Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Anatomy of a Shambles

1695 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 29 30 31 32 33 68 Newer→ Last

  • DexterX,

    Sorry Simon G you are right - I don't watch TV - I get my news from the Internet and radio.

    The lead story on One News bears this out:
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/unions-promise-more-protests-2-28-video-3844658

    In the One News piece Helen Kelly's comments, "Well I'd like to see the govt start listening to working people and respecting their needs". The same could be said about the CTU & NZAE- MEAA whose actions have undermined the thrust of what the "union movement" where attempting to highlight.

    The most commented news item from all sources is the "Hobbit Shambles", that is here at Hard News and many other places.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1224 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    If I was a full member of this union I'd be calling a Special General Meeting for a vote of "No Confidence" in Simon Whipp.

    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.

    This is probably a case where there needs to be one union for all workers in the film industry

    Indeed. My union is a sector based one. There are minor problems with relative power and concerns, but it helps prevent one type of worker going off without at least other sorts of workers being aware of what they're on about.

    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).

    The union one and the government's one were both available online - scoop I think? I've certainly read both.

    (Also, while I'm pleased that mandatory access for unions to employees is part of the legal landscape in New Zealand, I am most displeased by the notion AE are pushing that you have to join a union to be allowed to get a job.

    Where have they said that? My understanding isn't that you have to be part ofthe union to get a job, just that film makers have to provide union approved contracts to get the union to back their film.

    Helen Kelly posts a timeline of her involvement.

    That's interesting. I still think there's going to be some blowback towards Warners after this is all over as the CTU in particular have said some things which conflict with what Warners have been saying. The CTU seems likely to have the evidence that they're the ones telling the truth in several of these instances.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • rodgerd,

    Whipp said the campaign The Hobbit had been caught up in was part of a bigger effort to give those actors the same rights as those in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

    He might have a bit of a stumbling block around that whole "sovereign nations with their own legal systems" bit, or, for that matter, anyone who notices that holding up a production if you don't like being overdubbed is precisely the sort of right that gives New Zealand actors some competitive advantages.

    (Or, for that matter, anyone who's clear-headed enough to notice that flying to the arse-end of the world is a hell of an inconvenience, and you'd better have something to make it worthwhile.)

    I still think there's going to be some blowback towards Warners after this is all over

    What makes you think Warners give a shit? The blowback on the CTU, on the other hand, with what looks for all the world like support for a ham-fisted "Winter of Discontent" style of unionism, is most likely to going to give their opponents a huge stockpile of ammo on crucial battles like 90 day dismissal, as well as state sector awards and the like.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 512 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Green MP Keith Locke expresses a union-oriented perspective on events most concisely.

    To listen to some of the players involved in the Hobbit dispute over the last day you would think the actor’s union representatives had committed treason.

    Actually, they were just trying to get a film company to talk about standardising conditions for actors. It wasn’t easy to get to the table, even with support from actor colleagues around the world, who put off signing up to the movie.

    Eventually Actors Equity, with the support of the CTU, did make progress with the NZ industry body SPADA resulting in an MOU on how to work out standard terms and conditions for actors on productions like the Hobbit.

    This eased the way for union assurances on a smooth Hobbit production, and an end to the international ban on actor recruitment.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    They're a performers union in general, aren't they?

    From http://www.alliance.org.au/option,com_simplefaq/task,display/Itemid,27/catid,13/page,1/#FAQ1

    The Alliance is the union and professional organisation which covers everyone in the media, entertainment, sports and arts industries. Our 22,000 members include people working in TV, radio, theatre & film, entertainment venues, recreation grounds, journalists, actors, dancers, sportspeople, cartoonists, photographers, orchestral & opera performers as well as people working in public relations, advertising, book publishing & website production ...in fact everyone who works in the industries that inform or entertain Australians. The Alliance was created in 1992 through the merging of the unions covering actors, journalists and entertainment industry employees: Actors Equity (AE) The Australian Journalists Association (AJA) The Australian Theatrical & Amusement Employees Association (ATAEA) Since amalgamation, the Symphony Orchestra Musicians Association (SOMA) & the NSW Artworkers Union have joined the Alliance, a Professional Sports Branch has been created & the Screen Technicians Association of Australia (STAA) reconstituted itself under the Alliance banner.

    which makes their behaviour towards techs even more bizarre. I wonder if Helen Kelly and the CTU have thought about the possible breadth of the MEAA's ambitions in the NZ labour market...

    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

    Also from that page:

    The Alliance is a member based organisation, and is run by members for members. The decisions taken by the Alliance are made by both the federal executive of the union which is made up of both honorary and full-time officials and federal council which is made up of elected member delegates representing all sections.

    Of the full-time elected officials on staff, Mr Christopher Warren is the federal secretary of the Alliance and our most senior officer, he can contacted via email at federal.secretary@alliance.org.au. The Alliance also has two assistant federal secretaries, Mr Mark Ryan responsible for Media, Technical & Professional Sports members and Mr Simon Whipp, who is also director of the Equity section. They can both be reached at mail@alliance.org.au.

    so, while employment law is probably relevant, I would think the possibility of members expressing no confidence is equally relevant, if not probable.

