

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
There is broad and deep recognition that AI technology will reshape the future of work, and unions have decided to roll up their sleeves (and dust off their picket signs) to bargain how AI will be implemented, to do what, and to what effect.
For many pundits and policymakers, there is little doubt that Artificial Intelligence will devour the jobs of millions of people, including professionals formerly presumed immune to technological replacement. The only question is how many jobs will be lost, how quickly. In fact, there is nothing inevitable about AI—not its development, its deployment, or its impact. Massive job losses are not inherent in the algorithm, preordained by the laws of nature and physics. Rather than remaining struck by awe, we can reassert human agency over this technology. We can not only save jobs, but perhaps even make them better.
AI is not an abstract force that operates solely at the macroeconomic level. AI systems and agents are developed and implemented in ways specific to each sector, each workplace, each type of job. Although employers might focus myopically on cutting their wage bill, their employees know firsthand how the work actually gets done. They know what disclosures to request about how the technology would be used. They know how AI might affect the content and flow of their work, what training would be most helpful, and which implementations would be most likely to devalue their labor versus those most likely to enhance it. Thus, the most effective way to ensure that AI makes work life better and not worse is to empower workers to bargain about it.
By “workers” I mean people who rely on their own labor to earn a living—which is to say, most of us, whether we write reports, treat patients, teach kids, manufacture products, or stock warehouses. AI is not something that’s going to happen only to other people; it will affect all of us.
Workers need the authority and the power to bargain about the implementation of AI in the workplace, not just the effects. “Effects bargaining” is the traditional approach: After a technology has wiped out jobs, people negotiate a little severance pay to tide them over, and maybe some training for completely different jobs, if any such jobs exist. By contrast, our goal should be to make sure workers can negotiate for technology that makes their jobs better, more productive, more valuable. To avoid the car crash in the first place, if you will, and not just to apportion damages afterward.
AI will not destroy or devalue our jobs by itself, unless we let it.
One can imagine some objections to this approach. Some people might insist that AI is in irresistible force, that large-scale job destruction is inevitable, and that our task is to figure out other things for people to do to earn a living—or, if that’s not possible, to pay them a small stipend so they don’t starve. This defeatism is a short step away from the more nihilistic vision of the pure doomers, who think it might already be too late to save humanity from machine-led destruction. I love science fiction myself—but it is fiction, not history.
Another objection might be that placing restraints of any kind on AI companies in the United States will keep the industry from winning the global race for dominance. This is the Trump administration’s view. This logic is inverted. Nations should be governed for the benefit of their people, not just their Big Tech companies. Both the Republican and Democratic parties proclaim themselves to be the champions of the American worker. If so, the real triumph for the nation would be to ensure that technology enhances work and makes working people’s lives better, not to create havoc and economic devastation across the labor market.
Some might object that it is unrealistic to think that working people have the interest or ability to intervene effectively, to exercise their right to bargain about AI technology. But that is exactly what has been happening in the entertainment industry. One of the central issues in the 2023 strike by the Writers Guild of America against the Hollywood studios and producers was the use of AI in writers’ workplaces. The Guild represents the professionals who create scripts for TV and streaming series and for feature films. In late 2022 Open AI revealed that ChatGPT could write—coherently and at some length. Although the union did not conclude that robots had suddenly become capable of crafting award-winning scripts, Guild members recognized that their employers could use AI to do just enough to degrade and devalue their work.
During contract talks in 2023 the Guild proposed—and won, after a five-month strike—language that puts meaningful guardrails on the use of AI. These guardrails reflect the process writers and studios actually use to create characters and stories and full-length projects. They ensure that AI cannot be used to deprive writers of the opportunity to do the full range of writing work, and they deprive employers of the economic incentive to replace professional writers with algorithms. Guild members knew how to defend their careers, and they fought for meaningful protections.
The Guild members’ willingness to take on the AI issue, rather than passively accept that the technology would hollow out their careers, resonated with working people everywhere. The actors’ union (SAG AFTRA) also struck and won contract protections on AI, and the following year the other entertainment industry unions did the same. The entire labor movement has made workplace AI a top priority. There is broad and deep recognition that AI technology will reshape the future of work, and unions have decided to roll up their sleeves (and dust off their picket signs) to bargain how AI will be implemented, to do what, to what effect.
