Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
and for Craig Parker to be plated in gold.
I thought Peter Jackson took care of that with his costume in Fellowship of the Ring.
There is no question that the Equity Organiser is getting paid, and its a legitimate question to ask where that money coming from
Why? Seriously, it looks like the union have made a bit of a mess of this, but there's some standard things that have come out which are common to many union disputes:
1. You're costing people jobs/the country money.
2. Where's the union's money coming from?
3. Here's a petition of people you're hurting who want you to stop.Playing the man not the ball.
Would it be unreasonable to expect that most of the costs of the organiser are coming from the NZ members paying 8/week or so, like many unions? 150 members would pay a half decent full time salary, 100 more would pay the costs to support their work. Or should we go with speculation on the basis of no facts?
-
I think it's an annual memorial. Normally only at the police college?
-
http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/general.aspx
Ah, the irony... :-D
I didn't get it from lexisnexis.
-
Emailing it to you now Russell.
-
And if it needs renegotiating, why don't the actors (and / or their reps) meet SPADA and negotiate it?
Well I don't know. I was just disputing that it would be difficult to have an employment contract that didn't allow for different scale/funded productions.
I haven't seen the NZ members call for this boycott though Kyle.
But in that case does it really matter? A union that isn't a legal entity in New Zealand has called for a boycott. If New Zealand actors don't follow through on that boycott - the movies gets made and the actors and crew get paid. Are the SAG going to boycott the company when the NZ actors were clearly happy with the situation?
I still don't see a big problem on either side. The actors union and the production company meet, put the issues on the table and take away what they can. Entirely normal industrial relations.
-
I'd be happy voting for district health boards if they were able to collect money. At present they're just elected people set up to fail by standing in front of the Minister of Health. Surely the government can appoint anyone they want to do that?
-
If a Nationwide election were conducted using STV
But STV nationwide wouldn't be conducted by a nationwide list.
It would be conducted with a list in each electorate. So you'd get all your electorate candidates, and you'd vote for them. You're unlikely to get many minor party MPs as a result (because they'd get kicked off before the National and Labour MPs in most electorates).
You would get a different result than under a FPP system, but it would still be overwhelmingly not proportional.
It would look different again if there was more than one MP from each electorate. In that case it would really depend on what the rules allowed. If each party could stand more than one candidate, then again, the major parties would dominate. If they were limited to one (and I can't imagine either Labour or National would allow such a system in), then you might even get results unproportional the other way (say for example, 40 electorates, 3 vacancies in each, National has a maximum of 40 MPs, yet they might have over 50% support as they do now).
-
(And I don't see how it can fairly be called 'proportional'- wouldn't that depend on, y'know, there being political parties involved?)
STV isn't proportional in the way that MMP is proportional.
In fact STV isn't necessarily proportional at all. But it is more likely to be so than FPP, largely where there are multiple vacancies, though it does have some benefits in single vacancy elections (were the left or right is split between two candidates for example, one might come 2nd or 3rd in the first round, but then pick up the votes of their competitor and beat the person who led in the first round on 2nd round choices).
It does guarantee that a candidate must have been the choice of at least 50% of the voting public (single vacancy) at some point down the chain.
-
Jonathan, yes exactly my point.
-
Exactly Kyle, which is why it smacks of sabotage.
That's a strong word.
I'm not inside the industry, but is anyone trying to kill this production or force it overseas? Are they doing anything illegal?
I'm not part of the industry, whereas you are. But isn't your point of view ("we really need this work") part of the normal debate that employees will have when considering their approach to industrial action. I've been in meetings where members have said similar things, but certainly no one ever called it sabotage just because members were willing to take industrial action over better pay/conditions.