Hard News: Anatomy of a Shambles
1695 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 … 68 Newer→ Last
-
Apologies for coming so late to this site (I've been following it all on www.theatreview.org.nz ).
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.
This is exactly what is now under way with the Pink Book negotiations – and by the way it is standard union policy for executives to meet with their members in the process of formulating policy and determining what will be asked for, then again to bring what’s negotiated back to members before it’s agreed to. That’s called democracy, I think.
That is why they astutely attempted to avoid premature ejaculation all over the media. That’s wasted seed and it makes a mess.
-
I hear what you're saying, Beejay, but in the end astuteness went the way of Viagra delayed ejaculate, with spoiled seed. And it still made an awful mess - one that may (will?) see employment law changed to the further detriment of all New Zealanders, and may still seriously damage the entire film industry here.
Even if the film does get made here in the end, there will be few real winners - except maybe Warner's and the National Government.
-
Beejay
I'd like to see that opinion, if you have access to it. As far as I am aware, it's not been made available online anywhere.I believe 3'7 and Wingnut had a legal opinion from an equally prestigious firm that said the opposite. Certainly that was the view of the Attorney General and Crown Law. (Neither of those are available online either, sadly).
My experience of lawyers says if you have 5 in a room and give them the same problem, you'll get as many opinions as you can afford. But I wouldn't be inclined to ignore one from Crown Law.
Also, SPADA is the only entity that NZAE could have negotiated with, on this basis. NZAE were saying they wanted to talk to 3'7. Jackson, having his own legal opinion that it was not legal, has always refused on that basis, and that has been supported by Warners, who have more lawyers than you can shake a collective agreement at.
As to democracy, were the members consulted and given a chance to vote before NZAE asked its international siblings to advise their members (incorrectly) that The Hobbit was a non-union production and that they should not sign any contracts to appear?
BTW your last para leaves a bad taste in the mouth.You might want to keep those metaphors over at Theatreview.
-
That is why they astutely attempted to avoid premature ejaculation all over the media. That’s wasted seed and it makes a mess.
They ignored an approach to renegotiate the Pink Book for nearly two years, then stonewalled on Spada's offer to talk for nearly a month after the boycott bomb was dropped. Then, scrambling, they agreed to ... renegotiate the Pink Book, an option they've repeatedly dismissed:
SPADA’s reply to our approach was an offer to renegotiate The Pink Book, a set of unenforceable guidelines, which are frequently ignored.
Meanwhile, they didn't and won't get their negotiation with Jackson or the producers -- the ostensible point of the whole thing -- and the strategy of securing national agreements by targeting The Hobbit is dead in the water.
And all hell has broken loose.
Awesome strategy, dude.
-
For those playing at home, it appears that Beejay posts as WellyWatch at Theatreview.
[edit] who likes Trotter's piece. Oh...
-
At the second Wellington Actors meeting Penelope Borland and Dave Gibson made it very clear that SPADA was rejecting Equity’s request to negotiate a collective agreement while Equity was saying they wanted to move on from the Pink Book concept, so the stalemate was two-sided. Equity then caved under the combined might of the Jackson empire (fronting for Warner Bros?), SPADA, the NZ Government and film workers (including actors) who had been cleverly spooked by the aforementioned forces.
But just because Equity has moved to a fall-back position after trying to get a better deal, they can’t be blamed for having a go. And they certainly can’t be blamed for any changes that occur to employment laws as a result. Those changes are being driven by the powerful anti-union faction with Equity and the anti-Equity protester all mere pawns in a much bigger game.
One question to ponder: can we really believe Jackson, Boyens, Taylor and Walsh all fronted the media independently, driven by personal passion, upset and loyalty to the masses? Or were they playing their roles in an orchestrated strategy that was always focussed ensuring that independent contractors would be reduced to the status of serfs (albeit well looked after serfs) in a feudal system where the Squire has all the power?
-
Okay, same old dialectic shit.
Time to stop feeding.
-
nz lemming:
Part 2 of the Commerce Act 1986 No 5 (as at 01 April 2009) deals with Price Fixing. The relevant links are s30 and s32.30 Certain provisions of contracts, etc, with respect to prices deemed to substantially lessen competition
32 Certain recommendations as to prices for goods and services exempt from application of section 30
Got to: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/DLM87623.html
-
But just because Equity has moved to a fall-back position after trying to get a better deal, they can’t be blamed for having a go.
For "having a go" in the thoughtless way they, did, yes they can be blamed.
And they certainly can’t be blamed for any changes that occur to employment laws as a result. Those changes are being driven by the powerful anti-union faction with Equity and the anti-Equity protester all mere pawns in a much bigger game.
The idea that Equity bears no responsibility for the consequences of its actions is breathtaking.
-
they can’t be blamed for having a go
I would tend to say that, in the manner in which a badly planned and executed industrial strategy stuffs thing up for allied unions and alienates the general population, yes actually they can wear the consequences of their actions.
Or were they playing their roles in an orchestrated strategy
While people might have exploited the fuck-ups that have run through the campaign, I think this is more a case of opportunism than somehow manipulating A.E. to stuff things up so badly so that they could take advantage of that.
all mere pawns
Aside from that fact that if unions actually coordinate their actions with other unions they multiply their strength and become substantially more than pawns, that is a really bad metaphor. If a pawn, for reasons it cannot clearly articulate, goes and attacks the wrong piece, in the wrong way, at the wrong time, that will severally stuff-up the entire side.
I may never have held union office (for all I've been a member all my working life, and struck on occasion) but even I know the basic, kindergarten level of industrial strategy:
1) Co-ordinate with allied unions before you do anything, and if possible act jointly.
