Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit
1304 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 53 Newer→ Last
-
The Bryson decision seems to have sent a cold shudder down the spines of some in the film industry (probably without good justfication). I'm pretty sure the intention of the legislators is to prevent another such case.
What we're really doing is making it OK for the film industry to avoid the obligations of employment by employing someone, and then writing contractor on them right?
I find the fact that we're only doing this for the film/video industry bizarre. If it's such a problem then it should be done for all employees. I'd put forward that it's actually not such a problem - we actually want judges to be able to say to people - "actually you were employing this person and trying to pretend you weren't. Don't do that".
-
I suspect maybe he went a little too far with the old Brownlee thanking
Well, better to have Brownlee inside the tent pissing out....
-
Personally, as I've said elsewhere, I find that Electoral Amendment (Harry Duynhoven Arse-Covering) Act more outrageous, but mileage obviously varies on that score.
I wish parliament required some sort of super majority to move to urgency - two thirds or something.
Dealing with an earthquake where all the parties support a law change under urgency - fine.
Rewriting labour/education/electoral law and likely making a mess of it because it was done in urgency - not so fine, and the opposition could force you to do it properly.
-
Que Syrah Syrah...
...whatever Chablis, Chablis
The future is Pinot Gris...... a case! hurrah, hurrah
watered beaujolais, chateau Brouillyit can't Gewurzt... can it?
Personally, I think all these wine puns are something of a Merlot point for PAS. They're really Champagne-ing me.
I come here for the Claret-y of thinking. For robust, full-bodied debate, with fruity overtones at Hart.
You might be thinking that any Port will do in a storm, but frankly, it's not Tokay.
-
Rubbish. It's beer o'clock Brown-side, you're allowed at least one cheap shot!
Ah, but Russell doesn't do cheap shots: his oft-stated preference is for high-quality (and appropriately priced) malts.
He's also mentioned a recent enthusiasm for bespoke clothing.
Clearly an aspiring member of the Boss Class, and not to be trusted, Comrades.
-
Well, better to have Brownlee inside the tent pissing out....
Agreed, but I suspect The Standard/Chris Trotter crowd wouldn't see it that way.
I have no idea whether the general CTU membership thinks anything like that. I'd imagine they'd be more pragmatic. I guess it's like suggesting the EMA are as big a jackasses as the people who comment on Kiwiblog.
...oh wait...
-
I find the fact that we're only doing this for the film/video industry bizarre.
I don't. In a small town like Wellington, in a small country like NZ, some techos have worked almost continuously on Jackson projects for 10 years or more. Obviously there is a lot of trust and goodwill built up on all sides.
But in an inperfect future I could envisage a scenario where Jackson might be making his movies offshore (or not making any at all), NZ techos work dries up, a smart-arse lawyer or union exec (Simon Whipp style) enters the fray and suggests to financially strapped techos that their long work history with one principal producer suggests they could have a crack at doing a Bryson.
A highly unlikely scenario, but not beyond the realms of possibility. So for an industry with unique employment characteristics such as the film industry, I think some clarification is OK.
-
And I think this is where Idiot/Savant blew an otherwise gold medal winning shark jump by dismounting on his head.
I can't even begin to articulate the ugly dog being whistled for there -- you're not only an anti-union scab and tool of a foreign multi-national corporate you're enabling rape.
{Very very angry rant pre-redacted before it's even written}
-
I think some clarification is OK.
As much as it's been called 'clarification', that's not what it is. This part of the law was designed to prevent employment relationships - a relationship that has lots of protection under the law - becoming contract relationships - which have a lot less protection. Basically the law and the judge said "it looks like, walks like, and sounds like a duck, hence it's a duck."
The law will now say that, except when it's a duck in the film industry (but not the same person doing exactly the same sort of work in the TV industry), when despite it actually looking like a duck, the government has confirmed that it's a goose because it's got "GOOSE" stuck on its forehead.
What appalling law making, and to find out that Warners didn't even ask for it (I wonder if 3 foot 7 did?) so it's entirely unnecessary.
Professor Paul Roth made comments a wee while ago about us prostituting our laws to foreign companies. Apparently we weren't even classy enough to do it because they left half a billion dollars on the nightstand, it was just a freebie.
-
And I think this is where Idiot/Savant blew an otherwise gold medal winning shark jump by dismounting on his head.
There's no guarantee that the situation he describes would be an employee dressed up as a contractor under the law. There were some specific narrow conditions in the Bryson case that don't apply to most contractors.
What he's described there is probably a general problem with contracting rather than employing, which this law does nothing to change. Something to be very wary of in the NZ film industry where contracts are common, but unchanged this week.
-
Film industry vs TV industry - there is a lot of difference. I could write a long post comparing employment situations, but I'm sure I don't need to.
Why should Peter Jackson, whose career is a project to project existence, be at risk from a contractor from taking him to court to be re-classified as an employee, simply because Jackson was successful at securing one project after another, and loyal enough to keep re-hiring the contractor from one project to another?
-
@Kyle: Yes.
My understanding was that the Supreme Court had clarified this matter. And in any case, that was several years ago (2005?), so if it was not clear, various governments did not seem to think it worth worrying over. So, the government was not concerned, apparently, about clarity. Nor was WB.
That really only leaves PJ, and given the time, money and emotion that must go into taking a matter through all the courts of the land, I can understand how he might want "clarification" that gives him the result he wanted but was denied by the courts of the land.
-
What he's described there is probably a general problem with contracting rather than employing, which this law does nothing to change.
It's a general problem where men (mostly) are wretched, abusive twatcocks -- whether you're a contractor, employee or none of the above.
