Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Over 30+ years of filmmaking in this country, very clear guidelines of 'standard', 'reasonable' and expected conditions have been established. And -- already -- woe-betide the production that doesn't meet them.
I'm not sure if I see your point anymore Jonathan. You said:
1. How can we have a standardised contract to cover this range of productions AND
2. Guidelines of conditions are already established and are clear to everyone.Surely that means it would be very easy to make a standard contract for all productions in NZ, which covered the vast majority of their employment, leaving only pay and any unusual matters to do with each production to be figured out.
-
And how can a standardised contract possibly be drawn up that would work for a $200 million studio film AND $4 million NZFC funded local film (that will have no worldwide release and will be sold off territory by territory) AND an under-$1 million completely independent film (of which we'll be seeing a lot more)?
I'm not sure if the union is seeking to do this, but it would be possible to have a contract which didn't mention pay at all, but simply conditions. Pay could then be attached to that contract as a schedule for each movie - lots of work places do this.
-
And it's not going to happen while SAG and its affiliates have that member alert out, Kyle -- which is the point.
So there's currently a standoff which will either be resolved or it will fall over.
Exactly the same as union members refusing to sign a contract at any other workplace around New Zealand. There might be a lockout, there might be a strike etc.
The parties will either get together and sort out their issues to their mutual (dis)satisfaction, or they won't and the movies will go elsewhere. The motivation to getting it sorted is that both parties would like to do it in NZ so there's pressure if they get too unreasonable.
I don't see why this shouldn't be treated as any other industrial relations issue.
-
Kyle... it's not just a threatened boycott - the MEAA has actually issued a directive to actors to boycott the production.
Well it can't be an actual boycott until there's an actual production. Actor casting hasn't started yet as far as I know, just some specialist roles.
It's the resolution of the threat that will end the issue, but she's called for a meeting in her release.
-
Tip for dummies (like me I think):
Don't get so into STV voting that you vote for the DCC, Health Board, and then Otago Regional Council with numbers. Because the ORC still uses FPP voting.
Stupid different voting systems for different parts of the form. What stupid parliament allowed that to happen?
-
And, Kyle, your experience may be very different from mine but I've never been involved in employment negotiations where my agent and employer have been slagging each other off in public.
Belonging to a public sector union, fighting the big battles in the public arena is the norm.
-
Oops, pre-empted by Blake while writing. That release seems quite reasonable.
-
She needs to urgently come out for or against the boycott. She needs to let actors know that The Hobbit is NOT toxic; to give actors the reassurance that they are not traitors if they want to negotiate roles in the films. She also needs to consult the Wellington acting community - many of whom are understandably ropeable and incredulous about all of this.
I would imagine she'll come out for or against the boycott once she knows what the producers are going to do in response to the threat of the boycott. So far they seem to have stuck to their position. A meeting wouldn't seem to be unreasonable.
Largely this is all normal employer/employee bluster before coming to an agreement. Seems like everyone needs to calm down and recognise that this is just normal negotiations being carried out on a public stage (for the purposes of both sides it seems).
-
I take your point as far as it goes, but was there anything in the Crown Law advice that was actually wrong on the facts, and to be fair wouldn't Finlayson have be double fucked if he'd suppressed the advice he'd asked for?
I think it was asking for the advice that was the problem, thought certainly his intention was to release the advice - I don't think he was just curious as an intellectual exercise.
No doubt lawyers on the production side could have made the same points, so he hasn't added anything to the debate. If he'd felt the need to poke his nose in, independent mediator would have been a much more useful role for the government to play to try and keep the production here. He's made it less likely that the actors will be happy with the government doing that.
-
Except that as mentioned upthread, leaving *one* candidate unranked is the same as ranking them last.
Yes, no doubt that will make some people feel better about 'not voting' for so and so.
(NZ STV voting law doesn't seem to have the facility to deal with a tie, but I'm not sure if that eventuality is dealt with in general electorate elections, or FPP local body elections either).