AI systems do not develop themselves; AI companies do. AI does not implement itself in the workplace; employers do. AI will not destroy or devalue our jobs by itself, unless we let it. Working people can and must protect their livelihoods by bargaining over AI implementation. Nothing less than the future of work is at stake.
"In an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board," the letter said.
After the Trump administration successfully pressured ABC to kick Jimmy Kimmel off the air last week, hundreds of artists signed an open letter Monday denouncing the government's campaign to "pressure" entertainers and journalists into silence.
The letter, organized by the ACLU, was signed by numerous household names, including Jason Bateman, Jamie Lee Curtis, Ariana DeBose, Jane Fonda, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Regina King, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Diego Luna, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Natalie Portman, Olivia Rodrigo, Martin Short, and Ramy Youssef.
"Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air after our government threatened a private company with retaliation for Kimmel’s remarks. This is a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation," the letter says. "This is unconstitutional and un-American. The government is threatening private companies and individuals that the president disagrees with. We can’t let this threat to our freedom of speech go unanswered."
Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air after our government threatened a private company with retaliation, marking a dark moment for free speech in our nation.More than 400 artists across our nation signed on to say: We refuse to be silenced by those in power.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) September 22, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Kimmel's suspension came hours after the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, threatened to revoke the broadcast license of ABC News affiliates unless the network pulled the comedian's late-night show off the air following comments he made criticizing the President Donald Trump's reaction to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
Major entertainment unions have condemned Kimmel's suspension, including SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America, which organized demonstrations in Times Square and outside ABC's parent company Disney over the weekend that drew hundreds of protesters, while some actors have pledged to stop working with Disney until Kimmel is reinstated.
In subsequent days, Trump continued to issue threats to the media, suggesting that he would seek to strip the broadcasting licenses of networks that give him "bad press," saying, "They’re not allowed to do that.”
The letter says that "In an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board. This runs counter to the values our nation was built upon, and our Constitution guarantees."
Members of the Trump administration, including JD Vance, have also promoted a wide-ranging campaign to have private citizens reported to their employers over critical comments they made about Kirk following his assassination.
Students for Trump National Chair Ryan Fournier created a database with tens of thousands of social media accounts and has boasted of having gotten dozens of people fired over their posts, many of which simply state disagreement with Kirk even without endorsing his assassination.
"We know this moment is bigger than us and our industry. Teachers, government employees, law firms, researchers, universities, students, and so many more are also facing direct attacks on their freedom of expression," the letter says. "Regardless of our political affiliation, or whether we engage in politics or not, we all love our country. We also share the belief that our voices should never be silenced by those in power—because if it happens to one of us, it happens to all of us."
Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, described these blacklisting efforts as the dawn of "a modern McCarthy era" with Americans "facing exactly the type of heavy-handed government censorship our Constitution rightfully forbids."
Noting that former Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) "was ultimately disgraced and neutralized once Americans mobilized and stood up to him,” Romero said that "we must do the same today because, together, our voices are louder and, together, we will fight to be heard.”
The Writers Guild of America voiced concern that Paramount is "sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval."
The Writers Guild of America is calling on New York's attorney general to launch a bribery investigation into Paramount Global following the cancellation of "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert."
WGA, some of whose members worked on the CBS show, said in a statement that while "cancellations are part of the business," a "corporation terminating a show in bad faith due to explicit or implicit political pressure is dangerous and unacceptable in a democratic society."
"Paramount's decision comes against a backdrop of relentless attacks on a free press by President Trump, through lawsuits against CBS and ABC, threatened litigation of media organizations with critical coverage, and the unconscionable defunding of PBS and NPR," the union said.
WGA noted that the show's cancellation—which CBS insisted was a "purely financial" decision—came after Colbert criticized Paramount's $16 million settlement of a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump.
In a July 15 segment, aired 48 hours prior to his show's cancellation, Colbert called the settlement with Trump a "big, fat bribe" aimed at greasing federal approval of Paramount's pending merger with the entertainment company Skydance. Paramount owns CBS, and Paramount's controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, has reportedly been monitoring the network's coverage of the president.
