The issue is writers have been compensated in part by salary and in part by residuals—payments based on how often and in what format the show is rebroadcast or show. In other words, writers take a risk: if the show flops and is never rebroadcast or sold on DVD or VHS, they get no residuals. If the show is popular, they make more money.

But residuals in the contract-covered markets will likely decline or those that will rise have lower residual percentages, so the writers will likely get paid less in the future. Writers want access or in some cases larger residuals of the new-market sources. And higher salaries. Actors will demand this, too.

Of course the writers are being greedy. But so are the producers!

Keep in mind that writers rarely have guaranteed jobs. They can usually be fired at will, and if their show is canceled, they are out of work. That said, most are doing well (six figure incomes), but if the producers are raking it in, they want a greater share.

For the lame arguments that producers make, this is great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFntFDfaf5o&feature=related

In a free market democracy a union is “needed” by the employees or laborers when the membership feels that their desires, concerns, or needs will not be addressed in timely manner by normal market forces, majority will, or current law and practices. The “need” is in reference to a particular group. To the other groups that issue may very well not be seen as a “need” until a case for the other groups can be made (if ever).

The 19th century examples are good for showing unions can have a positive function for the general public but it’s important to get to the ultimate point that unions may be able to provide a similar public benefit for contemporary issues.
It’s probably overstepping things to imply that unions are some sort of caretakers for the general public, however, since initially any particular union is concerned with the conditions faced by its membership with general public needs being either ancillary or even antagonistic.

That’s all way more sarcastic than I want to be, since I know for a fact that John Holbo is about a million times smarter than I am, but, seriously, that post seemed really naive to me. Labor peonage is the historical rule, not the exception, and the middle class the exception, rather than the rule.

Not if you draw a line of continuity and show people that those who say we don’t need unions are the ones also talking about abolishing things that unions have already won, like health benefits and overtime pay. Frame it in terms of tradition and keeping what good we already have and fighting for new benefits that will help people. Keeping it simple and practical though is the key.

The same principles that guarantee liberty and property work just as well for organizing labor as they do for organizing capital, and free market types should be policy-neutral in the labor-management struggle. I expect a genuine free market would contain a variety of economic structures, unions included.

Focusing on 19th century horrors reinforces the sense that unions are an antique solution, not suited to the 21st century.

“You like weekends? Regular pay? Sick leave? How about your kids not getting their fingers cut off in machinery because they go to school instead of work? Unions did all that and more. The Free Market created debtor’s prison, child labor and the need for a minimum wage, because otherwise, we’d all still be working sixteen hour days, seven days a week, for pennies a day.”

Well, I enjoyed the post but I don’t think this would really fly as a general argument because what it doesn’t capture is why the company isn’t shooting itself in the foot by driving away perfectly good talent, in effect, by trying to refuse to pay for it.