Posts by Peter Cox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
To me that reads that the union grew by 85 in 2009, (assuming no one left, net growth prob a little less). Which makes the 598 figure sound reasonable. Looks like 'only 85 members' was an early misreading that became a bit of a mantra
Could well be. Also there's a difference between full and associate membership, although only full members would have voting rights.
-
All I do is sit in my (tax deductible) cosy room and type:
EXT. VERY COLD MOUNTAIN SIDE - NIGHT
;P
Admittedly, not terribly many of us get paid for doing so though...
-
Certainly they're not in the same league as the unions that WB will be dealing with in Ireland.
I think you'll find that the Irish Guild is as underfunded and understaffed as the NZ guild. However, I suspect they'd have a rather more cogent sense of their own employment law.
-
the moment she heard that Ireland was the other main contender for location, that it was all an Irish conspiracy, that whenever you look beneath the surface of unions, it's the Irish making all the trouble.
Love it! Looking forward to passing that on to my Irish colleagues!
-
Hi Yvette, there's about 3 hobbit threads floating about- the current one is:
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,2769,hard-news-anatomy-of-a-shambles.sm
Just if you're wondering why no one is replying...
-
Seems to me that actors should be taking action against their unions...
If the acting community is unhappy with the leadership of their union, they should lobby to elect a new board that has the full support of the acting community.
Starting a whole new union or trying to destroy the one they have is just going to lead to the most terrible problems.
-
if i'm correct on radionz simon whipp said he wants the law to change in nz so actors can collectively bargain
so isn't that also saying what he was asking for was as peter jackson said illegal to do?I think what he was saying (and I can't remember his exact words) is that he wanted the legal status changed for unions to be able to negotiate on behalf of collective contractors in specific circumstances, as was done recently in Ireland. (currently they can only enter legally binding agreements on behalf of 'employees')
But yeah, as Russell says: nice idea he should have had two years ago.
What warners are apparently concerned about is the 'bryson case' where an independent contractor was effectively working as an employee and then was able to turn around and sue at the end of his employment when his contract was over, for 'unfair dismissal' and unpaid holiday pay etc. He quite rightly won that case, but as far as I can tell the legal precedent really has little to do with the situation actors will find themselves in over the course of the Hobbit.
I can see why Warners might be concerned they might get sued by hundreds of people at the end of all this. However, I suspect the final legal opinion would be that a law change should not be necessary because the previous bryon precedent would not apply.
So I suspect that's why various people are saying a law change is unnecessary, because Warners really have nothing to worry about in that regard.
On the other hand, the government might be looking at toughening up the law in terms of more strictly defining who is an independent contractor and who is an employee through some specific tests, which you're forced to go along with. It's probably safe to say those tests wouldn't put actors on the 'employee' side of the line. That legislation could possibly cause all sort of extending problems in the wider workforce though.
-
Sara Wiseman attended the rally.
Good for her!
Got some particularly nasty emails as a result too.
That really is very troubling.
-
Which leads me to wonder if, in their naivety, they targeted PJ because he was not only a big name, but also a name that was devoted to NZ and the NZ Film industry.
I think they just figured there was zero chance of it going offshore. Time will tell...
-
Peter - your comment re democracy is quoting Winston Churchill.
Yeah, I knew that ;), and yeah, we could swap Churchill quotes all day. I believe he has some doozies about the Arabs.
I meant by conspiracy theory just in the suggestion that the CTU were somehow conspiring with the MEAA before this in regard to residuals. A Union being upfront about its residuals payment distribution methods is certainly necessary though.
But at least a union has the luxury of the members being able to look at those structures and request changes.
Also if you are suggesting residuals are union only and you leave the union do you lose the right to have them pay you the residual entitlement?
No. The Union should also be responsible for getting residual payments to non-members, (and other international brother/sister unions, which is obviously not their direct membership.)
@Jaymax, not sure if agents get residual cuts. I suspect they don't, but on the other hand, perhaps if they're negotiating extra residuals on behalf of their clients they have some mechanism in place to get a cut direct from their client?
Either way, I'm not sure why an agents union would be any more effective than an actor's union. Certainly, it puts the power in the hands of a very limited number of people which is dangerous imho. At any rate, I don't think the actors would be thrilled with the idea. I know writers wouldn't be.