The day of the Colbert segment, the CEO of Skydance met with Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr to discuss the pending merger.
In its statement, WGA urged New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate "potential wrongdoing" at Paramount, which is headquartered in New York City.
"Given Paramount's recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that 'The Late Show' cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval," the union said. "We call on our elected leaders to hold those responsible to account, to demand answers about why this beloved program was canceled, and to assure the public that Colbert and his writers were not censored due to their views or the whims of the president."
Ahead of the official settlement announcement, California's Senate launched an investigation into whether Paramount "violated state laws against bribery and unfair competition" by offering Trump $15 million to end the legal fight, Semafor reported.
After news of the settlement deal broke earlier this month, Democratic U.S. senators called for a federal investigation.
"With Paramount folding to Donald Trump at the same time the company needs his administration's approval for its billion-dollar merger, this could be bribery in plain sight," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I'm calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken."
"From the United Auto Workers to nurses across the country, these strikes provided critical leverage to workers to secure better wages and working conditions," said one expert.
While federal data released on Wednesday shows nearly half a million workers last year participated in 33 major work stoppages—the most since the turn of the century—labor experts still stressed the need for more policies protecting the right to strike.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted that there has been an average of 16.7 U.S. work stoppages with more than 1,000 strikers over the past two decades, meaning last year's number was almost double the norm. BLS also said that 458,900 workers joined the 2023 strikes, and nearly 87% of them work in service-providing industries, including 188,900 with jobs in education and health.
In their analysis of the data, also published Wednesday, Margaret Poydock and Jennifer Sherer of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) pointed out that "this is an increase of over 280% from the number of workers involved in major worker stoppages in 2022, which was 120,600. Further, it is on par with the increase seen in pre-pandemic levels during 2018 and 2019."
Poydock, a senior policy analyst at the think tank, said in a statement that "a surge of workers went on strike in 2023 to fight back against record corporate profits, stratospheric CEO pay, and decades of stagnant wages. From the United Auto Workers to nurses across the country, these strikes provided critical leverage to workers to secure better wages and working conditions."
Other notable actions include the actors' and writers' strikes that together effectively shut down television and film production for months. A report released last week by researchers at Cornell University and the University of Illinois—who, unlike the BLS, also tracked smaller U.S. actions—tallied 466 strikes and four lockouts involving a total of 539,000 workers.
"It's a historic moment for the labor movement," declared Robert Reich, a former U.S. labor secretary who is now a University of California, Berkeley professor. "Workers are done letting billionaires and corporations hoard all the wealth and power."
As Poydock and Sherer, EPI's State Worker Power Initiative director, wrote in their report:
It should be no surprise that workers are taking collective action to improve their pay and working conditions—but we should be asking why it is happening now. The U.S. economy has churned out unequal income growth and stagnant wages for the last several decades. Research shows that unions and collective bargaining are key tools in combating income inequality and improving the pay, benefits, and working conditions for both union and nonunion workers. However, the continued rise in collective action is not likely to increase unionization substantially unless meaningful policy change is enacted to ensure all workers have the right to form unions, bargain collectively, and strike.
The BLS said last month that "the union membership rate—the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of
unions—was 10% in 2023, little changed from the previous year."
"In the public sector, both union membership and the union membership rate (32.5%) were little changed over the year," the bureau added. "The number of union workers employed in the private sector increased by 191,000 to 7.4 million in 2023, while the unionization rate was unchanged at 6%."
Stressing that "the increase in major strike activity in 2023 occurred despite our weak and outdated labor law failing to protect workers' right to strike," Sherer argued that "federal and state action is needed to ensure the right to strike."
At the federal level, EPI supports several proposals. As Poydock and Sherer detailed:
"Right now, only a dozen states grant limited rights to strike to some public sector workers," the pair also highlighted. "States should also join New York and New Jersey in making striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits."
"The WGA appears to have won more than analysts initially believed possible."
Hollywood screenwriters' monthslong strike ended Wednesday after the Writers Guild of America leadership voted unanimously to recommend the tentative three-year contract agreement that the union reached with major studios over the weekend.
