Posts by Jan Farr
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
if you're talking about the tax breaks I've been highly critical of they went straight to Warner Brothers and Disney (the corporate parents of Miramax and New Line
Really Craig. Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I thought they were tax breaks for the film industry; tax breaks which Peter Jackson fought extremely hard for; for an industry in which he works, and from which he does rather well.
-
I think I need to clarify my statement about agents. They're not employers - but they occupy a no-man's-land between employers and workers and the existence of a strong union could make them irrelevant.
David - my father died a while back and if his lawyer was poorly paid for the appalling and minimal job she did of looking after his will, then the rest of the OECD are doing obscenely well, thank you.
Another point that needs to be made is the particularly vulnerable nature of actor's work. They are employed afresh for each job. They can easily be undercut by non-union labour - as Peter Jackson, John Barnett and others are threatening to do by replacing them with East European labour - although I do agree with others who have pointed out the difficulties inherent in actually doing this.
-
Cris de Coeur Russell!
Sorry to disagree with so many of you - but I don't know any architects, lawyers, or doctors who would work for inferior rates in order to show how patriotic they were.
Actors, writers - creative workers - have always been seen as easy targets - and have always been fed scary stories about what will happen if they don't accept slave wages. I remember clearly being offered wonderful opportunities to work for a pittance because of all the well-paid work I would be sure to pick up afterwards.
I also think that nobody in this thread has taken into account the effect of the Employment Contracts Act on small unions such as Actors Equity. It has quite a long, proud and interesting history in this country and it's a miracle it survived at all and that it still represents such a large number of actors (if the the 'Standard's' version is to be believed). Thirty-odd years ago it certainly represented the bulk of actors (and models and even, at once stage, massage parlour workers).
Robert Bruce did indeed work to raise conditions and wages for actors - but perhaps you need to take into account the possibility that his interests may have changed with his situation - as is often the case with people who suddenly find themselves on the employing side of the equation.
Peter Jackson has not recently been prepared to make personal sacrifices. The taxpayer has rewarded him handsomely for his hard work. I found his repetitive statements about the 'small minority' who are holding him to ransom a little tedious and even hypocritical.
-
Party Central? That was on TV 7 at 9.10 last night wasn't it? Bloody good show!
-
Whoops - should have read right through before I wrote that.
-
...then summary sacking might be just the incentive you need to get on and find something more suitable.
He'd probably just been won over by Up in the Air.
-
I'm sorry I'm so late to this blog. I don't know when I've enjoyed one more! Right on the ball Russell, if you'll the forgive the obvious.
-
Thanks for fixed links - great broadcast Craig - once I got over your touching admission of faith in the promises of a National Government.
-
Thanks for an enlightening post Russell. But is someone fooling with the links?
Nothing there for Steve Barnes’s: And then there's The PACIFIC ECONOMIC INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED also tied up with J. R. Pereira and Mose Saitala. I ain't no journalist and don't really have the time but I pointed to this weeks ago and it still stinks.
Or Sacha’s: Listen to Craig's thoughts about this, on Public Address Radio.
-
More and more light on Thailand. Wonderful! Thanks some more Simon!