It might be tempting to view with little sympathy the actors and writers strike in the US.

The screenplay writers are looking for a share in the huge profits made by producers through the new market created by DVD and other electronic distribution. American actors are due to join in the withdrawal of labour at the end of June.

Acting and writing are seen as soft jobs practised by prima donnas who havent done an honest days work in their lives. Yet we labour under the shadow of two unusual handicaps.

Firstly, unlike almost any other job, we have a tiny but high profile percentage of the workforce who command salaries beyond the reach of the bulk of humanity.

It is arguable if there were high profile nurses and teachers, owning palatial homes and being photographed by paparazzi living in the Bahamas on nectar and ambrosia (the celestial version not rice pudding), the rest of their beleaguered professions would have less likelihood of getting the recompense they deserve.

What chance is there for actors and writers who are not seen to be as deserving?

Secondly, unlike any other job apart from coronation programme sellers and unicorn keepers, more than 85 per cent of the workforce is unemployed at any one time. Job opportunities may seem to have increased through cable and satellite channels but the overall size of the financial pie remains resolutelythe same.

Though minimum wages may have risen, in practice salaries offered to actors today are less than would have been offered for comparable work ten years ago.

British actors are in a worse position than their American counterparts. Equity the Actors' trade union has given six months notice on its cinema and films agreement in an attempt to get fair payments for actors when their films are shown on TV, sold on video or DVD. They currently receive nothing. The producers have refused to talk about this.

In the UK, actors are paid a flat fee for their work, which covers future usage like TV broadcasts, video and DVD sales. Unlike American actors, they get nothing if a film rakes in megabucks.

The difference between America and the UK is so stark that British actors working alongside Americans on the same UK feature film, such as Mission Impossible, could be tens of thousands of pounds worse off.

To date, $1.8 million has been distributed to American actors as a result of the success of Mission Impossible, not one penny has gone to their British counterparts.

Whilst what we do is not essential, it is something the population consume voraciously. In a profession where there is no such thing as a steady job or a pension, should the creators not benefit as well as the bosses?