    The union one and the government's one were both available online - scoop I think? I've certainly read both.

    Thanks for that. I'll go look.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    My mother had some interesting thoughts about this yesterday. She opined that perhaps PJ stirred up some stuff so that he could get the Gummint to pay for more of his film.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

  • Nick Shand,

    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.

    auck • Since Aug 2008 • 79 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Some missing points in coverage coming through now. Carefully worded NZPA story about retraction of blacklist, with quote from Helen Kelly:

    "On Sunday October 17 Actors Equity advised the Screen Actors Guild to lift any international action that could impact on The Hobbit. Actors Equity has also confirmed that there will be no future action by actors which will impact on production of The Hobbit in New Zealand," she said.

    "This statement has been made necessary because of continuing misconceptions in the media that this dispute remains unresolved.

    "I sincerely hope Warners accept that assurance."

    ...


    A series of emails between Warner Bros and the American union the Screen Actors' Guild (SAG), sighted by NZPA, showed the two parties were discussing the wording of a press release announcing the settlement of the dispute from as early as Monday, US time.

    Despite this, another of the film's backers, New Line Cinema, said in a subsequent statement that reports the boycott of The Hobbit was lifted by unions a number of days ago and that Warner Bros asked to delay this announcement were false.

    In separate story, Kelly apologises.

    "I personally regret calling Peter Jackson a brat. That was not helpful," said Kelly. "I shouldn't have said that, because he is not a brat. He is clearly deeply hurt ... and it's not my style to usually get so personal."

    However, she believed most New Zealanders supported the right to collectively bargain.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    My mother had some interesting thoughts about this yesterday. She opined that perhaps PJ stirred up some stuff so that he could get the Gummint to pay for more of his film.

    Marty at Te Standard agrees with her.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Cox,

    Fact is, the MEAA should have stopped the boycott as soon as they realised that asking for a collective contract actually didn't make legal sense if the actors wanted to be classed as independent contractors rather than employees. Trying to continue this on for as long as they did just to try and get a 'cup of tea meeting' was just plainly ridiculous.

    But actors, in-spite of what Paul Holmes thinks are not at all stupid or arrogant people by and large. So I'm sure they will manage to sort this out internally as emotions calm over the next few months.

    At the end of the day though, if this does end in increased tax breaks making New Zealand more competitive in the global market, is that necessarily a bad result? It's up the bean counters to figure out if it's worth it, including the tourism aspects etc.

    So, assuming everyone finds a way for the Hobbit to stay, this may well turn out to be a positive outcome, and maybe we could - sort of - thank AE for it. Although, obviously it would be absurd to think this was ever be part of their plan, anymore than it would be to suggest it was Peter Jackson's.

    If it does go, obviously that would be less thrilling though, is if the Hobbit does go and the shit will hit the fan, and I don't think we'd ever see the end of the acrimony between actors and crew.

    But having said all that...

    Re: Keith.
    Like Lew before him on kiwipolitico, he does make the very good point that we do actually need a strong NZ Actor's union. They just need to be running more effective campaigns. I'm sure they've learned their lesson; I'm not sure it's very helpful adding to the kind of vitriol against them (in an I told you so kind of way), like Paul Holmes in the paper today, for example.

    I accept people might be angry, and want to be certain that AE and their members and leadership understand where this went wrong, and are not going to keep doing this kind of thing in the way they have, but let's not completely wreck the actors and their union in the process.

    Anyway, I guess that's not really directed at anyone on this forum, who have largely been very decent about this thing... just call it some general ruminating I guess...

    EDIT: F**k, just looked over and realised that's another long post, and realised I may be coming across as a sermonising windbag. God, maybe I AM a sermonising windbag.

    EDIT2: Oh, that's right, I'm a writer.

    Time to go lie on the beach for a bit.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 312 posts Report Reply

  • Nick Shand,

    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.

    auck • Since Aug 2008 • 79 posts Report Reply

  • Jonathan King,

    Peter, was just thinking how well you're covering all this when I got to 'sermonising windbag' ... I say just carry on ...

    Since Sep 2010 • 185 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Cox,

    Peter, was just thinking how well you're covering all this when I got to 'sermonising windbag'

    Sorry, my neurosis played out in public. I have also failed to go to the beach. Thanks though, ;-)

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 312 posts Report Reply

  • Jonathan King,

    I have also failed to go to the beach.

    Writers are like that.

    Since Sep 2010 • 185 posts Report Reply

  • webweaver,

    From Simon Whipp:

    "For most people who sign a contract it's as binding for one party as the other... for New Zealand film and TV contracts that hasn't been the case."

    Whipp said that if a Kiwi performer wanted to quit a production, producers could bring legal proceedings to stop them – and sue for damages.

    "But if the producer changed their mind about a production, all they're obliged to do is give a day's notice ... that's standard in New Zealand."

