People in other countries routinely face much greater threats of reprisal than those faced by most activists in the US.

In other countries you have people resisting in the face of totalitarian regimes which brook no dissent under threat of death or torture for activists and their families. Yet people still resist.

As far as I'm aware, we're still far from a state of affairs where joining a union in the US means facing those kinds of risks. Yes, it might affect your career negatively -- but it might also affect it positively, as there are among us people who actually look at union membership as something to be proud of rather than hide.

Yes, there are libertarians and economic conservatives who froth at the mouth at the very mention of a union, but I haven't heard of many of them actually going as far as killing people for joining unions in recent decades.

So what kind of risks are you realistically going to face if you join a union?

That escalated quickly. From chilling effect for the sake of the career to torture and killing.

In late 19th to early 20th century in America (and some other places), union membership actually could be a life or death proposition. Back then, violence went so far, particularly around mining industries, at times to literally be called as warfare and battles.

Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars etc.

At this point in America, push-back against organized labor (or in fact most other activism) doesn't reach this level. In some countries, however, activism of any kind is still potentially on this level of risk.

Realistically it seems the impediment is perceived loss of comfort from loss of income.

That's always been true of all organizing efforts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_Worl...

"The extremely high rate of IWW membership turnover during this era (estimated at 133% per decade) makes it difficult for historians to state membership totals with any certainty, as workers tended to join the IWW in large numbers for relatively short periods (e.g., during labor strikes and periods of generalized economic distress)."

The question is why union efforts do so well in some eras, and so badly in other eras. And why the workers become militant in some eras, but not other eras.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

"for the most part its safer to watch others being targeted, its better to deaden yourself and empty yourself of all empathy lest you do anything at all of substance in this world"