‘Open Letter’ to NZ Prime Minister John Key -remember National’s 2008 industrial relations’ policy?

from Penny Bright
to j.key@ministers.govt.nz
cc Penny Bright
date Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:30 PM
subject ‘Open Letter’ to NZ Prime Minister John Key -remember National’s 2008 industrial relations’ policy?

27 October 2010

‘Open Letter’ to NZ Prime Minister John Key
– remember National’s 2008 industrial relations’ policy?

Dear Prime Minister,

May I respectfully suggest that you should refresh your memory on what YOU stated was National’s 2008: Employment & Workplace Relations Policy?

Or is this yet again – another broken promise from the National Government YOU lead?

Also – now you have seemingly become the ‘Minister for Industrial Relations’, may I respectfully suggest that perhaps you get a firmer grasp on the underpinning principles of ‘good faith bargaining’?

www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28271

2008: Employment & Workplace Relations Policy

by Rt Hon John Key, Labour & Industrial Relations

24 July 2008

EXPANDING JOB OPPORTUNITIES, LETTING BUSINESSES GROW

National believes employment law should treat all parties fairly.
…………………….

• Protect employees and employers.
……………………….
• Continue to support the social partnership with Business NZ and the CTU. …………………”

In order to assist – I have taken the liberty of ‘cutting and pasting’ some of the underpinning basic requirements of ‘good faith bargaining’:

www.ers.dol.govt.nz/bargaining/good_faith.html

“The Employment Relations Act 2000 sets out some basic requirements for good faith bargaining.
In summary, employers and unions involved in collective bargaining must:

* use their best endeavours to agree to an effective bargaining process

* meet and consider and respond to proposals made by each other

………………
* not do anything to undermine the bargaining process or the authority of the other’s representative.”

The duty of good faith also means that an employer must not advise an employee or seek to induce them not to be covered by collective bargaining or a collective agreement.

An employer is also prohibited from passing on conditions in a collective agreement to an employee not covered by the collective bargaining terms where the effect of passing on would undermine the bargaining or intends doing so.

If the pass on occurs with the agreement of the union concerned, it is not a breach of good faith.”

Code of Good Faith in Collective Bargaining:

(May I respectfully suggest that you make some time to get up to speed with this as well – if you are going to play such a major role in NZ ‘industrial relations’?)

www.ers.dol.govt.nz/goodfaith/code.html

“Text of the code of good faith

Section 1 Introduction

1.1. The purpose of this generic code is to give guidance to employers and unions (‘the parties’) on their duty to act in good faith when bargaining for a collective agreement or variation to a collective agreement under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (‘the Act’).

1.2. This code is not a substitute for the Act.
However, the Employment Relations Authority (‘the Authority’) or the Employment Court (‘the Court’) may have regard to it in determining whether or not the parties have dealt with each other in good faith in bargaining for a collective agreement.

1.3. Good faith under the Act requires the parties to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship.

This includes a requirement that the parties are responsive and communicative and do not do anything likely to mislead or deceive each other.
………………………… ……”

How is it ‘fair’ for you as NZ Prime Minister John Key, to be so openly biased towards film industry employers in this Hobbit matter?

The NZ Companies Office – provides the evidence that Peter Jackson is both a shareholder and Director of Wingnut Films – which has already publicly advertised for acting staff for the Hobbit.

Richard Taylor is a Director of Weta Ltd – which has already carried out work for the Hobbit.

So – both have a direct pecuniary interest in the Hobbit on the side of film industry ’employers’.

With all due respect Prime Minister, it is my considered opinion that the attacks on Actors Equity, MEAA and those advocating on behalf of their members by Peter Jackson, Richard Taylor and yourself, have been a disgrace.

To help close the wages gap with Australia – I respectfully suggest that as Prime Minister, you should be helping to implement legislative change which encourages unions’ ability to achieve collective bargaining and collective agreements.

Unless of course ‘closing the wages gap with Australia’ is yet another hollow, broken National Party promise?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION WHICH PROVES AUSTRALIAN WORKERS ARE BETTER OFF IN UNIONS WITH REGISTERED COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS:

“Australian Bureau of Statistics figures published in March 2005 show that hourly wages of workers on AWAs (Australian Workplace Agreements) were two percent lower than the hourly wages of workers on registered collective agreements, mostly negotiated by unions.[3]

[ 3. ^ The impact on Workers of Australian Workplace Agreements by Professor David Peetz, June 2005. ABS Statistics show a two percent disparity in wages between AWAs and collective agreements – Page 11.]

For women, AWAs paid 11 % less per hour than collective agreements.[4]

[ 4. ^ The impact on Workers of Australian Workplace Agreements by Professor David Peetz, June 2005. Women’s earnings 11% less under AWAs on Page 11.]
______________________________________________

Australian workplace agreements (AWAs) were formalised individual agreements negotiated by the boss and employee.

