Posts by Simon Bennett
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Which thread is this?
-
@Peter Cox - agreed. I hope Equity do meet with and forge relationships with the other NZ industry unions.
-
From what I'm hearing, the version of events described in the MEAA newsletter is the one subscribed to by a large number of actors.
The SPADA response will be seen as spin, and further bolster the bogey-man image of fat-cat producers among many actors.
Doesn't bode particularly well for 'good faith' discussions of the Pink Book.
-
Russell - Robyn Malcolm would be an interesting voice to add to the panel. Or if controversy is to be avoided, how about Tim Balme - an actor for many years (including Braindead), a successful screenwriter, and also Head of Development at SPP.
-
I'm a screenwriter, Jonathan is a director (also Michael D), in case you were confused about us. The only producers I know who've commented have been Simon Bennett.
I'm a director who also produces. And an independant contractor!
-
Sofie, the plan was to use lines from the show, spoken by the actors, as downloadable ringtones. The actors didn't want to be involved, so it didn't go ahead.
-
And I also realise that you can't go to ordinary New Zealanders and complain about only being paid $1000 a day so the argument becomes about less tangible (but equally painful) developments like the new market for Outrageous Fortune DVDs and ringtones which actors didn't get a cut of. Which ordinary New Zealanders also don't really have much sympathy for.
Dan, I want to unpick the Outrageous Fortune Ringtones myth. SPP was investigating the sale of OF ringtones as a merchandising option. SPP approached actors' agents to discuss a profit share arrangement. The actors communicated clearly that they did not want to be involved in the sale of ringtones. The ringtones initiative didn't go ahead. End of story.
The actors were never 'not consulted'. If the ringtones initiative had gone ahead, the actors would have received a cut.
-
8. Who is telling the truth between Spada and NZAE about who wouldn't talk to who over the past 2 years?
I was party to discussions with MEAA and SPADA during the Outrageous Fortune stoush. MEAA on behalf of the cast were demanding an industry-wide standard contract for Series 6. SPP couldn't provide this and referred MEAA to SPADA as the appropriate body to discuss this with. SPADA offered to meet with MEAA and the agents to discuss the Pink Book guidelines. MEAA refused to meet. They were only interested in a binding, industry-wide contract.
This was nearly 2 years ago. I read all the correspondence.
-
Interesting email from Equity to members. Draw your own conclusions...
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Dear Xxxxxxxxx,Seeking a meeting with an employer to discuss employees’ contracts is a fair and reasonable request. This is all that was asked on the producers of The Hobbit. Their refusal to do so was unfortunate but Equity thanks all NZ members for staying strong and campaigning for the same types of terms and conditions enjoyed by performers around the world.
We are pleased to report that we are now in discussions with producers’ body SPADA regarding performers’ contracts on screen productions in New Zealand and will meet with them in the coming weeks. We also are currently in the process of rescheduling our members’ meetings in Wellington and Auckland and will send details this week.
Messages of support for New Zealand performers’ attempt to secure fair terms and conditions continue to pour in from across the globe. We will be sending some of these – and all other updates – in bulletins this week.
In the meantime, please find a question and answer fact sheet below regarding The Hobbit. And, if you have any further questions please email them to comms@alliance.org.au
If you are having trouble reading this email, view it online here.
The Hobbit Q&A
Why did actors’ unions around the world join NZ Equity in advising members to hold off on signing contracts for The Hobbit?
NZ Equity has been seeking to bargain with a variety of producers in film, television and theatre production since it came into existence in 2006 as a branch of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance.
NZ Equity has also sought to bargain with the screen producers association SPADA.
For a variety of reasons none of these attempts had been successful.
The commencement of The Hobbit provided an opportunity to work with unions from overseas to improve the conditions of performers working in New Zealand.
The producers of The Hobbit refused to even meet with Equity to discuss performers’ contracts.
However, SPADA has now agreed to meet with Equity to discuss performers’ terms and conditions for other productions made in New Zealand. As a result of this, Equity has agreed that while the parties are discussing new terms, provided a production contracts performers on the terms of the “Pink Book” in their entirety then NZ Equity will take no action against the production.
Why was NZ Equity concerned about performers working on The Hobbit? What action did we take? Was it reasonable?
The Hobbit contracts sighted by Equity provide arrangements less than Pink Book standards in several respects.
All NZ Equity sought was to meet with the production and discuss the conditions under which performers would be engaged. We hoped we would be in a position where we could say the contracts under which the production was to engage performers were recommended by the union.