WGA members will now vote on whether to ratify the deal, which includes higher pay than the studios were originally willing to offer, improved healthcare benefits, viewership-based streaming residuals, minimum staffing requirements for television writers' rooms, and regulations constraining studios' use of artificial intelligence.
In a statement late Tuesday, the WGA negotiating committee said that union members "will be able to vote from October 2nd through October 9th, and will receive ballot and ratification materials when the vote opens."
"The WGAW Board and WGAE Council also voted to lift the restraining order and end the strike as of 12:01 am PT/3:01 am ET on Wednesday, September 27th," the committee added. "This allows writers to return to work during the ratification process, but does not affect the membership's right to make a final determination on contract approval."
The WGA committee called the tentative agreement an "exceptional deal, with gains and protections for members in every sector of the business."
"The WGA appears to have won more than analysts initially believed possible," The New York Times reported Tuesday. "Studios suggested early on that they wouldn't bend on issues like residuals or staffing, citing changes streaming has made to their industry. But the strike—coupled with the SAG-AFTRA walkout—has crippled Hollywood, with studio owners like Warner Bros. Discovery predicting big hits to their earnings. Analysts have estimated that studios could lose as much as $1.6 billion in global ticket sales because of movie delays."
According to survey data, the writers' strike was broadly popular with the U.S. public. A Data for Progress poll conducted last month found that 67% of all likely voters backed the strike, while a Gallup survey showed that the public sympathized with screenwriters over Hollywood studios by a margin of 72% to 19%.
SAG-AFTRA actors who joined writers on the picket lines will remain on strike, and the union said Wednesday that it currently has no scheduled dates to meet with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the major studios.
"It is the leverage generated by your strike, in concert with the extraordinary support of our union siblings, that finally brought the companies back to the table to make a deal."
After nearly 150 days on strike, the Writers Guild of America reached a tentative contract deal Sunday night with Hollywood studios that reportedly contains significant victories for screenwriters, including compensation boosts for streamed content and rules restricting the use of artificial intelligence.
In a letter to members late Sunday, the WGA's negotiating committee stressed that the deal still must be converted into final contract language and that while picketing will be suspended, no one will return to work and the strike will continue until key steps are taken toward member ratification of the agreement.
"Though we are eager to share the details of what has been achieved with you, we cannot do that until the last 'i' is dotted," the letter states. "To do so would complicate our ability to finish the job. So, as you have been patient with us before, we ask you to be patient again—one last time."
Without offering specifics, the letter calls the deal "exceptional" with "meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership." The WGA represents more than 11,000 screenwriters.
"What we have won in this contract—most particularly, everything we have gained since May 2nd—is due to the willingness of this membership to exercise its power, to demonstrate its solidarity, to walk side-by-side, to endure the pain and uncertainty of the past 146 days," the letter reads. "It is the leverage generated by your strike, in concert with the extraordinary support of our union siblings, that finally brought the companies back to the table to make a deal."
The New York Times reported that the tentative three-year contract agreement includes "increases in compensation for streaming content, concessions from studios on minimum staffing for television shows, and guarantees that artificial intelligence technology will not encroach on writers' credits and compensation."
The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), which represents the studios, did not offer much comment in response to the deal.
"The WGA and AMPTP have reached a tentative agreement," AMPTP said in a joint statement with the WGA.
SAG-AFTRA, the actors' union that joined the WGA on strike in July, congratulated the writers late Sunday for showing "incredible strength, resiliency, and solidarity on the picket lines."
"Since the day the WGA strike began, SAG-AFTRA members have stood alongside the writers on the picket lines," the actors' union said. "We remain on strike in our TV/Theatrical contract and continue to urge the studio and streamer CEOs and the AMPTP to return to the table and make the fair deal that our members deserve and demand."
We should all see these work stoppages as an opportunity to show that unions can carve out more equal economic outcomes.
Celebrities like Fran Drescher got a lot of media attention last week when they went on strike. The 160,000+ members of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) joined 11,000 already striking film and television writers in the first industrywide shutdown in 63 years.
But it is not just actors—workers across the economy are either walking a picket line or preparing for labor actions later this summer. This has led many to wonder: Why do so many workers feel their only option this summer is to strike?
