Kiwi Socialists threaten World Cup

[Shaggy]

Thank you, someone who isn't buying into "greedy, multi national ********", and is speaking sense.

They are using their position to either say "give us what we want, or we'll walk", which the movie companies can afford, but the NZ economy isn't so lucky. You'll find what will happen, is the government will now be giving actors huge tax incentives, which will be great for everyone except New Zealand.

As for the Australian union, I'd be interested in seeing where the Hobbit will be filmed if not in NZ, because you can bet that Australia will want a piece of the billion dollar pie.

As seem to be the one who has made the comment about the "greedy multi-nationals", I feel maybe I should qualify what i've said ... my point is point out that the movie company is doing exactly what you are accusing the unions are doing - "give us what we want, all we'll walk", so by your own definition, they are greedy ... Double standard much?

What I purposed was a win/win situation, but it won't happen ... the government will change the employment law (which is what they want),they may also provide further subsidies to make up for the weak USD, which is really what the film company wants.

IF the movie goes offshore, Australia won't get it ... it will probably go to eastern Europe where the Harry Potter films were filmed, and the wages are lower.

I am old enough to remember the Rail ferry strikes, the corporatisation of the government departments, personal experience of NZ companies threatening to take work offshore not because of productivity, but because it's cheaper to use unskilled workers in China, despite the fact that the company in question was profitable and competative ... I even know why there's a Labour Day holiday, so the irony of the Auckland march wasn't lost on me.

... anyway, i'll just get off my soapbox before I slip and just maybe agree to disagree

 

[smartcooky]

Hang on on folks. All this came about because of a ****** called Simon Whipp, an Australian Unionist. The Hobbit movies were all set to be filmed under the conditions as they were until this idiot fvcked it up for everyone by calling for a boycott.

Just remember who takes the risk here. Warner Brothers puts up hundreds of million of dollars,. The risk is all theirs. If the movie flops, they carry the can! (just as Universal did with Waterworld). Don't think that because Lord of the Rings was such an outstanding success, the the Hobbit will automatically be so. Its not a given. Anyone who has read these stories (and I have) will tell you that The Hobbit is not half the story LOTR was!!

Given the US$ millions these companies invest up front, they become understandably nervous at the prospect of having rabble rousers like Helen Kelly and Simon Whipp stirring up trouble

John Key announced about an hour ago that the two Hobbit movies will be filmed here, but they have had to make a lot of concessions to Warners to get them to stay; concessions that would NOT have been needed if the CTU and Simon Whipp had kept their fvcking noses out of affairs they know nothing about and have no business being involved in..

 

[Shaggy]

Hang on on folks. All this came about because of a ****** called Simon Whipp, an Australian Unionist. The Hobbit movies were all set to be filmed under the conditions as they were until this idiot fvcked it up for everyone by calling for a boycott.

Just remember who takes the risk here. Warner Brothers puts up hundreds of million of dollars,. The risk is all theirs. If the movie flops, they carry the can! (just as Universal did with Waterworld). Don't think that because Lord of the Rings was such an outstanding success, the the Hobbit will automatically be so. Its not a given. Anyone who has read these stories (and I have) will tell you that The Hobbit is not half the story LOTR was!!

Given the US$ millions these companies invest up front, they become understandably nervous at the prospect of having rabble rousers like Helen Kelly and Simon Whipp stirring up trouble

John Key announced about an hour ago that the two Hobbit movies will be filmed here, but they have had to make a lot of concessions to Warners to get them to stay; concessions that would NOT have been needed if the CTU and Simon Whipp had kept their fvcking noses out of affairs they know nothing about and have no business being involved in..

Well i'm pleased that the filming will go ahead in New Zealand, but not happy that the government is changing employment law to do it ... yes, the movie studio puts up the money, takes the risk, and deserves to take the profit (or loss) as a result, so, good on them for getting what they can out of the NZ govt. It's part of doing business.

Negotiating wages is also part of doing business, and they have managed to avoid this somewhat with the law change.

Of the concessions made, only one of them (the employment law change) relates to the Actors/unions, the extra (up to) US $7.5 million tax rebate per movie, and the US $10 million to offset marketing costs are more to do with what? ... increased cost of doing business in NZ due to exchange rates, and global competition from other countries that already offer higher tax credits .

This could have been a win for NZ, win for the movie studio, win for the actors scenario, but instead it's a win for NZ, win for the studio, win for the govt.

Anyway, it's resolved, so I guess we can talk about something else, like ... ummn ... Rugby

 

[smartcooky]

shaggy

Before we get back to the rugby, I would just like to point out this.

The problem with NZ Employment Law as regards actors is that currently, they are employees of the film company, and members of the Actors Collective, a union. The problem for film-makers is a that the Union could be involved in a dispute between other actors and another film-maker, and this could affect an unrelated film being filmed in another country. So, for example, actors working on the Hobbit, could be compelled to strike, even if they don't want to, because the actors union has intructed them to do so due to a union dispute involving another actor on a another film set somewhere in darkest Africa.

Most countries in the world (including Ireland, where the Hobbit was likely to be moved to) regards actors as contracted workers, that is, their managers sign them up to a contact with the film-maker, and once that contract is signed, they are not allowed to strike or withdraw their services until the film is completed, i.e. the working conditions and pay are sorted first, and the film-maker has some certainty.

The change in employment Law will make actors contractors. Even though they have agents and managers, they can still be members of a union, but that union cannot compel them to strike.

I remind everyone that the blame for what has happened lies entirely with the Actors Union and the CTU. NONE of these concessions, compromises and changes would have been necessary if they had just kept their noses out of it. By sticking their oar in, not only have they put a $NZ 3 BILLION industry and employment for tens of thousands of NZers at risk, they also played straight into the hands of Warner Brothers. It was dumb and naive on their part.

 

[Shaggy]

shaggy

Before we get back to the rugby, I would just like to point out this.

The problem with NZ Employment Law as regards actors is that currently, they are employees of the film company, and members of the Actors Collective, a union. The problem for film-makers is a that the Union could be involved in a dispute between other actors and another film-maker, and this could affect an unrelated film being filmed in another country. So, for example, actors working on the Hobbit, could be compelled to strike, even if they don't want to, because the actors union has intructed them to do so due to a union dispute involving another actor on a another film set somewhere in darkest Africa.

Most countries in the world (including Ireland, where the Hobbit was likely to be moved to) regards actors as contracted workers, that is, their managers sign them up to a contact with the film-maker, and once that contract is signed, they are not allowed to strike or withdraw their services until the film is completed, i.e. the working conditions and pay are sorted first, and the film-maker has some certainty.

The change in employment Law will make actors contractors. Even though they have agents and managers, they can still be members of a union, but that union cannot compel them to strike.

I remind everyone that the blame for what has happened lies entirely with the Actors Union and the CTU. NONE of these concessions, compromises and changes would have been necessary if they had just kept their noses out of it. By sticking their oar in, not only have they put a $NZ 3 BILLION industry and employment for tens of thousands of NZers at risk, they also played straight into the hands of Warner Brothers. It was dumb and naive on their part.

Fair enough Cooky, I respect your opinion and the other opinions of those contrary to my own that have some substance to back up their stance on this issue.

I totally agree that this issue has played totally into the hands of the film company, and also those parties that want to see the union weakened.

I also agree with Nick, that it's unlikely that similar issues will affect the RWC.

I really don't want to get into industrial relations, the pro's and con's of union representation etc, because, at the end of the day, it could go on and on, without anyone being convinced to a contrary point of view ... in short, it's counter productive