    Only a tiny point in this whole huge debacle, but the first sentence above is not strictly accurate. In IT for example I've seen contracts with a clause that allows the employer to get rid of the contractor for any reason with a short notice period - but no matching get-out clause for the contractor. Just sayin'.

    Also not saying that's a good thing, by any means.

    But it's inaccurate for Whipp to claim that actors are the only ones in NZ that get offered unbalanced contractor agreements.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 332 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I have also failed to go to the beach.
    Writers are like that.

    Except on a storm-tossed night

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    And Sam Neill would be ideal as a peacebroker in all this.

    Interestingly, how would Matt McCarten have handled the Hobbit Wars? He seems more bolshie than Helen Kelly, but he still manages to be media savvy without having a media adviser. Maybe he practically is his own media adviser.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    Excuse me but technically speaking that's a "dark and stormy night"

    It's the little things...

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Cox,

    Writers are like that.
    Except on a storm-tossed night

    LOL. Pretty much, pretty much.

    Managed to take the dog for a walk at least though...

    And because I apparently have nothing better to do with my time, I then proceeded to google up this:

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/8111840/battle-to-keep-hobbit-in-nz

    Australian take on it all. I especially love this bit:

    Much of the debate hinged on an obscure argument over whether workers on films such as The Hobbit are employees of the production company, which entitles them to minimum benefits, or independent contractors.

    Love how that 'obscure argument' is only the basics of NZ employment law.

    Maybe we should all just agree to mock the Australians and be done with it?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 312 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Cox,

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 312 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    Australians <------------------ points and laughs

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    [Edited] I'd like to see some signs at the hobbit march like "I support government subsidies" or "We welcome your American dollars"

    I won't be going. I'll be mourning in advance what I expect the government to do to employment law.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    snap

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    Reviewing the papers that lead to the incorporation in NZ of the Media Entertainment & Art Alliance (New Zealand) Incorporated, which includes the rules, the governance is by a board with meetings of the board as and when required.

    There is no specific requirement that the board consult with members and the rules for general meetings refer that meetings be called “in the same manner as that used for the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (New Zealand) Inc” which appears to be the organisation that was struck off.

    The Rules of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance Inc (that was struck off) provides for general meetings to be called in the same manner as that used for the NZ Branch of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (the NZ Branch of the Australian parent).

    Visiting the Australian Parent website online one cannot find a copy of the rules readily available, one has to be a member of the parent and then one is given access - perhaps.

    The NZ Actors’ Equity site is describes itself as an autonomous part of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance and also as the industrial and professional organisation representing performers who work in New Zealand’s entertainment industries. This site does not provide a copy of the MEAA rules or its own rules.

    For a “society” to be incorporated in NZ the rules need to provide, amongst other things, for a mechanism for meetings to be called, take place and cover how voting is counted. To my mind the rules as filed, for the Media Entertainment & Art Alliance (New Zealand) Incorporated (who brand themselves as NZEA) do not satisfy this requirement - refer to the EPMU site to see an example of a clear and proper set of rules.

    The original application for incorporation of MEAA (NZ) Incorporated was stayed as the rules were inadequate, the rules to my mind are still inadequate as they do not provide for a mechanism for meetings as outlined above

    What the rules provide is that if you are a members of NZAE – MEAA (NZ) Incorporated the governing body does not have to meet or consult with you.

    How does this “union” decide on what are/is the collective interest(s) of union members – is this done by the governance committee without any reference to the rank & file.

    It is fuzzy thre is a lack of an accessible set of rules that define the consultative process one would expect.

    The Board it appears, as they have done, can do what they like without reference to the membership or wider acting community.

    Incorporation was on the 8th of October 2010 with 15 people becoming members, the minimum statutory number, for the purposes of incorporation - there may not be much of a membership besides those who signed the application, which includes the board. Their first foray into negotiations is unlikely to win much further support than the founding members.

    I can’t see how anyone that was a member of the society that was struck off would have automatically transferred his or her membership over to the new society.

    So whose interests are driving the shambles?

    It could be that NZAE - EAA (NZ) Incorporated should still have no legal status – they have not satisfied all the requirement to be incorporated as a society as it relates to meetings and votes and as a consquence should not be able to act as a trade union.

    NZAE - EAA (NZ) Incorporated have been issued with a Certificate of Incorporation, but that is lax on the part of the registrar – as they have not satisfied the requirements at law.

    Having a set of rules that refers to a rule in another set of rules is vague and dangerous – are those the 199X set of rules or the 200Y set of rules – and can the other “set of rules” can be changed without reference to your members.

    You can see how the board of the NZAE –MEAA (NZ) Incorporated could be easily manipulated by the parent and the CTU. The board don’t appear to have exercised the wit to have read and understood what they were signing with incorporation.

    Correct me if my assessment of the situation is wrong. This is like working on your car wasted - and then trying to read the manual when you are out of your mind and the thing turns to crap.

    It really is a total fluster cluck.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1224 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 29 30 31 32 33 68 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.