Too easy to infiltrate, too difficult to enforce participation internally. And you've got to advertise it somehow to the workforce.

I don't think it's achievable without outside help and political organisation.

What is not achievable? We're talking about collective bargaining, how is that not achievable without outside help and involving the government? People got it working just fine 100 years ago... Of course back then laws were not favoring corporations that much (in my country where it worked then, not the USA).

Getting collective bargaining started requires assembling the collective - this is a lot harder to do if the employer can just fire anyone seen organising.

Traditionally bootstrapping into a situation where union organising could happen safely and peacefully required a period of violence on the picket lines. There used to be quite a lot of this in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...

These days it's even harder in some ways; the more "virtual" an organisation is, the easier it is for the company to just disband and restart it and the harder it is to picket. It's not clear if the various strikes against Uber by its workers have achieved anything.

(someone is downvoting you, but it's not me!)

Why would laws be better? I absolutely don't see how any law could be better than something the people did themselves. Comparable - maybe, but a law is usually way more expensive in the long run and not exactly flexible - and if you were from eastern European state you would know how unions work here (they mostly don't).

Generally in order for unions to exist at all they need a certain amount of protection from reprisals; union organising needs to be a protected activity.

Surely the big Eastern European union success story was Solidarity? Although I can understand how unions would struggle to operate in the post-communist era.

> Generally in order for unions to exist at all they need a certain amount of protection from reprisals; union organising needs to be a protected activity.

Could you please explain why, in the age of e-mail and Facebook? People in my country have zero problem organising political events on Facebook, attracting several tens of thousands of visitors to their demonstrations.

If you're organising a union on Facebook, and you're under American-style at-will employment, and it wasn't banned under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_concerted_activity , then the employer would simply immediately fire whichever people were seen to be the ringleaders.

Good point. Thank you!

> Generally in order for unions to exist at all they need a certain amount of protection from reprisals;

This reverses cause and effect: in order for unions to receive any legal protection, they have to exist and fight for it (many members paying very high prices.) The unions precede the legal protection, not the other way around.