To us, the real question is: Why didn’t we see more of these actions sooner? For decades, the U.S. economy has been churning out radically unequal incomes. Further, essentially all of this increased inequality has come from unbalanced bargaining power in the labor market. Profit margins have increased at the expense of typical workers’ wages, and only the pay of the most highly privileged workers—corporate managers and executives and a select slice of other highly credentialed professionals—has managed to grow as fast as overall economic growth. The overwhelming majority of U.S. workers have not seen their wages grow at pace with their employer’s profits or executive pay scales.
Anemic wage growth is only part of workers’ motivation for unionizing and striking. This has been coupled with an erosion of worker protections.
Some earlier rumblings of labor activism were delayed by the Covid-19 shock to the economy, but seem to be returning now. In the years before the Covid-19 pandemic (particularly 2018 and 2019), major work stoppages hit their highest levels in decades. After subsiding in 2020 and 2021, major work stoppages grew by nearly 50% in 2022. There is anecdotal evidence that 2023 will continue this trend, with the members of the Teamsters union representing more than 340,000 workers at the nation’s largest delivery service voting overwhelmingly (97%) to authorize a strike on August 1 if there is not agreement reached with the United Parcel Service (UPS).
Anemic wage growth is only part of workers’ motivation for unionizing and striking. This has been coupled with an erosion of worker protections.
Shrinking budgets at the Department of Labor and state agencies tasked with protecting workers’ rights have led to limited or non-existent enforcement and enabled corporations to violate workers’ rights—including basic health and safety protections—with impunity.
Further, corporations have exploited and expanded loopholes in labor law, making it harder and harder for workers to win a union and a union contract. As a result, many workers are employed in low-wage jobs and are required to risk their health and safety for those jobs.
All the while corporate practices aimed at limiting labor costs further eat away at worker power in a race to the bottom for job standards. The worst of corporate practices are increasingly setting the standards for industries. Strikes are often the only tool workers have to push back against this trend and demand their fair share of income.
If the Teamsters are forced to strike at UPS, it will be a clear example of this trend. Revenue at UPS was over $100 billion in 2022, and its profits grew even faster than revenue in recent years. While wages are a central part of the negotiations, the union is also focused on a host of other issues related to health and safety and wants to protect union logistic warehouse and package delivery jobs—that come with higher pay and good benefits—from being eroded by expanded use of temporary drivers.
Like many other industries, warehouse and delivery work has been impacted by the practices of corporate behemoths like Amazon, which uses personal vehicle delivery drivers in its services. There is a wealth of evidence of the extremes Amazon pushes its delivery drivers to in order to meet delivery quotas. If the Teamsters strike, it will be in part to try and fight the effects of Amazon’s business practices on the industry and prevent a company that routinely violates worker health and safety laws from setting the industry standard for all workers.
The Covid-19 pandemic exposed the reality of work for millions of workers in this country. Workers are routinely forced to work in unsafe conditions, risking their health and safety for a job—one that far too often pays a low wage and offers few, if any, benefits.
Companies like UPS and the Hollywood studios have pointed to the fact that they pay relatively higher wages than other employers. That is what these companies don’t seem to understand—that is the point. These long-held union jobs have been hard won by workers. Contract after contract Teamsters workers have sought to protect and preserve what are now among the only decent jobs in the warehouse and delivery industry.
These strikes are about protecting family-sustaining jobs from the erosion of workplace standards in these industries. The unions are fighting for their very existence and for the existence of jobs that are safe and provide a decent wage and benefits. That is a fight we all have a stake in.
Given this, we don’t have to stay on the sidelines:
Striking workers in this country have severely limited rights and few protections. They need public support. We should all see these work stoppages as an opportunity to show that unions can carve out more equal economic outcomes—even when they are being hindered by policymakers’ failure to modernize labor law to keep playing fields level. If policymakers ever do change the laws to give workers across the economy a genuine chance to organize and bargain collectively with their employers, we might actually achieve an economy where workers see their wages grow at the same pace as their employers’ profits and executive pay—and no worker is forced into an unsafe job.
The main concerns of the workers center around compensation on streaming platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and artificial intelligence.