This request to meet was backed by the International Federation of Actors (FIA) and performers’ unions around the world including SAG and Equity UK.The request was in the first instance made privately, without the glare of the media on August 17. After it was refused on several occasions the request to meet was taken public on September 29. The request was then publicly backed by member and non-member performers alike who attended meetings in Auckland and Wellington.
After becoming public this request stood for a total of three weeks.
During this time the situation developed from day to day. Proposals were made for a meeting between the production’s lawyers and the union and then reneged upon. The producers made the unprecedented request of vetoing some union officials from the meetings, which was agreed upon.
Only when it was clear that no progress was going to be possible did the union decide that to persist was fruitless.
Did NZ Equity do all it could to get a fair deal for performers working on The Hobbit?
Equity contacted the producers for months in an attempt to meet and discuss the performers’ contracts. The producers were approached in a calm and reasonable manner. Our requests were simple and straight forward. Equity made every effort to ensure the production was not jeopardised and made this clear to all involved. Equity sought the support of performers’ unions around the world to ensure we were in the strongest position possible to reach a fair result for New Zealand performers.
However, had we continued as we were against the production the sense was that things would not change. A stalemate had been reached.
The Board formed the view that in the interests of harmony between cast and crew and for the sake of the NZ screen industry the commitments made in discussions with SPADA were significant enough to justify ending the dispute with The Hobbit.
Why is the studio behind The Hobbit talking about moving the production away from New Zealand?
This is not due to industrial uncertainty. New Zealand Actors Equity has assured the producers that no future industrial action would be taken on the production at any time.
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key told Radio New Zealand this morning that there were several issues being considering by the studios including: “the confidence that Warner Bros had in the Government, and possibly other economic issues”.
Why did Equity choose to avoid the media spotlight?
First, Equity wasn’t trying to fight this issue in the media. We hoped and wanted to resolve issues without the glare of the media nor is it the appropriate place for the issues to be played out.
The media is rarely sympathetic to the union in an industrial campaign.
In relation to this situation the union made a considered decision that to be engaged in the public brawl only served the interests of those who wanted to create a sense of uncertainty and insecurity in the industry.
Why did the union cancel the recent meetings in Auckland and Wellington?
The union cancelled the meetings in Auckland and Wellington out of concern for performers’ safety.
These meetings were about the meetings with SPADA which will, when concluded, provide enhanced security for international productions. For this reason the rally was entirely counterproductive. It was also unnecessary. An agreement to end the advice to members had been reached days before the rally was held. The details of this are also confirmed on the SPADA website. This was known to the producers.
The producers claimed that those present at the rally outside the meetings wanted to talk to the union about its position with respect to The Hobbit.
The union is more than happy to speak to anyone about the position it has taken and in this regard will suggest to The Techos Guild a joint meeting between their Guild’s Board and the NZ Equity Board to discuss the issues.
However, it is clear that there was no desire to have a discussion about the situation by those who attended the meeting in Auckland. You don’t attend a discussion with a loud hailer!
What right do overseas unions have to tell NZ producers what to do?
Film and television production is an international business.
The financing and distribution of film and television product does not take place in one country alone.
Similarly, producers in New Zealand do not rely only on New Zealand performers when making casting decisions (unfortunate for us as that may be).
Performer unions overseas are expected by their members to provide advice to them about the conditions of engagement for performers in New Zealand. Some unions (for example SAG) have already introduced rules which require that when performers work in New Zealand they do so only on a SAG contract.
In this instance, those performers were happy to take that advice and supported calls for the production to meet with NZ Equity so that all performers might be on fair contracts.
Was our campaign for a fair deal on The Hobbit worthwhile?
The contracts now being offered by the producers of The Hobbit include conditions such as residual payments for performers. This is a great result considering how reluctant the producers were to improve performers’ terms and conditions.
As well as this, SPADA has agreed to meet with Equity to discuss performers’ terms and conditions for future screen productions. In the mean time, they will use the Pink Book as the basis for performers’ contracts. In the past the conditions set out in the Pink Book have been completely disregarded by producers. The Pink Book is now being used as minimum – this is a huge step forward.
Our actions in no way jeopardised the filming of The Hobbit in New Zealand. It is ridiculous to say that asking for meeting could have such an effect.
New Zealand performers approached this issue in a calm and professional manner and have every reason to be extremely proud of themselves.
-
And how would the many agents sort this out among themselves? How much gets paid to whom? Who audits the producers' financial statements? At the very least the agents would have to engage an accountant/lawyer and set up some sort of semi-independant trust fund. This would cost: therefore fewer $$ for actors.