Posts by Peter Cox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@Steve, Yeah, I know, wasn't at all directed at you; just an generalised attempt at trying to be more positive.
Which John Key pretty much just put an end to.
-
Much of the debate hinges on an obscure argument over whether workers on films such as "The Hobbit" are employees of the production company, which entitles them to minimum benefits, or independent contractors.
Key said his conservative government would look at changing the law to clarify that actors were independent contractors if it would ease Warner's fears the production will be plagued by industrial strife.
"Thet's the area that they have concerns... and they need to be sure they can make the movie without being injuncted in the courts," he told the Dominion Post newspaper.
So... exactly the complete opposite of Ireland then.
Good-oh.
-
If anyone can convince them it'd be Jackson. I'm still hopeful but I can't see much rational reason for it to stay here now.
Hey - we still have first class facilities, awesome crew, great scenery, top notch actors (when they're not feeling underpaid), and a passionate director and producers wanting to keep it here.
And now a pliable government. What else could a studio ask for?
EDIT: wow, go Lew.
-
That won't end well...
LOL
-
The story I've heard - which makes perfect sense - is that Robyn called the police from the inside of the Matterhorn to get an escort, because she was worried what might happen when they left.
I guess they got bored waiting for the police and left anyway without them.
Resulting story was created by some over-zealous news-journalist, as it the ways of journalists on occasion.
But yeah, demonising the crew doesn't help things much. I doubt very much it's Robyn doing that though in all honesty (if that's what anyone's suggesting).
-
Good to see Chris doing his bit to not let the rhetoric get out of control. Thanks mate. Does that make me a scab too? Please do explain it to me.
-
Sorry for the long post: Couple of comments related to Gordon's article and the situation with the Irish Actor's Guild.
First, I think Gordon is missing the essential point of PJ's argument - that the NZ Labour Laws do not allow a Legally Binding Collective Agreement that would protect both the Studio and the Union. Therefore, either party could change the 'standard agreement' at any time, which, naturally would make the Studio nervous, because Industrial Action makes the studio lose money (largely, the point in strike actions). Anywhere else, this wouldn't be a problem because there'd be a collective agreement in place protecting both sides. The Americans in particular would have terrible problems understanding why that's not happening here.
The short answer to that the Union has not convinced the actors that becoming employees as opposed to independent contractors will be better for them. Not saying that to blame either side, just as a matter of clarification.
So not to defend Gery Brownlee of course, who I wouldn't trust any more than the Studios, but the point is that the Studio need to feel that there can't be the constant threat of industrial action.
Anyway, the second related point is: I'm not terrible familiar with the Irish Actor's Guild, nor Irish Employment Law (at least in how it would apply to Actors as opposed to Writers) but if the film were to move to Ireland, I believe they would be classed as Employees as opposed to Independent Contractors, so the new law change they've brought in wouldn't have made much difference to that. From what I can understand, that new legislation is more to do with getting them negotiating rights for commercials and radio voice overs - which is obvious more of an independent contractor situation than film/television work.
I would guess that basically the Irish Actors choose to mainly class themselves as employees in tv/film work because they believe the advantages of collective bargaining outweigh the tax breaks they might otherwise receive? It's debatable if that would be worthwhile to NZ actors. Although, obviously also in Ireland they had the 'pay no tax if you're an artist' law until recently which probably helped.
Anyway, again, the point I'm making is that the argument is the only way the Studio will feel like the risk is lessened is for the Union and Studio to be legally bound by whatever agreement they form, and currently that's not on the table at all.
So when Gordon writes:
So, according to Sir Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens all that Warners are asking for in an uncertain world is certainty. A surety that no sudden outburst of labour unrest will plague The Hobbit in the coming eighteen months. Since the union has given that assurance and lifted its threat of a boycott – according to them, this happened last weekend though others demur – then that should mean everything’s alright, then? No, because it seems, no conceivable assurance can now possibly appease Sir Peter Jackson and the studios.
Incredibly, the government is now talking about suspending our employment laws for the duration of the filming.
He's sort of missing the point. The fact that they've removed the boycott now doesn't mean they can't put it back on at a later date.
I also don't think equating PJ with the Studios helps. It's not PJ that needs convincing that there won't be another strike action. If PJ believed there wouldn't be another boycott, that wouldn't help unless he could prove it. It's not Peter Jackson that needs convincing. And in fact that's exactly the point PJ made in his interviews:
"I've been racking my brains to come up with a way to convince them this won't happen again"
You could say that the if the Studio meets SAG minimums then the SAG couldn't enact global rule one again, but that's not strictly true: if the MEAA decided it wanted more, it could threaten industrial again, and that's what worries the studios.
Everywhere in the world, you can sign a collective agreement with actors that makes further industrial action impossible. Not here. That's the problem.
As for the Studio's dis-ingenuity, well of course - what was anyone expecting? I'm not sure if they were outrightly lying though - the actual confirmation of the ban being lifted didn't happen on Sunday. The MEAA promising something doesn't mean anything to the Studio, anymore than the Studio promising something should mean anything to the MEAA. And nor should it.
But either way let's be clear: the Studio is not Peter Jackson. That's obvious to most, but a great many people seem to be having trouble with that distinction. No one can say for certainty he or Richard Taylor saw those emails and were deliberately destructive. That line of thinking is not helpful.
So yes, if all that's the case then there's a problem with the law somewhere. We should all be less than thrilled about Gery Brownlee being the one 'fixing' that problem though.
-
Cheers Dean. Yes, we're a union and members of the CTU. Not sure about the NZDG or Techos Guild's though. I know they're members of UNI-MEI along with us. (apologies for the acronyms).
-
Bugger.
To put it mildly.
But I'm going with an 'I'm sure everything's going to work out for the best for everyone' attitude until I see otherwise for certain though...
-
My apologies Dean; before my time at the Guild.
Never-the-less, both SPADA and ourselves have been (slowly) learning to work together more cordially, and I don't see them dodging anything from us. Rest assured if they did, we'd make a fuss and get it fixed, as we have on various other issues (such as the problem surrounding the SPADA conference and NZWG members being able to attend the Matt Weiner talk last year).
At any rate, I agree all guilds should be making this issue one of our priorities - politically lobbying the current law, as well as legal challenge options too, and - at the very least - working on ways to make the 'pinkbook option' more workable and have more 'teeth'. On the legal front, it's debatable the relevance of the Weta workshop case to the situation Writer's are employed in - my information has always been 'not very'. Of course both the legislative challenge and political lobbying option are not guaranteed of success. For my two cents, the lobbying option was probably best with the resources we had, but that's probably changed due to recent events, at least for the forseeable future.