By the first decades of the twentieth century, wage-workers in Greater Syria had begun to engage in new forms of popular anti-imperialism and protest. While strikes had been outlawed by the newly elected Ottoman parliament in the wake of a 1908 strike wave, workers across the empire continued to utilize the strike as a tactic of protest until the end of the Ottoman Empire, particularly in foreign owned concessionary companies. In Beirut, worker petitions, published in newspapers and submitted to the Ottoman state, regularly challenged both concession holders and the Ottoman state to account for the enrichment of foreign companies at the expense of local laborers. Workers consistently tied issues ranging from unemployment, lack of medical care, long work hours, and underpayment to the structure of concessionary companies, their foreign interests, and their relationship to the Ottoman state. In one particularly protracted dispute, workers at the Beirut gas company factory’s constant protest culminated in 1912 with company management accusations that the municipality of Beirut was encouraging and aiding worker protest at the factory. In this paper, I explore how workers framed changes in company management, company solvency concerns, and company pleas for the Ottoman state to intervene on their behalf, and how these disputes came to a head in a drawn out legal dispute. Following work by Ilham Khuri-Makdisi and Jens Hanssen, I examine how workers mobilized new conceptions of foreignness in labor disputes to engage a broader public and how company management and various arms of the Ottoman state responded to these claims. Moving between documents from the Ottoman archives, including worker petitions and company documents, Ottoman and Arabic periodicals, and French diplomatic correspondence, I argue that popular anti-imperialism emerged in work sites in late Ottoman Greater Syria. Additionally, I suggest that anti-imperialism became a key strategy for workers looking to gain support from social classes otherwise hostile to the disruptive nature of workplace actions and strikes. Finally, this paper reframes infrastructural development and imperial reform—conventionally understood through top-down Ottoman centralization and European imperial expansion—as processes that were in fact a constant negotiation between those planning and profiting from them, and those who worked for and on them.