash. This period marked a crucial turning point in U.S. labor history.
The Immediate Experience (1945–1946)
Following World War II, over 4.3 to 5 million American workers across industries such as steel, auto, coal, rail, and public utilities went on strike in 1945–1946, making it the largest labor upheaval in U.S. history. Most workers demanded wage increases to offset postwar inflation and to restore pay parity after wartime restrictions. Many strikes succeeded in securing modest wage gains and better benefits, including the United Auto Workers’ victory over General Motors, which resulted in increased wages and improved workplace conditions.
Everyday Impact on Workers
The strikes were often exhausting and financially challenging for participants. The average work stoppage lasted about 24 days, three times longer than wartime strikes, forcing families to rely on savings or community support. Nonetheless, solidarity and union membership surged temporarily as workers saw their actions bring some tangible improvements in pay and bargaining power.
Political and Economic Consequences
Successes were short-lived. Media and political elites increasingly portrayed labor as disruptive, especially as nationwide strikes affected transportation and goods distribution, leading to food shortages and logistical chaos. This backlash fueled anti-union sentiment, culminating in the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which curtailed key labor rights such as secondary strikes and sympathy actions, required union leaders to sign anti-communist affidavits, and enabled “right-to-work” laws in several states.
Long-Term Outcomes
By the early 1950s, many of the workers who had gone on strike returned to relative economic stability, but with weakened collective bargaining power. Union growth plateaued after 1948, and labor’s political influence declined as conservative forces gained control of Congress in 1946, shifting U.S. labor relations toward employer dominance for decades.
In essence, the average worker from the 1946 general strike wave gained short-term material benefits but ultimately saw the labor movement’s power constrained—ushering in a postwar order defined by limited union influence and the rise of corporate-led industrial relations.
Did you compare this against a reliable source before sharing? If so, could you share a source?
I’m not necessarily disputing these particular factual claims — since I’m on not an expert on this moment in history — but please, please don’t rely uncritically on AI for factual questions.
No I did not. The AI had references and I removed them. I think it behooves us to use their machines against them and in the process pollute the pool so that AI companies cannot easily dig up facts from our daily conversations.
Its not important to tell where the info came from. Its more important to learn that all this has played before. We are on the brink of economical collapse and soon will be loosing our voice to even talk about the subject.
Its not important to tell where the info came from. Its more important to learn than all this has played before.
See, without verification (or a reader already being aware of the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of this AI output), what you posted is about as reliable as fanfiction. It is not appropriate to make a statement like “it’s important to know this has happened before and how it went” even as you say you’re unwilling to provide evidence for your claims.
The AI history output sounds reasonable. But if any of it is skewed in favor of the ruling class - or was manually edited in such a way - then the potential effect is readers having just a little bit more sense that any action in favor of Labor is doomed to fail. Quite shitty if that’s the takeaway of something not actually accurate.
Oh, imagine that.
Can’t have the uppity peasants upending the status-quo, can we?
I got this question answered by the AI that’s trying to replace us:
What happened to the average American who participaten in the great general strike wave of 1946?
The average American who participated in the great general strike wave of 1946 experienced both short-term gains in wages and conditions and long-term setbacks in labor power due to political and legislative backlash. This period marked a crucial turning point in U.S. labor history. The Immediate Experience (1945–1946)
Following World War II, over 4.3 to 5 million American workers across industries such as steel, auto, coal, rail, and public utilities went on strike in 1945–1946, making it the largest labor upheaval in U.S. history. Most workers demanded wage increases to offset postwar inflation and to restore pay parity after wartime restrictions. Many strikes succeeded in securing modest wage gains and better benefits, including the United Auto Workers’ victory over General Motors, which resulted in increased wages and improved workplace conditions.
Everyday Impact on Workers
The strikes were often exhausting and financially challenging for participants. The average work stoppage lasted about 24 days, three times longer than wartime strikes, forcing families to rely on savings or community support. Nonetheless, solidarity and union membership surged temporarily as workers saw their actions bring some tangible improvements in pay and bargaining power.
Political and Economic Consequences
Successes were short-lived. Media and political elites increasingly portrayed labor as disruptive, especially as nationwide strikes affected transportation and goods distribution, leading to food shortages and logistical chaos. This backlash fueled anti-union sentiment, culminating in the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which curtailed key labor rights such as secondary strikes and sympathy actions, required union leaders to sign anti-communist affidavits, and enabled “right-to-work” laws in several states.
Long-Term Outcomes
By the early 1950s, many of the workers who had gone on strike returned to relative economic stability, but with weakened collective bargaining power. Union growth plateaued after 1948, and labor’s political influence declined as conservative forces gained control of Congress in 1946, shifting U.S. labor relations toward employer dominance for decades.
In essence, the average worker from the 1946 general strike wave gained short-term material benefits but ultimately saw the labor movement’s power constrained—ushering in a postwar order defined by limited union influence and the rise of corporate-led industrial relations.
Did you compare this against a reliable source before sharing? If so, could you share a source?
I’m not necessarily disputing these particular factual claims — since I’m
onnot an expert on this moment in history — but please, please don’t rely uncritically on AI for factual questions.Edit: a typo
No I did not. The AI had references and I removed them. I think it behooves us to use their machines against them and in the process pollute the pool so that AI companies cannot easily dig up facts from our daily conversations.
Its not important to tell where the info came from. Its more important to learn that all this has played before. We are on the brink of economical collapse and soon will be loosing our voice to even talk about the subject.
See, without verification (or a reader already being aware of the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of this AI output), what you posted is about as reliable as fanfiction. It is not appropriate to make a statement like “it’s important to know this has happened before and how it went” even as you say you’re unwilling to provide evidence for your claims.
The AI history output sounds reasonable. But if any of it is skewed in favor of the ruling class - or was manually edited in such a way - then the potential effect is readers having just a little bit more sense that any action in favor of Labor is doomed to fail. Quite shitty if that’s the takeaway of something not actually accurate.
In other words: there’s no point in continuing this conversation. Later 👋