The other thing that occurs to me is that for a long time we workers more or less felt the major problems were solved… and now we’re finding them back again and some of the unions have gotten fat… sigh.

Many of the writers that I know – writers, mind you, who should care about what happens – are taking the position that the striking writers are greedy. There’s a lot of negativity floating around that isn’t helping the cause…

1, There’s a perception that Hollywood writers get paid a lot of money, no matter what level you are at. I know this isn’t true but the perception is there. I’m surprised not to see more of an effort to combat this issue.

2, The strike affects more than just the writers. Think of the actors, the caterers, the crew… Again, the perception is that the strike is selfish because you hear more about the negative impact on others in the industry than the writers themselves.

3, The *Hollywood effect* is not helping the cause. While I understand that folks like Tina Fey and Steve Carrell are writers as well as actors, they perpetuate this idea that the writers don’t need the money.

Why aren’t there real life writers telling their sides of the story?

Perhaps they’re dependent upon the unions to do their talking for them (in fact, in some unions, management forbids members from discussing strikes, pay, etc. with the press).

Or maybe they don’t understand what they’re really striking for (in a recent transit strike, the rallying cry in public was “better pay” but the real negotiation issue was health care benefits).

I don’t know why it feels like the writers are strangely silent. Look at your blog – the comments, considering the length and size of the strike (and the popularity of your blog) are limited.

And, again, to be clear, I’m not saying that unions are bad. I’m saying that some unions have given the whole a fairly negative perception.

And the WGA doesn’t seem to want to change that. Curious, no?

I grew up in the rural south where unions were much moreso Norma Rae – the kind you are speaking about, Anne, where a lot of really important changes were made as a result of union activity.

However, I now live in Philadelphia, a city that is often paralyzed by greedy union workers who scream in the name of their “fair share.” I think, as a result, I’m not sure what anybody’s “fair share” is anymore.

And that’s part of what’s muddying these talks, I think. There is so much baggage that comes along with unions these days that it’s hard to understand what’s really at stake.

For the record, I used to belong to a union. When I taught at college, I was forced to contribute to the union as part of the “collective bargaining” discussions. I found much of it to be distasteful and no more than schoolyard bullying – these bargains actually resulted in some of my part time colleagues being forced out of their positions so that someone less qualified but “full time” could have “job security.”

These talks aren’t happening in a vacuum. Our individual interactions with unions and collective bargaining influence how we all view the bigger picture.

Of course there isn’t a level playing field… now, what about the rest of it? What about corporations, and government welfare?