Extremist NZ Actors Equity demands outrageous fortune

17 comments on “Extremist NZ Actors Equity demands outrageous fortune ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Nick K 1

   3 October 2010 at 9:01 am

   I prefer Jackson to some union boofhead.

   Anyway, cast and crew are independent contractors so all of this is horseshit.
   • The Voice of Reason 1.1

     3 October 2010 at 9:14 am

     Only because the producers prefer it that way, Nick, and are happy to bully workers to keep it that way. It gives them total control over the workforce and removes fairness, representation and minimum standards. Independant contractors are a legal fiction; they remain workers no matter what bullshit the bosses use to cover the exploitation.
   • bbfloyd 1.2

     3 October 2010 at 10:05 am

     A good way to identify a “boofhead” is by their use of name calling, and unnecessary use of expletive. usually a sign of a truncated vocabulary… sound familiar you …… person!
   • Marty G 1.3

     3 October 2010 at 10:24 am

     The whole point, Nick K, is that the independent contractor system is being abused to undermine pay and conditions. It’s not necessary that they be independent contractors and it’s possible to agree minimum pay and conditions even if they are.
     • Joe Bloggs 1.3.1

       3 October 2010 at 10:43 am

       Bullshit – the independent contractor system offers sigjnificant tax advantages over paid employment, and offers significant premiums over pay rates for equivalent roles in USA
       • pollywog 1.3.1.1

         3 October 2010 at 10:58 am

         werd…i had my own company contracting services to the entertainment industry and found i’d rather be a self employed freelancer than an employee.

         I did the employee thing and guess what ?…I got released when my short term contract ran out anyway….

         …well within 90 days too
2. Nick K 2

   3 October 2010 at 10:56 am

   How can actors be an employee of Jackson’s production company, or one in the States? They go from job to job, from production company to production company. NZ only has two decent production companies – SPP and Greenstone. They *employ* actors for long term a series, but for movies it is a practical impossibility for the actors, and the crew, to be employees.
   • IrishBill 2.1

     3 October 2010 at 11:01 am

     Why is it impossible to employ people on a fixed-term basis? Building companies do it for big one-off projects, freezing works do it for seasonal peaks, oil companies do it for rig work, lots of businesses will be doing it during the rugby world cup and just about every type of employer has to do it occasionally to cover for maternity leave.

     What, exactly, is it about film companies that makes it so hard for them?
     • felix 2.1.1

       3 October 2010 at 11:14 am

       Some building companies do, but the “independent contractor” scam is rife throughout the building industry too.

       Not that this detracts from your point, just sayin is all…
       • IrishBill 2.1.1.1

         3 October 2010 at 11:44 am

         Tell me about it. It’s a scam that had been getting traction across a lot of industries for some time now and one that may need some kind of a law change. That would be hard to do without catching legitimate contractors in the same net.

         One way that might work would be to change the legal onus of proof of employment to make it the employer’s responsibility to prove the relationship is contractual rather than an employment relationship. Currently the onus is on the contractor/employee to prove that they are an employee and this is generally an expensive legal exercise.

         Such legislation would make film workers fixed-term employees by default but also allow them to be contractors if they wished. If producers thought they could make a case for them being independent contractors they could take it to the ERA.

         Of course such a law would still allow producers to pressure individual workers to opt-out but it would also allow them to organise collectively to push back rather than the current situation in which they start from a position of significant weakness.

         Alternatively the commerce act could be changed to allow single employee contractors the same rights to negotiate collectively that employees’ enjoy but I think that altering the employment relations act would be the better answer as it would fit better with the intent and the current provisions of that legislation.

         However I’m not big city lawyer and I would be very interested to know what the full legal ramifications of this sort of law change would be. Particularly in terms of unintended consequences. Hmm, perhaps I should post on it.
         • Swampy 2.1.1.1.1

           3 October 2010 at 3:40 pm

           Hmm, and let me guess, the main reason we want such a law is to increase union membership, coverage, etc.
           • IrishBill 2.1.1.1.1.1

             3 October 2010 at 3:45 pm

             No the main reason we would want such a law would be to ensure people who were employees were covered by employment law. I doubt it would make a significant difference to union membership figures.
3. ZeeBop 3

   3 October 2010 at 11:46 am

   Lose the Hobbit to E.Europe!

   Oh, think about it.

   Does Peter Jackson want to live in Australia?
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     3 October 2010 at 12:40 pm

     Live in Australia? Where the actors have a stronger union than here, and there are more actors covered by the US SAG contracts?

     I thought we were supposed to be catching up with Australia.
     • felix 3.1.1

       3 October 2010 at 12:46 pm

       Apparently according to the Key/Hide government the way to catch up to Australia (whatever the fuck that actually means) is to do the opposite of everything the Aussies do.
4. Bruce 4

   3 October 2010 at 12:29 pm

   If these workers want a group contract setting minimum conditions in writing (and have the opportunity to negotiate individually above those minimum conditions), then they should be able to do so. The producers, National and their mouthpieces have no right to tell them they can’t in their quest for “flexibility”. Let Jackson go overseas.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 2 October 2010 at 7:23 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS