Posts by Jaymax
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Jackson all along was giving them good advice. RM and JWL have shown themselves to be completely immune to that, I don't see how PJ can be held responsible for their failings.
Please re-read my earlier post, the bit where I said who was responsible (ie: not PJ). I'm just saying PJ's stature meant he was the one person who could have informally got the necessary NZ people together in a convivial atmosphere to cool things down back in mid-August.
Why on earth would anyone with the pressure of directing and producing such a project want anything to do with them.
Really? Seriously? You're asking that after everything that's happened? To protect the project, from, I dunno, a worldwide union blacklisting maybe.
-
Russell, you begin with an excellent summary, but miss the crucial point that Equity had a legal opinion (Simpson Grierson) that organisations of 50 or more could negotiate non-binding recommendations on behalf of a group of independent contractors.
They could even call it a book and paint it pink...
-
Jaymax, what would PJ see in sitting down to have a dialogue ...
Simply that face-to-face dialogue, with no purpose other than dialogue, is extremely effective at stopping things spiralling out-of-control unnecessarily when formal communications don't seem to be getting anywhere.
-
While it's become clear the responsibility for the farce sits squarely on the shoulders of some mix of MEAA / MEAA(NZ) / NZEA;
I do think that the one person who probably could have bought about a quicker, happier resolution was PJ. I totally understand his unwillingness to negotiate anything given that SPADA were the relevant party, and the lack (afaict so far) of any specific conditions in the Hobbit actors contract being identified by AE that they wanted to challenge.
But, he is the one person who could probably, very early on, have invited (eg) JWL+1 and whoever from SPADA+1 to dinner at his place, not to negotiate (and that's important) but to dialogue in a convivial face-to-face manner. However, I can appreciate that he might have been so pissed off and upset that doing things 'the friendly way' didn't even occur, or seem possible.
-
Which I think is a red herring in the whole damn thing anyway - it seems to have been written by SPADA as a fait accompli.
This is false. I have a family member (actor) who was, as I understand it, significantly involved in the development of the pink book many years ago; and also a strong supporter of the decision to move AE within MEAA.
Back then, as I hear the story, AE had been essentially taken over by actors' agents, who were therefore successfully able to milk both sides. Actors were in a very weak position - The move to MEAA was intended to strengthen the union, and get it back to representing the interests of artists. I get the impression this was (initially at least) a very successful and well thought out and implemented strategy.
Clearly, not so much now.
This was well after many attempts to sit down with SPADA to discuss more than the pink book.
And yet they had a legal opinion telling them the only legal way forward was exactly along the lines of the pink book. Doesn't make sense to me so far.