the strike in biz terms

I respect James Surowiecki of the New Yorker. I think his business columns are smart. I'm not too keen on this article though about the strike in the November 19 issue of the New Yorker.

He makes an interesting point that striking is a way for one side to determine if the other is bluffing about their stance. That is, if the other side folds in after a strike, their position was never very strong, and thus, likely bluffing.

Then, however, he includes an article about a bias against fairness. His specific example is that people will not accept a portion of free money if they do not believe it is large enough a share. His stance is that because it's free, anything is better than nothing. However, the question of value comes into play. The writers are performing a job and are asking for fair compensation. They are receiving zero residuals for the internet and new media.

So, to put it into Surowiecki's example, the writers are refusing to get nothing, even if it's free, because it's not large enough a share.

When there's a balance sheet that can be verified by an independent source that internet and new media results in zero profits, I think that's when it's fair to ask the writers to not strike.