When it comes to problems on the job, we're generally given few options: quit, vote, join a union. Here's why that's not good enough. The final part in a series challenging some of the underlying assumptions of American political thought, earlier parts here, here, and here.

Work sucks.

And when it gets too much to bear, we're told we have roughly three choices. One: look for another job with better pay, where the manager isn't a d*ck, one that maybe even offers some benefits. Two: we can join a union. At least then we'll have some representation on the job. Three: we can vote, placing our faith in some politician or political party to make the world a better place.

I think it goes without saying that option one is a dead end. If our only option is to leave a bad job, we're constantly leaving all the power in the hands of the bosses. We're left pinning our hopes on the benevolence of some future employer.

So what about the unions? What unions offer seems pretty good: collective bargaining, a strong contract, an independent voice on the job. Yet, we've all heard stories about unions selling out workers – about union bosses who care more about their cushy jobs and big salaries than getting a good deal for their members. And, of course, this does happen.

But there's more to it than that. Some union officials are careerist sell-outs, but lots aren't. Oftentimes, they're shopfloor militants who got the gig precisely because they wanted to use their skills and experience to help other workers.

Yet, for anyone who's ever been in a union, too often we're left feeling abandoned – that the union is too close to management and never really prepared to push when it comes to supporting us at work.

So what's going on here?

Part of the problem is legalistic.

Labor law basically demands unions adopt a top-down structure, provide extensive information about their membership and finances to the government, and limits the type of industrial action workers can take. Unions can be sued, have their treasuries confiscated, and be taken over by the government. Officials can be fined and sent to jail if the union steps out of line. None of this makes for militant unions.

The structure of the unions doesn't help either. They are hierarchical and bureaucratic. Leaders are far removed from the grassroots. It's no surprise, then, that union leaders settle when workers want to fight. Or that officials put the brakes on action when it looks like it's going to break out of the control of the union.

But, more than anything, it's about the role of a union: to represent workers, to mediate between employees and the boss. This means that if an agreement is made, the union must be able to ensure the boss follows it. On the other hand, it must also ensure the workers follow it, too. This is why, when workers go out on an unofficial strike, the union is right there next to the boss telling the workers to go back.

Just as importantly, capitalism finds ways to incorporate unions into its managing structures, whether at the company or national level. Before continuing, let's be clear here: employers don't like unions. And workers under a union contract generally have better pay and conditions, better job security, and extra employment protections. However, when employers are given the choice between a militant, unruly, strike-prone workforce and the formal, orderly negotiations offered by unions, they are going to choose the union.

And, I know, this sounds a bit far-fetched. Most of us have so little experience with unions we have to go by what we see on TV or what we hear in those awful anti-union videos we watch when we start a job. But talk to anybody who's ever organized a strike: more often than not, the unions are, at best, a nuisance. And, at worst, actively stop us from taking effective action.

If there's a union at your work, you should probably join it. But don't have any illusions: at some point, the interests of the unions diverge from our interests as workers. And, at that point, we're going to have to take independent action. Seems to me we should get in the habit of doing that sooner than later.

So, that's the unions, perhaps we can look to politics instead?

This is tempting. Politicians talk a good talk. What politician doesn't want to create jobs or raise living standards?

And I have a certain sympathy for politicians. While some politicians are just straight-up scumbags and liars, a lot of them are idealists who really believe they can make the world a better place by getting elected. The problem is that once in power their decisions are extremely limited by their role as managers of national capitalism.

We can witness this in the extreme by looking at Syriza, a radical left party that came into power Greece. I don't doubt the sincerity of most of the people who got voted in when Syriza – running on an anti-cuts, anti-austerity, anti-capitalist program – swept the election. Yet, after just a short time in power, Syriza is enforcing austerity – against not only their own party platforms, but against a referendum explicitly rejecting any more austerity.

That's the reality of achieving power within capitalism. Ideals and beliefs are subsumed to the needs of capital. This is why all politicians – conservative, liberal, even socialist – talk about the need for a “growing economy”. What this means, of course, is the need for companies and employers to continue producing profit.

There is one group, however, who doesn't have to achieve power, one group who already has power: us. As workers, we keep companies functioning and we keep the entire economy functioning.

If we flex that power – going on strike, going out into the streets – we don't need unions or politicians to represent us. We can identify our own needs as working people and force concessions from both government and capital.

What about more radical solutions like state ownership? After all, public sector workers tend to have better pay and conditions and government services can be mandated to serve everyone. And we can and should fight against privatization and even for government takeover of certain industries to improve services. But let us have no illusions: government ownership in no way eliminates the conflict between employer and employee.

I don't have all the answers, but acknowledging dead ends is a pretty good place to start.

Broadly, I'd say we need to develop a culture of solidarity at work. Union or no union, we need to support each other and not blame each other for problems caused by the boss. We need to learn to respond to problems at work with self-organisation and to link-up with other workplaces. And, of course, never cross picket lines. Finally, we need to recognize our own power and avoid the temptation to let others - even those who claim to have our interests at heart – speak or act on our behalf.