I can't speak to Sweden, as I don't know the full range of resources that exist there for the common worker. For example, here in the US, lawyers and legal teams are a thing that only the wealthy can afford (so typically the ownership class) and their job is specifically to end run the law so as to evade legal consequences, hence breaking the rule of law. As the union is the laborer's recourse against an adversary that totally outclasses them, yes, the union does serve the individual worker as their legal team.
Also, this is not to say there aren't limits to what unions can do, rather to submit that union action is a stopgap to let the capitalist structure work for a little bit longer. I assume ultimately the union will fail, that through automation and exploitation of unregulated labor forces, the companies and their management will be able to discard the laborers, and leaving them to the elements, which is essentially what they've declared they want to do if AI provides them the means to do it. If it doesn't eventually some other technological advancement will.
But that means Marx's communist revolution is not permanently deferred by the labor union. It means ultimately it will come down to class warfare, since (despite calls for measured, well-regulated capitalism by some voices like Nick Hanauer) the ownership class cannot help itself but see the labor class as adversaries rather than partners in a mutual plan, and the companies that are exploitative succeed more in the short term and then engage in anti-competitive measures to edge out the more ethical companies.
And this affirms that unions are a temporary stopgap. It's a way for actors (including voice-actors for video games) can keep their jobs for a little longer, knowing the publishing companies and studios are still looking to replace them with robots, and ultimately will, and when that day comes, either they get shoved into a concentration camp or they seize the studios for their own by force, since they're not going to quietly starve to death or look for service work in fast food. Again, the problem is not solved.
We also can't blame the individual laborer for insufficient engagement. Firstly, the common worker just wants to work. They are actively not informed (sometimes disinformed) what they must do to get representation in the labor union. If the union doesn't automatically represent their interests, and all their interests, then it fails to serve its function, in making the exchange between worker and company fair. Again, the owning class sees labor as antagonistic, and seeks to exploit them maximally to maximize profits, so something is necessary to represent the laborer. If the union isn't that then nothing is, and we're back to Marx's revolution (or starve, or menial work, or concentration camps...)
So I can't speak to the circumstances of the union in Sweden of which you speak, but from here it sounds like you don't understand the gravity of what's going on. It may be that laborers in Sweden have access to legal council separately, are informed of their duty to voice concerns at union meetings (or, I presume, electronically or through mail) and are trained to give expression to their specific needs (or have access to experts to do that for them). This is not the case in the US, let alone in the SAG-AFTRA affair, in which any concession is a permanent loss that will cause suffering and loss of life, and excuse industry abuses.