Employers could offer “take it or leave it” AWAs as a condition of employment.

They were registered by the employment advocate and did not require a dispute resolution procedure.

These agreements operate only at the federal level. AWAs were individual written agreements on terms and conditions of employment between an employer and employee in Australia, under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. An AWA could override employment conditions in state or territory laws except for occupational health and safety, workers’ compensation or training arrangements.

An AWA was required to meet only the most minimal Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. Agreements were not require to include effective dispute resolution procedure, and could not include prohibited content. Agreements were for a maximum of five years; approved, promoted and registered by the Workplace Authority; operate to the exclusion of any award; and prohibit industrial action regarding details in the agreement for the life of the agreement.

The introduction of the Australian Workplace Agreements was a controversial industrial relations issue in Australia.

During a Senate Estimates hearing on May 29, 2006, Peter McIlwain, Head of the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) detailed that from a sample of 4 per cent, or 250, of the total 6,263 AWAs lodged during April 2006 after WorkChoices was introduced, that:

100% of AWAs removed at least one protected Award condition;

64% of AWAs have removed annual leave loadings;

63% of AWAs have stripped out penalty rates;

52% of AWAs have cut out shift loadings;

40% of AWAs have dropped gazetted public holidays; and 16% of AWAs, have slashed all award conditions and only the Government’s five minimum conditions are satisfied.[6]

[6. ^ Percentage of Union and Non-union Certified Agreements in the Federal Public Service from Union gets ready for hostile Senate by Verona Burgess, Australian Financial Review, 8 April 2005, as published in CPSU bulletin April 2005 ] ”

Arguably, the best way to help close the ‘wage gap’ between Australia and New Zealand, is for NZ to emulate effective Australian unionism, and legislation which enables and protects union organisation and collective bargaining?
Yours sincerely,

Penny Bright

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
__________________________________________________________________________________

FYI – recent and current debate on the NBR on the Hobbit:
www.nbr.co.nz/article/weta-digital-could-lose-all-hobbit-work-fans-told-132079?headsup=1
Weta Digital could lose all Hobbit work, fans told
NBR staff | Tuesday October 26, 2010

It is a “50/50 call” whether The Hobbit stays in NZ, according to prime minister John Key.

Mr Key is due to meet with Warner Bros executives today. On the agenda: labour stability and possibly, a tax break beyond the 15% already on the table.

The Hollywood brass arrived yesterday, amid a series of “Keep the Hobbit Film Shoot in NZ” rallies in Auckland, Matamata, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown, which collectively attracted thousands of fans.

A Facebook page dedicated to the rallies drew more than 11,000 fans.

In Hamilton, protestors were told by a Weta Digital staffer that the company could lose its special effects contract if the production is taken off shore, co-organisor Grant Smith told NBR.

The Wellington rally – the largest, with around 2000 present – was told a similar story by Sir Richard Taylor, who said Weta Digital and Weta Workshop were in danger of losing post-production work – or even get cut out of the picture altogether.

Was there a danger that the pro-Hobbit protests may have backfired, giving the Warner execs an impression of general unrest?

“I’m so over people trying to put a negative spin on this. It was awesome event. Full Credit to [actor and national organisor] Mark Harrison,” Mr Smith said.
Mr Smith is also encouraging people on Twitter to chance their Twitter profile picture to a “Please keep The Hobbit in NZ” image, and to leave positive messages of support on Warners’ offical Facebook page.

ABOVE: Fans gather in Hamilton in one of five rallies timed to coincide with the arrival of Warner Bros executives from the US. Photo courtesy Grant Smith. The main organiser of the Waikato rally was Paul Barlow (chairman of the Film Waikato Charitable Trust and Hamilton manager of the V 48 Hours film making competition).

RAW DATA: Sir Peter’s letter to fans

Below is the message from Peter Jackson that was read to protestors at “Keep the Hobbit Film Shoot in NZ” rallies yesterday:

I have always seen the New Zealand film industry as a large, noisy, growing family. And I have always known the debt of gratitude I owe to the talented people who make up that family: from the grips to the gaffers, drivers to set builders, costume makers to camera operators, model makers, sound recordists, editors, digital effects artists, and of course – the many wonderful kiwi actors who help to bring our films to life.

All these people care deeply about our industry; they love their work, they love making films and being part of a creative community. That love ends up on screen, and I truly believe it sets our films apart from those made in any other country. You cannot buy passion and commitment – it is a precious energy, freely given, and it is the life blood of our industry.

I believe the Kiwi way of doing things should be protected and celebrated. Turning us into another State of Australia, under the sway of a destructive organisation, carries the very real risk of destroying the great big heart that beats inside our films.

As an industry we are perfectly well equipped, through our various guilds, to provide excellent terms and conditions for all our film workers. If there are problems, it is up to us to use our guilds to resolve them – that is what they are there for. We don’t open the door to an Australian trade union, who will never put the interests of Kiwis first, and invest that union with the power to destroy everything we have built.

