Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I guess I see a difference between saying "thanks for the offer, we are really interested, but can we talk first?" and "thanks for the offer, but we won't be working for you".
Perhaps, but the SAG notice sounded a lot more like the latter than the former:
The makers of feature film The Hobbit – to be shot in New Zealand next year – have refused to engage performers on union-negotiated agreements.
Members of Canadian Actors Equity, US Actors Equity, the Screen Actors Guild, UK Actors Equity, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (Australia) and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists are advised not to accept work on this non-union production.
There's nothing in there about discussions occurring or needing to occur.
Talking things through (behind closed doors, away from the public gaze, for the previous two years, as Robyn Malcolm said Equity had been trying to do) seems pretty innocuous and sane to me, so I share her "sick" feeling that this has got out of hand.
It got out of hand when the above notice was issued. Robyn only has the MEAA to blame for the escalation. But my understanding is that NZAE originally asked to negotiate with The Hobbit producers for a "standard collective agreement". That's not "we want to talk to you about terms and conditions for The Hobbit", that's "we want you to negotiate an illegal contract that will be used for future productions as well as your own". NZAE initially refused to accept that they were trying to talk to the wrong people about something that wasn't possible anyway. MEAA took the producers refusal to negotiate something they couldn't negotiate as a refusal to negotiate at all and issued the notice.
What I find most frustrating is that NZAE were talking to right people (Spada) 2 years ago. If they had accepted Spada's position that a collective agreement wasn't legal they might have been able to move forward years ago. Instead they decided to target The Hobbit.
-
However, my memory of what she said ... was that there was never a boycott/blacklist, it was a directive not to sign. When Sainsbury hauled her up on that, she corrected what she said. So I for one think that the terms "boycott" and "blacklist" have been a kneejerk reaction quite uncalled for.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... As I said right at the start of this whole thing, it doesn't matter what the union wants to call it, it is in effect a boycott. How is "don't sign" different from "don't work"? Obviously NZAE aren't saying "act on The Hobbit all you like, just make sure you don't have a contract". "Boycott" seems like the correct term to describe the situation to me.
-
Im sure a lot of people here would gladly abolish unions and casualise and freelance the entire New Zealand workforce, and force wages down, but I will tell you, I want to be a full time employee,and I dont belive that any one should force that on me.
Bit of a strawman, don't ya think? I don't think anyone has at any point promoted that position here. And I don't see any "union bashing" either. Yes, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the specific actions of the specific unions in this case, but that is all. I think you are imagining things.
-
Peter: What else could a studio ask for?
When I wrote that post I was specifically thinking of your earlier post:
The fact that they've removed the boycott now doesn't mean they can't put it back on at a later date.
...
Everywhere in the world, you can sign a collective agreement with actors that makes further industrial action impossible. Not here. That's the problem.If what the studio want is a guarantee there will be no further disruption, how can that be provided? They don't seem likely to take NZAE's word for it.
Sacha: That's where the extra tax breaks and relaxation of employment law to be offered up on Monday comes in.
If that's what it takes it really will look bad for the union.
-
By the end of that segment it felt like a SNAFU situation, but I reckon it will be shot in NZ.
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.
-
have we heard from anyone who was inside the Matterhorn?
From the Stuff rewrite linked above:
It is understood the technical workers approached Matterhorn staff and asked if they could approach the group and interview them.
They were told they could do so outside and were warned against jostling or threatening the group.
Matterhorn general manager Dylan Marychurch said nothing happened in the restaurant. "Apparently some people who had some influence over the decision were having dinner here and some others who were disgruntled about it turned up and that's about it."
-
Pretty annoying. A little dramatic. Probably quite distressing. Perhaps not as threatening as we were led to believe? Really doesn't seem that bad at all.
I'd usually rather poke my eyes out with a blunt stick than read Youtube comments, but I did rather like this one:
You know, our Police never get enough credit for how stealthy and discrete they are... ninja like... almost invisible when they want to be...
-
I bet my left nut Simon Whipp added some "riders" of his own to Warners on separate emails. Warners have said as much, except specifically who added the riders.
There's nothing in their statement to that effect. I believe this is the entire statement:
Recent reports that the boycott of The Hobbit was lifted by unions a number of days ago and that Warner Bros asked to delay this announcement are false. It was not until last night that we received confirmation of the retractions from SAG, NZ Equity and AFTRA through press reports. We are still awaiting retractions from the other guilds. While we have been attempting to receive an unconditional retraction of the improper Do Not Work Orders for almost a month, NZ Equity/MEAA continued to demand, as a condition of the retractions, that we participate in union negotiations with the independent contractor performers, which negotiations are illegal in the opinion of the New Zealand Attorney General. We have refused to do so, and will continue to refuse to do so. The actions of these unions have caused us substantial damage and disruption and forced us to consider other filming locations for the first time. Alternative locations are still being considered.
(source)
Have they said anything else at all? -
Looks like Warner Bros have been "disingenuous" (as they say in Parliament).
Perhaps, but the wording is interesting: "the film studio ... knew five days ago a union boycott would be ended", "It says it was not until Thursday night that confirmation of the boycott being lifted was received" (emphasis mine).
There is a difference between discussing the end of the boycott and knowing for sure that boycott has ended. The story may imply that Warner Bros has been disingenuous but it doesn't actually provide any evidence to that effect. The real kicker is this:"It remains unclear why the statement was not released, and at exactly what point it faltered."
So RNZ have seen the emails but still can't say who is at fault for not announcing the end of the boycott. Seems premature to blame the studio then.
-
Out of interest -- when was the last time one of the above directed a film shot in Mexico?
Guillermo del Toro: Cronos (1993)
Alfonso Cuaron: Y tu mamá también (2001)
Alejandro González Iñárritu: Amores perros (2000), though Babel (2006) was party shot in Mexico.All three of them were producers on Rudo y Cursi (2008).