For the first time since 1960, actors and screenwriters are on strike at the same time.
As with many of the other strikes that have rippled across the United States over the past three years, this walkout is over demands for better pay and restrictions on their employers’ use of technology to replace paid work.
The actors’ strike began on July 14, 2023, after their union, SAG-AFTRA, voted to end negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the major production studios. The main concerns of the union—which represents 160,000 actors and people in other creative professions—center around compensation on streaming platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and artificial intelligence.
Screenwriters, who have been on strike since May 2, have similar concerns.
In 1965, executives made 15 times the average salary of their workers. By 2021 those top execs were earning 350 times more than the average worker—including actors.Screenwriters, who have been on strike since May 2, have similar concerns.
The two strikes have halted U.S. TV and movie production. Premieres are being canceled, and Emmy-nominated actors aren’t campaigning for those prestigious TV awards.

Charlton Heston (R) and then-Screen Actors Guild President Ronald Reagan shake hands with members of the Association of Motion Picture Producers after SAG ended its 1960 strike.
(Photo: Getty Images)
Ever since Louis Le Prince filmed the first movie, Roundhay Garden Scene, in 1888, actors have earned a living through their work being shown on screens small and large.
The first hit shows on TV aired in the mid-1940s, but actors initially earned far less from television than movies. Around 1960, with the advent of hits like Leave It to Beaver, Beverly Hillbillies, and Bonanza, TV became very profitable. TV’s growing prestige and economic heft gave television actors newfound power at the contract negotiating table.
Actors demanded that their craft be compensated for TV shows about as highly as for their film appearances. Led by future President Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston—who went on to serve as a National Rifle Association president—the Screen Actors Guild went on strike on March 7, 1960. Among that union’s top demands: health care coverage and residuals for movies aired on television, reruns, and syndication.
Hwang Dong-hyuk, the creator of Squid Game, forfeited all residuals when he cut a deal with Netflix. It earned Netflix nearly US$1 billion, but Hwang got none of that bounty.
Residuals are a form of royalty paid to actors when movies and TV shows air on television after their initial run. That can include reruns, syndication, and the broadcasting of movies on television.
The actors union’s strike, which coincided then as today with a screenwriters strike, successfully negotiated a contract with executives that resolved the residuals conflict and secured health care coverage for its members.
That contract applied to broadcasting and, years later, cable TV.
But it doesn’t work for streaming, because streamed shows aren’t scheduled. Whereas Friends, a sitcom that initially aired on NBC, is available today on Max, formerly HBO Max, through syndication, and its actors receive relevant residuals, Orange Is the New Black originated on Netflix. Because it never runs on a different platform via syndication, the actors in its cast earn paltry residuals in comparison—even though viewers are still watching the show’s seven seasons.
Hwang Dong-hyuk, the creator of Squid Game, forfeited all residuals when he cut a deal with Netflix. It earned Netflix nearly US$1 billion, but Hwang got none of that bounty.
As I explained in my 2021 book, Streaming Culture, streaming has fundamentally changed the production and consumption of both TV and film while blurring the lines between them.
People consume different types of media through subscriptions and streaming technology than they do while watching broadcast TV and cable television. Actors and writers are concerned that their compensation hasn’t kept up with this transformation.
And the actors who are on strike argue that the formulas in place since 1960 to calculate residuals don’t work anymore.
In contrast, streaming residuals pay a flat rate for foreign and domestic streams.
Residuals paid for roles in broadcast TV shows are based on the popularity of those programs, with actors earning far more for hits like Grey’s Anatomy and NCIS than for duds. Hit shows can have a second life on streaming platforms and result in actors getting paid again for that earlier work.
In contrast, streaming residuals pay a flat rate for foreign and domestic streams. A streaming original film or TV show earns a set amount for residuals in its domestic market and second set amount for foreign markets. This fee doesn’t change based on popularity or the number of times a production is streamed.
But streaming has changed more than residuals for actors and writers. It has also transformed how TV shows are made.
Many TV seasons have grown shorter since streaming became the norm, falling from 20 or more episodes to 10 or fewer per season.