On behalf of all those involved in trying to get The Hobbit off the ground , I would like to thank the many people who have taken the time to contact us. Every card, every letter, every email reminds us just how much people care. It has been incredibly heartening to read your messages of support. And a special thank you to the fans, whose enthusiasm for these films has never wavered, even in the darkest hours.

Lastly, I want to thank each and every person who has come here today. This is your rally, it is your moment to let your voice be heard, and I know your message to the studio will not go un-noticed.

You have said loudly and cleary New Zealand is where The Hobbit films should be made; their creative DNA is here.

This is where Middle-earth was born and this is where it should stay.

Peter Jackson,

BELOW: Ross McLeod steps out in wrought iron at the Hamilton rally:

Follow NBR on Twitter

* Print
* Share or email

Post to:

* Twitter
* Facebook
* Linked In

Comments
I think it is all OK. When I

I think it is all OK. When I was away over the long weekend I think I saw a little Hobbit being chased by a Dragon.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Bud Fox at 09:08 am on October 26, 2010
Clark & Goff

I didn’t know Helen Clark was back for the long-weekend but could well have been her chasing Goff around Chew’s Lane around midnight??

* reply
* report this

Posted by Happie Chappie at 10:36 am on October 26, 2010
I bet if kiwi and aussie

I bet if kiwi and aussie actors were invited to perform in a movie filmed in India they would expect to receive kiwi rates and work conditions rather than the much lower indian ones for the same roles and they would not have union meetings to ask for the same conditions of indian actors. So why do they think it is wrong to pay foreign actors their own country rates and conditions.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 10:43 am on October 26, 2010
Happie, yes I think you are

Happie, yes I think you are right, to be fair I had just had half a dozen heinies. The interesting thing about that is it didn’t make Helen look any less Dragon like?

* reply
* report this

Posted by Bud Fox at 10:45 am on October 26, 2010
This whole saga just goes to

This whole saga just goes to prove how caustic and destroying Unions / Labour actually are. From good intentions spring a monster more hideous than medusa – with each head and mouth piece pushing their own agenda – using the workers as pawns as they attempt to leverage any form of credibility through their parasitic existence, spouting all kinds of propaganda to the less fortunate who lack the ability to think for themselves.

Every single other industry in NZ has the same faint undercurrent and waft of deceitful, belligerent behaviour to deal with. NZ Inc as a country doesn’t need it. Nor do any industries or individual business’s or their owners.

It’s about time we as a country outlawed Unionism everywhere… and let them grow their membership’s by the quality of their offerings to their members (Yeah Right!) – or let them fester in their own swill, hopefully dying a long suffering decline choking on their own propaganda, stabbing themselves in the back and through multiple foot wounds.

* reply
* report this

Posted by anony mouse at 10:57 am on October 26, 2010
Dont bluff against the chip leader…

The sad but sorry truth is that this fiasco is typical of the current kiwi phsyche. If these unionist’s had any commercial bone in their body, they would have understood the risk they were taking in erasing the single major competitive advantage this countries film industry has – reduced over heads. Unions have their place, however get rid of the simple, academically challenged, single minded half wits that run them – these movements provide the catalyst for economic pain that can prove hugely more detrimental than the outcomes they were originally seeking to achieve!

* reply
* report this

Posted by Grievous at 11:07 am on October 26, 2010
The Good, Bad and Manipulated.

Only a top Film Director and a major Hollywood Studio could create such a great fictional narrative. Only the NZ Media could be so pliable.
This piece of Union bashing is a play to get more money out of Bill English. Key will get to play the hero and bash workers. English will write a cheque for another US$30m. Jackson should get an Oscar for THIS performance.

mmmmMaybe there is the makings of a movie in this: The Good, Bad and Manipulated.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Alfred Hitchcock at 11:08 am on October 26, 2010
Dont try and bluff the chip leader

The sad but sorry truth is that this fiasco is typical of the current kiwi phsyche. If these unionist’s had any commercial bone in their body, they would have understood the risk they were taking in erasing the single major competitive advantage this countries film industry has – reduced over heads. Unions have their place, however get rid of the simple, academically challenged, single minded half wits that run them – these movements provide the catalyst for economic pain that can prove hugely more detrimental than the outcomes they were originally seeking to achieve!

* reply
* report this

Posted by Grievous at 11:10 am on October 26, 2010
earn more by working less …

only in the unions’ insane world.

Only bettered by the parasites in govt. and banks.

* reply
* report this

Posted by sceptic at 11:26 am on October 26, 2010
Alfred – you may be right

Alfred – you may be right about Jacksons/studios intentions but the Unions have played right into their hand.

If the studios are looking for an excuse to stay in NZ, you dont offer them an excuse to leave in its place.