-
Why should Peter Jackson, whose career is a project to project existence, be at risk from a contractor from taking him to court to be re-classified as an employee, simply because Jackson was successful at securing one project after another, and loyal enough to keep re-hiring the contractor from one project to another?
Mmhhh... because he's the employer, and the contractor is the employee? So long as you think that they should share in the risk equally, more than they already do, then I'd like to see the profits distributed a little differently.
-
I know how completely wrong I can be - I have the history to prove it! lol
Petra - snap! Moi aussi! Never mind, eh?
-
@giovanni. Then logically, to avoid the risk of another Bryson, Jackson should take a year off between projects, or completely change the entire film crew for each project.
Because the Bryson case places him at "potential" risk, simply because he is successful. No continuous film work is coming out of many other NZ film producers/directors.
-
Mmhhh... because he's the employer, and the contractor is the employee?
Yes, but the contractor is happy to tell the government they aren't an employee every few months when they claim a GST rebate on their lunch meetings, or DVDs, or the end-of-year payments reclaiming a chunk of the mortgage or rent from income tax.
One can hardly claim the tax benefits of a sole trader while demanding the protections of an employee.
(As an aside, some of those getting het up about wanting to be considered employees might want to be careful they don't end up with the taxman wanting all those expenses back. With interest. That was my main worry as a contractor.)
@giovanni. Then logically, to avoid the risk of another Bryson, Jackson should take a year off between projects, or completely change the entire film crew for each project.
This is what's happened in the US where "permatemps" have sued for employee status and benefits after the fact; big companies still have permatemps, but in order to avoid being stung, they simply kick people onto the dole queue for 3-6 months every year.
I am unconvinced this would represent an improvement in the lives of many folk in the film sector.
-
Yes, but the contractor is happy to tell the government they aren't an employee every few months when they claim a GST rebate on their lunch meetings, or DVDs, or the end-of-year payments reclaiming a chunk of the mortgage or rent from income tax.
You know what - I'd like an actor who declares his DVDs as a business expense to get audited and see what happens. Has this notion ever been tested? It's as if I declared all the books in Italian that I buy just because I'm a translator.
But the point obviously is that there may be contractors who are happy to be regarded as such and some who aren't. The fact that it is advantegeous for some doesn't mean that it is for all. And the principle remains that if you are treated in all respects like an employee, but are named a contractor just so your employer can reduce its liabilities, then you should be able to at least argue your case in court or through a union. Surely.
-
This is what's happened in the US where "permatemps" have sued for employee status and benefits after the fact; big companies still have permatemps, but in order to avoid being stung, they simply kick people onto the dole queue for 3-6 months every year.
I am unconvinced this would represent an improvement in the lives of many folk in the film sector.
Again: it doesn't make the case that employers shouldn't be allowed to treat workers like that any less moral.
-
I'm with Mark, you don't know what you're talking about. And when was a time in history when "revenues were secure in the future
These industries have matured commercially. Jesus,I didn't make this up, it's common knowledge. We are in a strange economic time.
-
Giovanni: an actor could claim DVDs, theatre and film tickets, as deductible expenses by convincing the tax dept of the need to keep up with modern techniques of film/film acting etc.
Probably not every single one, but a goodly chunk.
Same with your Italian books.
-
What would actually solve it is a special circumstance legislation for people in atypical independent contractor status that has a series of special rules for them, including the ability for a union to be able to collectively bargain on their behalf.
In effect, there should be a type of third employment status that accurately reflects the true and real employment situation that workers in this industry find themselves in, with a unique set of conditions that balance the rights of employer and employee/contractor.
In a way, it's failure of the NZ film industry union lobby - including SPADA, myself, AE and others - for not identifying and lobbying for that effectively enough earlier. That should have happened as soon as the Bryson case was concluded.
It's possible to look at this whole mess and conclude that's what needs to happen. I think the industry will now be getting together and doing something exactly like that.
This new law is exactly what it is - a band-aid stop gap for the moment, and reacting to the moment. I'm hoping, though, this is the start of some real, considered legislation without the accompanying hysteria from both sides that has surrounded this.
-
the industry has had bumper years for the last 3. Likewise the movie industry.Planning is good, but don't base it on false assumptions.
- lemming
Jonathan King- The 'movie industry' may be having bumper years, but generally the film business is in deep, deep shit.
Warner Brothers- "What the fuck are we going to do when we run out of hobbit books."
-
Film industry vs TV industry - there is a lot of difference. I could write a long post comparing employment situations, but I'm sure I don't need to.
The situation we'll have after this law passes, is that if Bryson had been contracted to make models for the Lord of the Rings the movie trilogy, he couldn't successfully go to court and get himself redefined as an employee.
However if he was to do exactly the same work, with the same contract, nothing changed at all... except instead of Peter Jackson making LOTR into a movie trilogy he made it into a 15 part TV series, he could go to court and get himself redefined as an employee.
That makes no sense at all.
Why should Peter Jackson, whose career is a project to project existence, be at risk from a contractor from taking him to court to be re-classified as an employee, simply because Jackson was successful at securing one project after another, and loyal enough to keep re-hiring the contractor from one project to another?
Well for starters, that's not the reason that the court defined Bryson as an employee. I believe the primary turning point in the case was that Bryson had to be further trained part way through his contract, and the nature of contracting someone is that they know what they're doing already. But also he worked 9-5, his work environment was entirely the same as if he'd been an employee, he could not sub-contract etc etc. He was an employee in almost every way in reality, except he didn't have an employment agreement, he had a contract.
Why should Peter Jackson not be subject to the same laws as other people using contractors in NZ? -
the music industry has never been healthier.
and that is just ignorance.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.