WS: Michael Burawoy (_Manufacturing consent_) describes a similar phenomenon: workers tend to compete against each other on the shop floor, even though cooperation would bring them more benefits. It is known as the prisoner's dilemma: two prisoners are offered a deal to rat on each other and get immunity in return. If both keep their mouth shut, they both may be released due to the lack of evidence (greater collective good), but of one rats, then he walks but the other gets a stiff sentence. The rational choice, thus, is to rat and both do so, and both get a stiff sentence. This is to illustrate how a rational choice can lead to collective disutility rather than utility.
The corollary to the prisoner's dilemma is that social solidarity is a way out of the dilemma, as it provides assurance to each prisoner's that the other guy will keep his mouth shut. The problem is, however, that social solidarity is "socially constructed" as Kelley & Co. would say, that is, it must be created and maintained by an institutionalized collective action.
So the real dilemma is that to overcome the prisoner-worker dilemma, you need social solidarity among workers, and to have that social solidarity you must institutionalize it e.g. by a union, but to have a union in place you need to overcome prisoner-worker dilemma. That dilemma can be solved by establishing industry-wide unions (i.e. you can be a member if you work in particular industry, whether or not the co-workers in your particular firm or establishment vote for a union), but the bosses will not that happen in this country.
Wojtek