And if you are complaining about the money, an extra $30m into this will bring greater rewards than the money the Govt has put into the Rugby World Cup.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 11:40 am on October 26, 2010
Unions

The unions want to destroy anything productive. Join one and hear what they say at their meetings. Horrendous rants from horrific scum.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Fabia-anus at 12:04 pm on October 26, 2010
Seeking TRUTH from FACTS – what Actors Equity wanted

What was so unreasonable about Actors Equity wanting to discuss the requirements for minimum terms and conditions for the engagement of performers on The Hobbit.?

Here is – word for word – the resolution passed at the meeting of Actors Equity on 29 September 2010:

http://www.alliance.org.au/

Wednesday 29 September 2010

“The Hobbit

Four hundred actors attended a meeting in Auckland last night to discuss the requirements for minimum terms and conditions for the engagement of performers on The Hobbit. At the close of that meeting, the following statement was made by Jennifer Ward-Lealand, president of NZ Actors’ Equity.

“As a result of tonight’s meeting New Zealand Actors’ Equity members have overwhelmingly resolved that its delegation continue to seek a meeting with the producers of The Hobbit, and to hold negotiations in good faith on the terms and conditions for performers working on the production.

We have no desire to jeopardise the production or create instability in any way. Our members are simply seeking fair and equitable employment terms and conditions for New Zealand actors – the same terms that their colleagues elsewhere in the world enjoy.

We believe a solution can be found by sitting down together with the producers, and talking through the issues. We all have the same goal in mind – to get The Hobbit made, here in New Zealand.

Until we reach a fair and equitable solution, we recommend that all performers wait before accepting any engagement on The Hobbit.”

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

The Hobbit: Australian actors support NZ actors’ strong stance

Four hundred New Zealand performers have passed a resolution calling on The Hobbit’s producers to hold negotiations in good faith on their terms and conditions of employment and recommending all performers wait until this occurs before accepting any engagement on The Hobbit.

Simon Whipp, Assistant Federal Secretary of Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance said:

“The resolution made by New Zealand performers last night has the full support of Australia’s acting community. What they are asking the producers to do – sit down and discuss the employment conditions of New Zealand performers – is a reasonable, and lawful, request.”

For further updates, including recent letters of support from the international acting community, the resolution of last night’s meeting in full and a video of Jennifer making a statement to the media after the meeting, See actorsequity.org.nz ”

How SCARY should that request have been to a reasonable ’employer’?

Penny Bright

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 12:18 pm on October 26, 2010
The scary thing was

the blacklist and the related condition for lifting it. This blacklist was only to be released if the producers agreed to a meeting re collective bargaining. The producers could not as they would be breaking NZ law re independent contractors. I imagine it is quite scary to an employer to have a union try to force them to do something illegal under NZ law?

* reply
* report this

Posted by sigh at 12:30 pm on October 26, 2010
Penny Bright

Penny, if Warners thought they were dealing with a “reasonable” organisation making “reasonable” requests they probably would have made films in Australia for the past 10 years. They haven’t. And now Actors’ Equity’s tacit endorsement of Simon Whipp as someone appropriate to negotiate on our actors’ behalf risks having Warners walk away from NZ too. You may not be aware that Disney blacklisted NZ as a place to make films three years ago – coinciding with the involvement of Simon Whipp with Actors’ Equity. The “reasonable” man you’re standing up for is known across the world as an unreasonable zealot prone to pulling public stunts and driving films offshore. You’re standing up for a destructive idiot, not someone with local actors’ best interests at heart.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Avid Reader at 01:25 pm on October 26, 2010
Penny Bright

Penny, you have to pick your battles, when to scurmish, when to engage, when to tactfuly withdraw, and when to shut up.

The NZ actors were out played, first by some Aussie lefties, and then by Peter Jackson, and even he might be out flanked by Warner Brothers.

What to do
– emphatically cut ties with Aussie connection
– bow and scrape
– pray

There is a very real chance WB will move the entire production and all future productions of this type from NZ. Years of work destroyed in a game of one upmanship where the Unions representing the workers (hesitate to use the word workers) / actors have failed to understand the rules of engagement. As a consequence they have been out manouvered and marginalised, and if the film(s) go offshore some actors etc will be oustrocised to boot.

For most of us employers, this public blood letting has at least brought many Kiwis into focus about what is important going forward A JOB, REGULAR PAY in exchange for GOOD WORK.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Chris at 01:26 pm on October 26, 2010
The place of unions

Comment after comment on how terrible unions are and how they are so manipulative. Most I am certain are from people who: work an 8 hour day, earn above the average wage, are entitled to 4 weeks annual leave, are allowed a lunch break and morning tea are entitled to 7-10 days sick leave per year, who are also entiltled to parental leave, etc etc. Working conditions most think they are fully entitled to. How on earth do they imagine these conditions arose in the first place? Did the Peter Jacksons of the world simply handed them out? Was there some jolly little rule book or writ from above?
No, unions and collectives negotiated and fought for these standards and still fight to protect them, in spite of indifference from rather complacent bunch of their fellow New Zealanders

* reply
* report this

Posted by Wake Up at 01:29 pm on October 26, 2010
Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd:Employee or Independent Contractor?

