From Wikipedia: "Many high-profile actors refused to join SAG initially. This changed when the producers made an agreement amongst themselves not to bid competitively for talent."
Tech companies have tried this in the past, now this would typically be met with an antitrust suit rather than creating a guild. Not sure which is preferable.
With an antitrust suit: grievances are addressed years after the fact, if at all, with little meaningful compensation for the aggrieved employees.
With a guild/union: grievances are addressed immediately or before they occur (depending on the structure of work contracts), minimizing the economic suffering to employees.
Generally, from the perspective of employees, guilds/unions are better.
EDIT: a "guild" is a union for independent contractors.
For a similar reason, it seems to me that unionizing is the answer for uber/lyft drivers to get protections they want without being tied down as permanent employees.
The list of reasons unionizing drivers would be difficult to impossible is long and obvious, but the outcome would surely be better than some hamfisted state law.
Also, right now uber is framing the issue as drivers vs the state. A union push would make it uber vs the drivers, much harder to spin.
> The list of reasons unionizing drivers would be difficult to impossible is long and obvious, but the outcome would surely be better than some hamfisted state law.
The state could mandate sectoral representation for all the drivers, functionally requiring unionization. That way the nitty gritty details are still just contract negotiations between the union and the gig economy companies, but there isn't too much space for overly broad or stifling regulatory requirements (from the State anyway, between the lawyers on all sides of the issue is a different story).
Tech companies have tried this in the past, now this would typically be met with an antitrust suit rather than creating a guild. Not sure which is preferable.