Couldn't the union have some sort of democratic structure for deciding what political goals are popular and enforced? In that case it wouldn't really be any one person's political goals.
The reason these (ex) Googlers are trying to pressure Google's management to drop certain projects is because they know they can't win the argument to eliminate America's borders at the national or even state level via the normal political process. Their goals are not popular and people do not want them to be enforced, hence the dubious and unethical strategies these activists-cum-workers rely on.
I asked for examples because this sort of wafer thin anti-corporate virtue signalling is insufficient to convince me to pick a fight with my own employer in 'solidarity'. Like most of the population I don't worry about Facebook or Google invading my privacy, instead I enjoy their free services. If they did something I really hated I'd just stop using them: there are other search engines and Facebook isn't especially critical. I already use it much less than I used to. Nothing they're doing justifies being labelled as abusive, let alone taking explicit action.
I could have sworn I pointed to this exact behavior as an anti-pattern just a few comments ago, and was told not to worry because democracy. Given how readily this particular goal cropped up again, I suddenly find myself less than completely reassured. I suddenly find myself wondering, once again, if the people who want me to join a union actually care what I want or just want power.
If you have colleagues that are diabetic, would advancing policies for cheaper insulin not represent the interests of the group?
Maybe the answer is no, but for those colleagues who are have more complicated needs the answer might be yes.
Lastly, if a union doesn't at least represent a re-balance of power then it is ineffectual.
When I have colleagues who suffer from diabetes, I would expect our union to ensure excellent health care is provided as part of the contract. I would not expect our union to try to involve itself in something drastically removed from its core competency like how research is managed and pharmaceuticals are regulated. I would certainly not want our union to expend resources on the matter - there are guaranteed to be more substantive matters closer to home that would benefit from those same resources.
You're absolutely right. A union can, should, and must represent a rebalancing of power. It's just perhaps possible that it's not appropriate for this rebalancing to extend into every possible sphere. This is doubly true in a context of limited resources.
In practice, democratic processes have a tendency to be less than fully detail-oriented and allow a reasonable amount of latitude in leadership. I'm maybe the smallest bit reluctant to sign up for a system where the people doing the organizing are explicitly dreaming about abusing leadership positions.
Perhaps I've missed something? Can you help me if there's anything I've overlooked?
What if I don't like what people voted on? Then I'm screwed.
Instead, I would much rather bargain for myself, instead of collectively bargaining with others who might not agree with what I want.