Under NZ law’ ‘sigh’ , it has been determined that at least one ’employee’ of Three Foot Six (previously involved in the production of Lord of the Rings) had been hired as an ‘independent contractor’ – when he was NOT.

So – arguably this employer acted ‘illegally’ of their own accord.

FYI.

SPADA UPDATE ON THE BRYSON DECISION

In the aftermath of the Bryson Supreme Court decision of 16 June 2005[1] some media articles appeared predicting a shake up for the industry.

More balanced articles ensued, outlining what the Court had actually decided and why, including commentary from lawyers who work with the screen industry.

SPADA, with the assistance of Minter Ellison has prepared this update for members. This is the third update in a series that SPADA has put out since the Bryson case began its trajectory through the courts.
The main message remains the same: there has not been any recent material change to the law regarding the status of workers as employees or contractors.

However, the Bryson decision is a timely reminder that production companies need to make sure that their contractual documentation is clear and that it is consistent with what happens on a day to day basis between the parties.

For your guidance, Minter Ellison has set out relevant questions for applying the traditional tests (see the attached checklist) when considering the real nature of the relationship between parties.

[1] Supreme Court of New Zealand Media Release (16 June 2005)

James Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited (SC CIV 24/2004) [2005 NZSC 34]
EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR?

Section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 governs whether an individual will be found to be an employee or an independent contractor. If there is any dispute as to status, it is up to the Employment Court or the Employment Relations Authority to determine the “real nature” of the relationship between the parties.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 has confirmed that the traditional tests (see the attached checklist), will continue to be used in establishing the true nature of the relationship between parties.

In addition, the intention of the parties continues to be relevant, but not determinative. One indication of the parties’ intention is the contractual wording.

Another relevant factor may be industry practice, although, again, this is not determinative (Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2003] 1 ERNZ 581(EC)).

There are a number of questions to be asked, the answers to which will help to establish whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

As a general guide, if you have more ticks in the “YES” column then there is more prospect that the status of a worker is that of a contractor; if you have more ticks in the “NO” column then there is more prospect that the status of a worker is that of an employee.

Relevant questions to ask:

YES Indicates Independent Contractor

NO Indicates Employee

“Real nature of the relationship test” – look at the contractual wording, industry practice and any other relevant factors, as well as the following tests to determine what the “real nature” of the relationship is:

“Control Test”: how much control does the worker have?

Does the worker have control over his or her hours?
Does the worker have control over where the work is done?
Does the worker have control over what work is done?
Can the worker be dismissed without a good reason?
“Integration Test”: is the worker a part of the “employer’s” business?
Does the worker charge the principal GST?
Does the worker invoice the principal?
Does the worker have his or her own client base?
Does the worker pay his or her own ACC levies?
Does the worker pay any overheads related to the job?
Is there anything preventing the worker from having the benefit of “minimum entitlements” such as paid holidays, paid sick leave and paid bereavement leave?

“Fundamental (or Economic Reality) Test”: is the worker in business on his or her own account?

Does the worker provide his or her own equipment?
Does the worker hire his or her own helpers?
Does the worker take any responsibility for investment and management?
Does the worker have the opportunity to profit from sound management and performance of his or her tasks?
Does the worker undertake any financial risk him or herself?

Other relevant factors may include the following

Does the worker claim for expenses off his/her tax (eg tools, equipment, clothing, transport costs etc)?
Does the worker operate as a company?
Does the worker invoice for his or her services?

Penny Bright

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 01:31 pm on October 26, 2010
Yes Penny that person was found to be an employee

but as you have attached that determination was made by the court on the specific facts surrounding that contract and the work duties involved. The same factors are not present in the actors’ case and therefore they can not be treated by the producers as they are not legally employees (unless later determined in a test case by the court). For the producers to go ahead and collectively negotiate with the actors would breach NZ law as stated above.

* reply
* report this

Posted by sigh more at 01:43 pm on October 26, 2010
Peter Jackson was WRONG about Disney and the MEAA.

“You may not be aware that Disney blacklisted NZ as a place to make films three years ago – coinciding with the involvement of Simon Whipp with Actors’ Equity.”

Got some FACTS to back that up ‘Avid Reader’?

Peter Jackson certainly didn’t have his facts straight when he stated:

“- Why is this endangered? Because the “demands” of MEAA cannot be agreed to, or even considered – by law – and therefore the only options that remain involve closing the Hobbit down, or more likely shifting the production to Europe.

It could so easily happen. I’ve been told that Disney are no longer bring movies to Australia because of their frustration with the MEAA.”

