If anything, I worry about what damage this whole thing is doing to the union movement. I'm sure teachers privately wish it would get sorted quickly.

Maybe they're just good at swinging with the punches. After all, if politicians can have their own spin doctors, big organizations, especially organizations which may have masses of resentment towards unions, would be foolish not to have their own and take advantage of it.

Yeah, I don't doubt they are now making the most of the current situation as it has developed - probably trying to enhance their reputation as tough to negotiate with (and it would hardly be surprising if they asked for increased tax breaks from the government now as well).

But there's a difference between that and what the CTU seems to have been suggesting, which is certainly coming across as "Oh, well they were never really planning to film in NZ, anyway. The fact the production may be moving is not a result of our intervention, but of other factors. It won't be our fault." I think those other factors are absolutely in play *now*, but the way pre-production was in progress, things were lining up, money was being spent etc. before, it's evident that they weren't in play *before* the industrial action.

I'd be very surprised if they didn't care about their reputation within the industry. And that includes a reputation for being tough negotiators on employment contracts.

Fair enough perhaps - but that still doesn't suggest a pre-existing plan to take the films out of New Zealand, does it?

I think the CTU needs to stop pushing its conspiracy theory angle, since although NZEA, MEAA and co might have set out with quite reasonable intentions, they're starting to look a bit silly now.

I haven't really seen anyone ask this: assuming Warners HAD decided some time ago it was a better option for them to film elsewhere, why would they feel the need to use the union as a scapegoat? Why would they feel the need to have a scapegoat, full stop? Wouldn't they have just upped stumps pulled out? They don't answer financially to New Zealand. Is their reputation as a movie studio among Kiwis worth hundreds of millions of dollars to them? I don't see it. It's been suggested that it's because they wanted to "take heat off Jackson." Assuming that the studio was even worried that much about this (doubtful), what "heat" would PJ have received if he'd truthfully said: "Well, WB has decided they don't want to film in NZ, because it's cheaper elsewhere - I'm very sad about it, but there's nothing I can do." Who would blame him for that?

Putting millions of dollars into pre-production here only to pull out and leave much of that money wasted hardly seem like the most cunning plan to save money on the production. It seems silly to suggest WB was planning this all along when a) I just don't think they're that smart and b) I just don't think they'd *care* that much about maintaining their reputation with Kiwis. Why would they?

If they're looking at better tax deals etc. NOW, it's hardly surprising, but please let's dispense with the idea that this was all a Machiavellian, 10-moves-ahead scheme on their part.