That’s because streamers started making shows with lower budgets, as it costs less to produce fewer episodes. The studios also cut costs by hiring fewer writers.
Since actors are typically paid per episode in which they perform, their salaries have dropped by virtue of having fewer appearances in even the most popular shows.
As gaps between seasons grow, some actors are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.
The gaps between seasons have also grown longer and more unpredictable. Every season of the nine-year run of Seinfeld on NBC began in the fall and ended the next spring, then picked up again the next fall.
Streaming shows are far less predictable.
Amazon Prime’s The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel paused for more than two years between seasons 3 and 4.
The same streamer aired the first season of Lord of the Rings: Power of the Rings, in September 2022, but Season 2 won’t be released until late 2024.
As gaps between seasons grow, some actors are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.
Another change has to do with the question of whether particular shows will keep going. In conventional broadcast or cable television, networks determine whether they will renew a show during the period known as “sweeps,” at the end of a TV season. Since streaming television has no defined seasons, these decisions can drag on.
This can leave actors and writers in limbo. And their contracts often stop them from working on other shows between seasons.

SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher joins Writers Guild members at a picket line outside of Warner Bros studio in Burbank, California, on July 14, 2023.
(Photo: Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images)
Although residuals and the number of episodes have until now been negotiable, perhaps the strike’s biggest issue is the studios’ use of artificial intelligence
Actors fear studios will use AI to replace actors in the future. Without a contract that says otherwise, once a studio films an actor, it can potentially use the actor’s likeness in perpetuity. This means a background actor could be shot for one episode of a TV show and continue to be seen in the background for seasons without pay.
That hasn’t happened yet, but many actors are certain it will.
As Drescher continually points out in her media appearances, 99% of actors are struggling on working-class incomes.
Actors object to the possibility that studios will seek to “own our likeness in perpetuity, including after we’re dead, use us in their movies without any consent, without any compensation to our performers, especially background performers,” said actor Shaan Sharma, best known for his role on The Chosen. “It’s inhumane. It is dystopian.”
Until now, actors and writers say, the studios have refused to negotiate over AI with actors or writers. But both unions see AI as a threat to their members’ livelihoods, a point SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher made on MSNBC.
As Drescher continually points out in her media appearances, 99% of actors are struggling on working-class incomes. Meanwhile, studio executives continue to increase their own pay. For example, in 2022, Netflix co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos earned roughly $50 million each. Warner-Discovery CEO David Zaslav earned $39 million.
The gulf between what actors and top executives earn is a major difference between today’s actors and writer strikes and the 1960 strikes. In 1965, executives made 15 times the average salary of their workers. By 2021 those top execs were earning 350 times more than the average worker—including actors.
And while today’s biggest stars, like Pedro Pascal and Natasha Lyonne, earn millions for every performance, most actors struggle to make ends meet.
In Los Angeles, actors earn an average hourly wage of $27.73.
Meanwhile, studios are pulling in huge profits. For example, Netflix and Warner Bros. earned $5.2 billion and $2.7 billion in 2022, respectively.
As I explain in my new book, Digital Feudalism: Creators, Credit, Consumption, and Capitalism, striking actors and screenwriters are part of the wave of labor unrest in recent years. In my view, U.S. workers are rejecting a system that expects workers to buy more on credit while making a living with increasingly precarious jobs.
From Starbucks baristas to Amazon’s union organizers to the workers planning the pending UPS strike, more and more Americans are fighting for higher wages and more control over their schedules.
In fighting threats to their livelihoods, actors and screenwriters are the latest example of a national movement for stronger labor rights.
"The eyes of the world and, particularly, the eyes of labor are upon us," said Fran Drescher, president of SAG-AFTRA. "What's happening to us is happening across all fields of labor."
Powerful Hollywood studios are now up against more than 170,000 workers following a vote to strike on Thursday by the union representing television and film actors, as writers in the entertainment industry are now more than 10 weeks into their own work stoppage.
The dual strike marks the first time in 62 years that both writers and performers in the industry walked off the job to protest what they say are unfair working conditions and compensation—effectively grinding business in Hollywood to a halt.
About 160,000 actors are represented by the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), and the union shares many of the concerns that prompted the Writers Guild of America (WGA) to go on strike in May, including the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in entertainment.