Responds to Unions About The Hobbit
Source: Peter Jackson
September 27, 2010

THE CHAIR OF THE WALT DISNEY STUDIOS PUBLICLY CORRECTS PETER JACKSON:

Rich Ross, chairman of The Walt Disney Studios, dismissed claims by New Zealand director Peter Jackson that Disney is avoiding bringing its productions to Australia due to problems with unions, but admitted that it is “challenging” due to the exchange rate.

“It’s not the case [that Disney is not bringing productions due to the MEAA], and I’m not sure why anybody would talk about somebody else’s company. I’m not sure why he said it; we go where it makes sense,” Ross told Encore.

PostDateIconTuesday, 12 October 2010 14:28
_______________________________

Perhaps Peter Jackson should keep creative script writing out of his press statements on industrial relations – particularly when he has a direct pecuniary interest as a shareholder and Director of companies involved in production?

Penny Bright

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 02:06 pm on October 26, 2010
toothless DOG

As bas
d as this could be for the Film industry … i for one hope they take it away… Unions are a parasite on the poor, venerble and i for one think there is a lesson here for all Kiwi’s. Unions stuff up 100’s of jobs not just actors & support crews…. now they’re allowed to sit on the side line? Robyn where are you now…?? FRONT UP!!! i hope many many budding NZ actors look down at you and your cronnies & let you know that world famous in NZ is just that … I think of it like a toothless DOG…. most of you couldn’t cut it on an international stage and don’t you know it… but perhaps your egos are clouding just how good you are??

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 02:19 pm on October 26, 2010
Unions quiet & supporters,..were are you now

I want to see you front up on TV to explain what the Hobbit not being made will mean to the NZ Film industry!!! Come out you cowards

* reply
* report this

Posted by Budding actor at 02:21 pm on October 26, 2010
Alfred Hitchcock@ 11.08

Alfred is spot on with everything he sez! NZ has as much chance of losing this overseas as I would have at landing the leading role in King Dong.

* reply
* report this

Posted by jamesgumb at 02:30 pm on October 26, 2010
FACTS which prove Aussie workers better off in Unions.

“Unions are a parasite on the poor, venerble and i for one think there is a lesson here for all Kiwi’s. Unions stuff up 100’s of jobs not just actors & support crews….”

Really ‘Anon’?

Here are some FACTS from Australia which disprove this – possibly why Peter Jackson is so allergic to the Australian-based Media and Entertainment and Arts Alliance?

Because workers unions in Australia have been effective in protecting workers wages and conditions?
______________________________________

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures published in March 2005 show that hourly wages of workers on AWAs (Australian Workplace Agreements) were two percent lower than the hourly wages of workers on registered collective agreements, mostly negotiated by unions.[3]

[ 3. ^ The impact on Workers of Australian Workplace Agreements by Professor David Peetz, June 2005. ABS Statistics show a two percent disparity in wages between AWAs and collective agreements – Page 11.]

For women, AWAs paid 11 % less per hour than collective agreements.[4]

[ 4. ^ The impact on Workers of Australian Workplace Agreements by Professor David Peetz, June 2005. Women’s earnings 11% less under AWAs on Page 11.]
______________________________________________

Australian workplace agreements (AWAs) were formalised individual agreements negotiated by the boss and employee.

Employers could offer “take it or leave it” AWAs as a condition of employment. They were registered by the employment advocate and did not require a dispute resolution procedure.

These agreements operate only at the federal level. AWAs were individual written agreements on terms and conditions of employment between an employer and employee in Australia, under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. An AWA could override employment conditions in state or territory laws except for occupational health and safety, workers’ compensation or training arrangements.

An AWA was required to meet only the most minimal Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. Agreements were not require to include effective dispute resolution procedure, and could not include prohibited content. Agreements were for a maximum of five years; approved, promoted and registered by the Workplace Authority; operate to the exclusion of any award; and prohibit industrial action regarding details in the agreement for the life of the agreement.

The introduction of the Australian Workplace Agreements was a controversial industrial relations issue in Australia.

During a Senate Estimates hearing on May 29, 2006, Peter McIlwain, Head of the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) detailed that from a sample of 4 per cent, or 250, of the total 6,263 AWAs lodged during April 2006 after WorkChoices was introduced, that: 100% of AWAs removed at least one protected Award condition; 64% of AWAs have removed annual leave loadings; 63% of AWAs have stripped out penalty rates; 52% of AWAs have cut out shift loadings; 40% of AWAs have dropped gazetted public holidays; and 16% of AWAs, have slashed all award conditions and only the Government’s five minimum conditions are satisfied.[6]

[6. ^ Percentage of Union and Non-union Certified Agreements in the Federal Public Service from Union gets ready for hostile Senate by Verona Burgess, Australian Financial Review, 8 April 2005, as published in CPSU bulletin April 2005 ]

Arguably, the best way to help close the ‘wage gap’ between Australia and New Zealand, is for NZ to emulate effective Australian unionism, and legislation which enables and protects union organisation and collective bargaining?

