Here is more labor context

Regarding “Agents, Writers Need a Swift Kick” [July 10]:

The issues here are very complex, given the long tradition of agencies behaving as they are. And I appreciate to write your column, you need to simplify for your readers. However, what was missing was a quick paragraph on how extraordinary these long traditions in entertainment are.

Most industries featuring specially talented people are not unionized (lawyers, professors, software app developers). In most industries that are unionized, the union — acting under federal labor law as the “exclusive bargaining representative” of workers on all matters of wages, hours or working conditions — does all the negotiating for their members.

The closest analogy to entertainment is sports. Like the WGA, players’ associations have democratically chosen a system where core terms are collectively negotiated but, above those, wages/hours/working conditions are negotiated individually. And, to provide necessary representation, the associations have democratically chosen a system where individual members can choose their own agent, subject to democratically determined rules and regulations.

As a law professor, I can attest that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of talented attorneys who would welcome the opportunity to, subject to WGA rules, zealously represent the interests of writer-clients without any hint of economic involvement in production or packaging.

Without regard to the legalities involved in the prior conduct by WGA or the agencies, it seems clear to me that whatever benefit writers get from representation by a large agency is far outweighed by the costs, and they would be well served by a system of zealous representation by skilled attorneys who, with regard to entertainment clientele, represent writers and only writers.

Steve Ross

University Park, Pa.