The actors' three-year contract expired on Wednesday at 11:59 pm, after an extension from June 30 as negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) continued.
Nearly 98% of voters in the actors union supported a strike authorization in a vote in June, and weeks later, more than 1,000 luminaries including Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence, and John Leguizamo signed a letter saying they were "prepared to strike" to ensure that the vast majority of SAG-AFTRA members—who are not wealthy or famous and whose livelihoods depend on the union's demands being met—get the compensation and job security they need to continue working in the industry.
"We're looking to make sure that acting can be a sustainable career choice for people, not just the 100 most famous celebrities in the world, but for the whole large population of our membership," Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director and chief negotiator for SAG-AFTRA, told The New York Times. "They should be able to make a living and you know, pay a mortgage or pay rent like everybody else."
The union objects to how compensation for actors—particularly residual checks, which they typically receive for several years after appearing in a TV series—has been "severely eroded" in the age of streaming technology.
Actors are also concerned about how AI could be used to replicate their performances and images without compensation or permission, or potentially to replace them in films and television.
Veteran actor Fran Drescher, president of SAG-AFTRA, demanded that studios "wake up and smell the coffee!" at a press conference as the union announced the strike.
"We demand respect!" Drescher said. "You cannot exist without us!"
Drescher said the studios "plead poverty that they're losing money left and right, when they're giving hundreds of millions of dollars to their CEOs."
As the national board of the union met Thursday to vote on whether to call a strike, Disney CEO Bob Iger accused SAG-AFTRA and WGA of not being "realistic" in their demands.
Iger, noted Warren Gunnels, a longtime adviser to progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), "has an estimated net worth of $690 million... while the median pay of screenwriters has gone down by 23% over the past decade."
Drescher pointed out that the actors' strike comes as workers across industries are demanding fair pay and working conditions from employers that lavish executives with multimillion-dollar salaries and bonuses and direct their profits to shareholders while cutting employees' hours, paid sick time, and wages.
"The eyes of the world and, particularly, the eyes of labor are upon us," Drescher said. "What's happening to us is happening across all fields of labor. When employers make Wall Street and greed their priority and they forget about the essential contributors who make the machine run, we have a problem."
"I wonder how it feels to have a group of people challenge your pay and worth," said one labor leader sarcastically.
Television writers who have been on strike for a month applauded a vote at Netflix's annual shareholder meeting on Thursday in which the streaming company's investors rejected an executive pay package that critics said exemplified the greed of Hollywood CEOs and their unfair treatment of the workers behind their lucrative content.
A majority of the shareholders voted against a pay package for executives including co-CEOs Greg Peters and Ted Sarandos as well as Netflix co-founder and board chair Reed Hastings.
Under the proposed pay package, Sarandos would earn up to $40 million in base salary, a bonus, and stock options, while Peters would take home $34.6 million.
"I wonder how it feels to have a group of people challenge your pay and worth,"
tweeted labor leader Lindsay Dougherty sardonically. Dougherty is secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 399 and represents more than 6,000 TV and film workers.
Meredith Stiehm, president of the Western branch of the Writers Guild of America (WGA), noted in the union's letter to studio executives last week that the shareholders were also asked to give retroactive approval to the company's 2022 CEO pay package, which amounted to $166 million.
"While investors have long taken issue with Netflix's executive pay, the compensation structure is even more egregious against the backdrop of the strike," wrote Stiehm, noting that in contrast to the executives' annual pay, "the proposed improvements the WGA currently has on the table would cost Netflix an estimated $68 million per year."
Thursday's vote was non-binding, and could be overturned by the company's board of directors, but writer Jelena Woehr tweeted that shareholders' rejection of Netflix's pay structure could ultimately pressure TV studios to meet the demands of the WGA, including higher residual pay and better compensation for writers who are hired before a show has been given a greenlight for production.
The WGA West noted that executive pay packages rarely fail to get approval from shareholders.
"Shareholders should send a message to Comcast that if the company could afford to spend $130 million on executive compensation last year," she wrote, "it can afford to pay the estimated $34 million per year that writers are asking for in contract improvements and put an end to this disruptive strike."