Penny Bright

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 02:52 pm on October 26, 2010
Who on earth is the Penny

Who on earth is the Penny Bright that thinks people want 250 word essays on this? And why did her parents name her so inappropriately?

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 03:15 pm on October 26, 2010
Don’t like the FACTS ‘Anonymous’? Sorry about that 🙂

Don’t like the FACTS ‘Anonymous’?

Sorry about that 🙂

Sorry there are so many of them that may disturb your point of view?

Good to have an opinion.
Even better to have an INFORMED opinion?

Not seeing these FACTS anywhere else – so I thought I’d try to help balance the anti-union invective and diatribe.

You have a LOVELY day!

You’ve made mine!

(When you get personal – I know I must be hitting the mark.

“You don’t cop the flak unless you’re over the target.”)

🙂

Penny Bright

PS: I guess NBR must approve of freedom of expression and informed debate – or these posts wouldn’t get published?

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 03:33 pm on October 26, 2010
Unions

Really? Then why are so many New Zealanders so keen to work in Australia in unionised industries?

* reply
* report this

Posted by Kevin Welsh at 04:08 pm on October 26, 2010
Penny Bright get your own blog site and leave us alone

PB do you have a job? Perhaps you could apply for one with the Aussie Actors Guild, that way at least we wouldn’t come across your cut and pastes on NBR

* reply
* report this

Posted by Chris at 04:30 pm on October 26, 2010
Penny Bright get your own blog site and leave us alone

PB do you have a job? Perhaps you could apply for one with the Aussie Actors Guild, that way at least we wouldn’t come across your cut and pastes on NBR

* reply
* report this

Posted by Chris at 04:30 pm on October 26, 2010
Unions Have Their Place

But not at the moment. Theres high unemployment and globally most businesses are struggling.

Thats not to say the dont have their uses. The less skilled people rarely have the ability to negotiate their own employment terms and conditions. Unions have the ability to do this, through a collective agreement. Thats where ‘united we stand, divided we fall’ comes from.

I would encourage works to join unions where businesses are price setters. Examples of this are supermarkets, petrol & telecommunications companies and banks. These are effectively cartels, who exploit their power (through the lack of competition) by charging the consumer way to much & paying the employee way too little.

The actors in this case lost sight of the big picture. Global businesses are largely driven by low cost models, & NZ has/had this. That is why many productions dont happen in the US or Aussie.

I can only see one reason why the Aussie union got involved, was to take a competitor out of the equation. The sad thing about this, is these ignorance arrogance actors have probably cost NZ core public services a boost in funding. You not only crapped in your own nest, but the rest of NZ’s.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Richard S at 07:34 pm on October 26, 2010
He who has the gold makes the rules

The Union have forgotten that movies can be made almost anywhere be it Bangalore, London, Wellington or anywhere in between. The Union is not in a dispute with a NZ based company that has no choice over where to base its operation such as a mine, supermarket or freezing works. This is cut throat Hollywood industry movie making and one that a small NZ/Aussie Union is ill equipped to engage with.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Stephen R at 08:17 pm on October 26, 2010

Comments
‘Sister’ actors unions which deal with ‘cut throat Hollywood’

Some more FACTS I have researched and am providing in order to assist informed debate and discussion – which support my ‘considered opinion’.

(Surely preferable to personal remarks which don’t focus on the underpinning issues? )

Presumably Warner Bros are involved in collective agreements negotiated by some of the following international ‘sister’ actor unions?

Seems slightly peculiar to me that Warner Bros would find Actors Equity NZ so scary if they deal with any of the following Unions?

1) Screen Actors Guild (SAG) (USA)

MEMBERSHIP:Represents over 200,000 film and television principal performers and background performers worldwide.

MISSION STATEMENT:The Guild seeks to: negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements that establish equitable levels of compensation, benefits, and working conditions for its performers; collect compensation for exploitation of recorded performances by its members, and provide protection against unauthorized use of those performances; and preserve and expand work opportunities for its members.

2) Canadian Actors’ Equity Association (CAEA)

MEMBERSHIP:

‘MISSION STATEMENT’: The business of Equity is to negotiate and administer collective agreements, provide benefit plans, information and support, and act as an advocate for its membership

3) Actors’ Equity Association (AEA) (USA)

MEMBERSHIP: Over 45,000 stage actors and stage managers (2007 figure)

‘MISSION STATEMENT’: Equity negotiates and administers more than 30 national and regional contracts with theatrical employers.
These agreements provide minimum salaries, benefits, job security and numerous other protections to ensure a safe and dignified work environment.

