one thing i like about unionization, beyond the obvious benefits, is that it makes it harder for outsiders to go off the deep end calling for things like boycotts (in all but name) when workers don't think that's what would help them.
without there being a worker voice from the inside explaining to the public what is and isn't helpful, people develop bizarre "consumer revolt" mindsets and weird activisty ultimatums based on pure vibes. it gets at its worst when people spin up discourse as if any given company is a single mind acting with singular intent, instead of a large collection of a wide variety of people with different goals and politics.
taken to extremes, it leads to people picking personal battles with specific companies based on whatever controversies they've been most privy to, while completely ignoring all the other companies they give money to that also do shitty things. but the moral test they've developed is that you reject the companies that have made them personally angry, instead of looking at the broader picture.
with the writers union strike, the union was able to communicate to the public what helps them and what doesn't. they were able to communicate that the writers at all these companies need support, even as the higher ups within all these companies are doing shitty things. this creates a different political climate than, say, the videogames industry, where outsiders keep trying to build their politics around "good companies" and "bad companies."
absolutely agreed. when we as workers are speaking for ourselves, it prevents other people from speaking for us.