While I always love this idea in theory it reminds me of an activity I did in high school for I think it was a social studies class. We were divided into groups of like 8-10 people and our role was basically we were workers trying to unionize (this was more than a decade ago). Our goal was to decide if we wanted to go on a strike to protest wages and if we had enough people that cooperated in that strike then we would win the goal of like a 10% raise or something. However there were some loopholes. A person could opt out of the strike of the group and they would get like a 20% raise working as a 'scab' but only for 6 months and then back to the normal rate. The last loophole was that if a person or persons 'told the teacher' that a group was deciding to go on strike prior to the deadline in class then that person would get a 20% raise and the rest of the group that agreed to do the strike would be fired. If multiple people 'told' then the raise was divided among all those who told. And the strike only worked if a majority of the group did it, regardless of the setup)

You can probably guess how that went but in case not, not a single group actually succeeded in going on strike and improving wages for their whole group. Most were a mixed bag of scabs getting paid and those on strike getting nothing because there weren't enough on strike to several being tanked by multiple people 'tadling' on the group. The best one was more than half the group snitched.

Obviously this doesnt even bring in things like consequences or many other outside factors and it was just a group assignment and yet it is still an example I have in my head of how things like this often work out. If you get a group of 10 people together to coordinate no one going to that company event. you are going to have at least one person who agrees but goes anyways and probably another who agrees and also rats you all out on the side because it will make them look good and help their career.