Posts by Nick Shand
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
On Saturday I read an e-mail from an actor’s agent inviting my acting friend to consider dumping EA for a list of reasons and inviting him to join a new union forming on facebook.
Alas a massive head cold is now preventing my memory from being functional and I can not recall the correct name of the new union. Had the word 'creative' in it and steered clear of the now tarnished brand of 'equity'.
I believe the new union will be entirely wary of 'global rule one' when engaging with its international equivalents
-
'fundamental shit of the wider ....'
has broader Freudian potential me thinks Islander
-
no way for the membership to hold the executive to account gives me the shits.
oh there is a very simple way for the EA membership to sort this committee out. They resign and add their names to the formation of a new union.
There are plenty of non Equity actors now motivated do the same. When the new union clearly represents a far more credible % of NZ actors than EA has ever claimed, the committee will be confronted with the true limits of their mandate.
-
This is how it rolls.
Yet there are many strong competent unions operating with complete transparency to achieve improved conditions that benefit both employees and employers
-
Ideologically Actors Equity has no equity
I believe the best example of this is that the votes that occurred in the Auckland and Wellington meetings are non binding. The press release from JWL after the Auckland meeting stated that the committee would later confer to decide the balance of the voted outcomes.
-
I heard investigation wasn't what journalists did
Why would they need too when info junkie discussion boards do all the leg work and source checking for free.
-
Correct me if my assessment of the situation is wrong.
I believe your assessment of the situation is correct. The former NZ AE has been operating as if their own legal requirements and policy fine print are somehow irrelevant. I pity any actor willing to let this group even read the contracts being offered let alone negotiate nudity.
One more thing I have been pondering is; what is a stuck off societies legal position with regards to collecting members subs. The committee may very well be spending money they are no longer entitled to receive because they are not legally capable of fulfilling the objects of the incorporated society.
-
Given that I presume he's an employee, that would have no meaning. No confidence effects members of the executive, not employees who are protected by employment law.
I was being entirely flippant in calling for No Confidence. My apologies for not communicating this well.
Given that there is likely no process for anyone in NZ to hold Simon Whipp accountable for his advisory role in this fiasco, a members vote of No Confidence would be one way to send a clear message that Whipp's back door actions are no longer required.
-
It would be interesting to hear from those involved locally where that decision came from, if not Mr Whipp.
I believe Robyn Malcolm slips the answer into her discussion on CloseUp about a minute after her now infamous 'there was no boycott - we lifted it over the weekend' cock up.
She plainly states that 'it was a committee decision' and the plot problem is that industrial action of this magnitude is not a committee decision. Committees do not have the mandate.
-
in small numbers of angry raving trolls waving placards and shouting treason
I think I shall make a big sign saying "Don't feed the trolls"