Although, judging from the loads of garbage I see on TV and movie screens, I would argue that the majority of writers are not worth shit and should be canned anyways. But apparently they are worth a great deal to networks and studios who make millions (billions?) from their work. So go figure.

Also, you say that the key grips, makeup artistis, etc will all have to take a pay cut if the writers get more money. Isn’t the CEO also an employee of the company? Why isn’t he included on this list of people who will have totighten their belts in these difficult times?

It’s not as though the company couldn’t hire nonunion writers to replace them, or leaving the writers to air other content, such as infomercials. Isn’t this the implicit nature of any free market transaction? The price of a good or service is determined in part by the degree to which withholding that good or service would inconvenience the buyer should he/she choose to not meet the asking price - whether the seller is an individual (such as a craftsman) or a group (such as a company or a union). As the threat of withholding becomes more potent in its ability to inconvenience the buyer, wouldn’t you say it is only reasonable that the seller should attempt to increase his or her asking price? I personally would say that some sense of fairness might play a role, but isn’t that just more evidence that I am not a pure market liberal?

In terms of your comment about the attitudes of ‘those on the left’ (I think this includes me, in your book), I don’t immediately see anything immoral about a company taking its product off the market for a time then re-releasing it later when it becomes a ‘classic’ (and perhaps hoping that classic status causes its value to shift). Didn’t coca-cola do something like that by accident, before I was born?