They do.

At least in Australia.

http://www.alliance.org.au/option,com_simplefaq/task,display/Itemid,27/catid,13/

I could envision musicians cooperatives being formed around specific needs, like offering health insurance. But could musicians form a traditional labor union, like auto workers or screen actors have? There's a number of issues that would have to be addressed. given the conventional characteristics of labor unions:

1. Labor unions generally secure labor standards and obtain benefits by negotiating and exacting these from an employer class. To do this, historically labor unions organize an entire class of workers and mobilize them to strike if necessary. That raises several questions. Which employers would musicians strike against - record companies, performance venues? Indeed, what category of musicians would a labor union serve: recording artists, performing artists? Where would that leave, say, the bedroom mash-up remixer?

2. Labor unions generally recruit the rank & file and confront employers through participation in a shared job market. For instance, the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild make their demands on the film industry through the studio film system, which SAG members have privileged access to. (In fact, SAG and DG seem to be as much about getting its members "good" jobs [i.e. for Hollywood pay] as much as benefits.) By its nature, this process excludes certain workers (independent film actors and directors, for instance) as much as it protects others. Otherwise, when push comes to shove, these independent employees are regarded as "scabs," "illegal workers," etc. because they undercut the ability of unions to collectively bargain. What is the shared job market for musicians? Getting signed to record labels? Playing in formal performance venues?

3. Labor unions generally enhance their authority when they interact with employers in a common regulatory framework. For instance, copyright, royalties, and residuals are the examples from Hollywood, and studios and talent alike have brought the US government in to enforce their renumeration from each other and from distributors both domestic and (especially) foreign. Even more, labor unions are to some degree (maybe as much as employers) responsible for creating such regulatory frameworks, since state regulation gives unions more legitimacy. Employers are unlikely to resort to violence or police action when formal unions strike, although that legitimacy clearly cuts both ways. In the case of contemporary musicians, however, divided stances on enforcing recording copyrights on the internet, or selling tickets through price-gouging Ticketmaster-type corporations - two issues that could provide a formal institutional framework for a musicians unions to exercise influence - suggest this would raise an obstacle.

Another thing to think about is that unions generally succed when their members share a solidarity, an esprit de corps, that unites them across the many contexts that otherwise divide them: promotions and seniority, the job market, geography, ethnicity, etc. This means the rank & file believe union officials and other members share their perspectives and interests. Do the workings of popular music encourage this solidarity among musicians, particularly when the music industry, media, and even art itself promote aesthetic distinctions (by genre, cool vs. uncool, hip vs. outdated, mainstream vs. non-mainstream, art vs. entertainment) and social divisions (working within vs. outside the major label system, professional vs. amateur, career-oriented vs. the accidental artist) among them?

I think a musicians labor union is a great idea, but conventional labor unions are to some degree responsible for the establishment and even retrenchment of the industries they work in. By saying that, I don't mean to invoke neoliberal tirades against "outdated" unions and "inflexible" regulation (certainly corporations have no problem with laws, regulation, and inflexibility when it serves them well). But this does seem to be at odds with the most culturally exciting developments in contemporary music: the challenge to major label/media strangleholds, the diffusion of recordings on the internet, the performance of music in non-commodified settings, and the rise of everyday music and non-careerist musicians. I would hope a musicians labor union wouldn't be at odds with these new developments.

They do: AFM.org and AFTRA.org

1 & 4: You call THAT a labor union?

Trying to get musicians to organize collectively would be akin to herding felines. I speak as a musician, an ex-bandleader, and an activist. It's a very good point, Jay, but it's analogous to creating a union for fine artists.

Classical musicians on staff at orchestras and operas are part of the ISCOM.

Beacuse most of us are out of work....

Answerd by Pinkmingle.com :

art is art, nothing but music....