2) Be clear about what you want and how who you are targeting can make that happen.
3) If people outside the union are going to be suffering for your cause, get them onside before you start. Be clear, and detailed, about why you are being forced to make others suffer.
4) Don't leave gapping truck-sized holes in your campaign which people can exploit to make you look like incompetent muppets (have your union registration up to date). -
They ignored an approach to renegotiate the Pink Book for nearly two years, then stonewalled on Spada's offer to talk for nearly a month after the boycott bomb was dropped. Then, scrambling, they agreed to ... renegotiate the Pink Book, an option they've repeatedly dismissed:
What I find interesting in that communication is the SPADA use of MEAA rather than who the writer was representing, NZAE. As far as I can see from the rest of the info on the NZAE page Fran always referred to who she worked for as NZAE. And it is consistent throughout the whole affair - at least until MEAA REALLY became the target.
I had a long look at the NZAE website, what IS interesting is that the meeting in Auckland asked in its resolution for performers to WAIT for a RECOMMENDATION. That is all. No instruction, no boycott, no blacklist.
3. Recommends that all performers wait before accepting any engagement on the production of The Hobbit until the production has advised whether it will enter into good faith negotiations with NZ Actors' Equity with respect to the minimum conditions of engagement under which NZ Actors' Equity will recommend performers work on the production
This was well after many attempts to sit down with SPADA to discuss more than the pink book. 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.
After getting no response they finally went feral. Calling up MEAA and getting lots and lots of support from SAG and anywhere else in the western film industry.
I think PJ and Warners have just attacked anyone and everyone they could find to cut this off at the pass.
-
The idea that Equity bears no responsibility for the consequences of its actions is breathtaking.
Indeed. The fact that they are unintended consequences does not absolve Equity at all.
-
At the second Wellington Actors meeting Penelope Borland and Dave Gibson made it very clear that SPADA was rejecting Equity’s request to negotiate a collective agreement while Equity was saying they wanted to move on from the Pink Book concept, so the stalemate was two-sided.
But you said above 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" (emphasis mine). So if Equity's own lawyer's opinion was that a collective agreement was out of the question why were they trying to get Spada to negotiate one? Spada were not being unreasonable in refusing to negotiate an illegal collective agreement.
-
I had a long look at the NZAE website, what IS interesting is that the meeting in Auckland asked in its resolution for performers to WAIT for a RECOMMENDATION. That is all. No instruction, no boycott, no blacklist.
Unfortunately, other acting unions around the world had already reacted to a "don't work" order -- a boycott -- signed by Simon Whipp, the MEAA official you're contending is irrelevant.
Or, as Robyn Malcolm put it: there was never a boycott and it was lifted on Sunday.
-
Ross:
NZAE is not independent of the MEAA. They are registered as an incorporated society - Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (New Zealand) Incorporated. At best, "Actor's Equity" is only a brand name now, it is not a legal entity any more. -
I find the wording of the boycott and Whipp-authorised fact sheet interesting
(1) "The makers of feature film The Hobbit – to be shot in New Zealand next year have refused to engage performers on union-negotiated agreements."
(2) "For some years performers in New Zealand have struggled on non-union contracts."
(3) They are now resolved to "seek a union contract for all performers on The Hobbit."
(1) and (2) seems at best economical with the truth. (3) is incoherent for independent contractors. It also clearly seeks to make the production a closed union shop.
-
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.
-
Unfortunately, other acting unions around the world...
I think the significance of the SAG alert tends to get lost. The American union can take away the union card of a member who works on a movie that SAG deems to be non-union. With no union card you can't work.
That's the threat held over your head.
It's not necessarily a bad system but it's very real world, real world consequnces and having AE wander aimlessly around from one half-formulated position to another like none of this matters is, well, I can't think of the words.
-
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.
-
Had I been JWL or the person from SPADA, I would have refused the invitation as I wouldn't want even the appearance of collusion to taint my integrity.
-
Jaymax, what would PJ see in sitting down to have a dialogue with JWL. She was trying to shut down his production for demnds she couldn't even formulate.
Except for some bizarre stuff about nudity. And that from someone who's husband makes in NZ soft-core porn for the US trailer trash market. How come she didn't target Sparticus?
And PJ did advise them that he was the wrong targert. Talk to SPADA. They refused to take advice.
-
And that from someone who's husband makes in NZ soft-core porn for the US trailer trash market.
The tenor of this conversation isn't always right up there, is it?
-
That's what Sparticus is. Xena with less clothes. if JWL has an issue with nudity she picked a very strange target.
-
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.
-
Long post with both Peter Jackson's full statement and (scroll down) the international union position including earlier communication with the producers - and (at last) a concrete example of differences in conditions, in this case the local residual arrangement offered.
What would these residuals be?
These residuals are significantly less than the [Media Arts and Entertainment] Alliance’s usual agreements in every respect. The producers have offered 2% of distributors gross receipts to commence for exploitations 2 years after the first US theatrical release of the film. However, it is unclear on what they would be based (for example what about sales which occur before the 2 years relating to use after the two year period), how these residuals would be divided between the performers and how they would be enforceable. It is not clear which performers may be offered this arrangement.
How does this compare to residuals under other Alliance agreements?
The Alliance agreement for large budget international studio films (such as Mad Max 4 aka Fury Road and Happy Feet 2) provides for residuals that are equivalent to those under the SAG Agreement. The residuals proposed by the producers of The Hobbit are less in every respect.
Under all Alliance agreements all performers are entitled to share in residual payments and there is no uncertainty about how each performer’s share is calculated or about enforceability.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.