Striking is the last resort of unions, but it's not their main mode of operation. Some unions can't strike at all. But they are often supported by laws which give them leverage without having to strike. Strikes are bad for everyone concerned. The union also has agreements with the company that give it power, again, precisely because strikes hurt everybody.
Unions are mainly about giving workers a unified voice, in the democratic sense -- this is what most of us want, and we all agree to abide by it. The main job of a union is doing that voice, rather than having to leave that up to the many individuals, who usually lack the experience to do it well. It's nearly always routine, and if the word "strike" is even mentioned it's because things have seriously gone off the rails.
Google could theoretically empower a users union to represent users, in the same way, and the government could beef that up with laws. It's not impossible.
The impossible part is how you elect union leadership. Not with hundreds of millions of people. Unions are fractious enough as it is with tens of thousands of workers all united by similar work environments. The election would be nearly as hard as electing a US President -- more so than any individual Senator.
