In particular, it’s the Screen Actors Guild, or SAG. It has been working without a contract since the last one expired in June, but talks between the guild and the studios, represented by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, or AMPTP, have recently broken down.

At this point, it’s become a war of words between the two organizations conducted through ads in trade publications, making Variety and its ilk the only winner in a bad situation. The major point of contention remains the so-called “new media,” which is a fancy way of saying the Internet.

SAG, like the Writers Guild before it, is alleging that the AMPTP is making money hand-over-fist through Internet-streaming of popular movies and TV shows on sites, such as Hulu.com. In response, the AMPTP claims poverty.

Once again, the real loser in all this will be the general public.

It’s frankly astonishing that SAG would be contemplating a strike in the current economic climate. One wishes they could go up to SAG’s leadership and ask what they think their members will do for income while on strike in an economic environment where there are no jobs.

The city leaders of Los Angeles must be positively praying that the whole situation resolves itself before the city finds itself once again suffering the huge economic blow of a major strike. Considering the dire straights that the retail world is in without a strike — what would the situation be if suddenly a large segment of the population no longer had a steady income coming in?

Isn’t it enough that Detroit is teetering on the brink of death? Do we really need another Los Angeles to go down in flames?

Not to mention, the blow to the long-term health of California. The situation there has gotten so bad that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was recently forced to declare a fiscal emergency. A strike would lead to the loss of millions upon millions of dollars in tax revenues, plunging the crisis into even deeper depths.

Now, I’m sure that many of you reading this are wondering why you should care — especially when Michigan is in just as bad, if not worse, of a situation. While that’s undeniable, the fact remains that a SAG strike will make things that much more worse.

First and foremost, people’s entertainment options will once again dwindle down. One need only remember last winter to know what the effect of a strike will be. This will be made worse by the fact that it’s likely people will increasingly choose to stay home instead of heading out, simply because they can’t afford a night out.

Second, if California’s situation deteriorates even further, it’s likely they’ll begin pursuing federal aid. Given the billions upon billions of dollars already being handed out, do we really need to be shelling out more money to stem a situation that could be avoided?

One thing SAG needs to realize when choosing to strike is that there’s a high likelihood they will not have the same support that the writers’ strike had.

It might not be true that the majority of SAG members are high-paid A-list actors, but that’s likely the image that is conjured in many people’s heads when they hear the guild’s name. The news of a strike would then conjure images of these pampered actors asking for even more money at a time when regular Americans are losing jobs.

It’s also likely that many other unions that depend on SAG productions will be none too happy to suddenly find themselves out of work. I doubt those unions will be willing to march in solidarity with those responsible for costing them their jobs, even temporarily.

I’m not saying that SAG should just take whatever it can get. I support its right to lobby for the best possible deal. The guild simply needs to realize that its decision to strike will affect far more people than just its members.

The guild should take the best deal it can, and then come back to the table in a few years when things improve. The country can’t afford another messy labor struggle.

James Harrison is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at harri310@msu.edu.