4) EQUITY (UK)

MEMBERSHIP: 60,378 (TUC Jan 2009) membership includes actors, singers, dancers, choreographers, stage managers, theatre directors and designers, variety and circus artists, television and radio presenters, walk-on and supporting artists, stunt performers and directors and theatre fight directors.

‘MISSION STATEMENT’:The main function of Equity is to negotiate minimum terms and conditions of employment throughout the entire world of entertainment and to endeavour to ensure these take account of social and economic changes.

5) The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) (USA)

MEMBERSHIP: Represents over 70,000 performers, journalists and other artists working in the entertainment and news media.

‘MISSION STATEMENT: The union negotiates and enforces over 300 collective bargaining agreements that guarantee minimum (but never maximum) salaries, safe working conditions and health and retirement benefits. :

6) Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA)

MEMBERSHIP: 36,000 members include people working in TV, radio, theatre & film, entertainment venues, recreation grounds, journalists, actors, dancers, sportspeople, cartoonists, photographers, orchestral & opera performers as well as people working in public relations, advertising, book publishing & website production

‘MISSION STATEMENT : The Alliance is a trade union that is interested in the broader concerns of our members. We run professional program activities, which originated from member requests and suggestions. The Alliance campaigns on broader issues that affect our membership. The Alliance has offices in New Zealand and each state and territory in Australia.

——————————————————

If these ‘sister’ Unions organise collective agreements for their constituent (actor) memberships – then equally shouldn’t Actors Equity in NZ be able to?

Penny Bright

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 09:57 pm on October 26, 2010
Who is ‘us’ Chris?

Who is ‘us’ Chris?

The ‘open-minded’ types who don’t like being confronted with FACTS and EVIDENCE (albeit cut and pasted from source 🙂 that don’t support their opinion?

No one is forcing you to read what I’ve posted.

Presumably NBR aren’t part of ‘us’ – because If NBR want to stop my posts – they could do so at any time they liked.

Penny Bright

PS: I do have my own blog site.

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

(There are FACTS and research that I have done that nobody else has – but given your comments – you’re probably not interested in genuine ‘hard news’? 🙂

PPS: I do have a job.
I work full time, unpaid, self-funded as a ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.

I have also been acknowledged by Bernard Orsman from the NZ Herald as an ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’.

🙂

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 10:35 pm on October 26, 2010
There is more to consider than that

If you know much about supply and demand and inequalities then you realize that in a relatively stable and and competitive economic market there is an average price point of balance. In other words businesses can only pay so much to employ people to work. So if some people are getting paid less then it is because the unions are getting paid more. That basically produces inequalities. Lets not forget that as wages go up so do costs, so there is the very real argument that forcing the market to pay higher wages in anyway benefits the workers overall. In other words it doesn’t matter if your pay goes up if your cost of living goes up too.

That being said I have no objection to the “union” wanting to have a meeting with employers concerning working conditions etc. But lets look at it this way:
1. 99.9% of those employed on previous films were happy with their conditions.
2. The actors did not consult the larger majority of the industry as their are 10 support staff for every actor.
3. The film was not even greenlit, i.e. it technically wasn’t even going yet. So that is like boycotting the very idea of starting a business.
4. They didn’t do the legal homework, the pr, homework, or their political homework. They didn’t work through commonsense steps to achieve their goals. Things like media releases, a rationalized requests document (they don’t even know what they are asking for so what is the use of a meeting if you don’t know what you want, what a waste of precious time and resource). They didn’t approach the legal body that sets standards. They didn’t petition legislature to set standards. They just came out and blacklisted a movie that thousands of other were depending on for income. That is like asking for a cup of tea by shooting someone. And entirely reasonable request, but its more the bullet in the chest that is the problem afterwards. Yet they only see the fact that they asked for tea, not that they have sent an entire industrly to the emergency department.

* reply
* report this

Posted by 12thspy at 11:58 pm on October 26, 2010
Close the (actors) wage gap with Australia! Support the MEAA!

Close the (actors) wage gap with Australia!
Support the MEAA and collective bargaining!

If John Key was genuinely concerned about closing the wage gap with Australia – he’d be investigating legislative changes which enable and protect union organisation and collective bargaining?

Making it harder for ’employees’ to be treated as ‘independent contractors’ – NOT easier?

A couple of questions “12thspy”?

“1. 99.9% of those employed on previous films were happy with their conditions.”

Where is your evidence that substantiates this comment?

Presumably ‘Bryson’ – who successfully won his case in the Supreme Court – which confirmed that he was an ’employee’ – NOT an ‘independent contractor’, was one of your 0.01% who was NOT happy with his working conditions?

(Suggest you have a look at my previous post on this thread covering this matter?

“Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd:Employee or Independent Contractor?”

Under NZ law’ ‘sigh’ , it has been determined that at least one ’employee’ of Three Foot Six (previously involved in the production of Lord of the Rings) had been hired as an ‘independent contractor’ – when he was NOT.

So – arguably this employer acted ‘illegally’ of their own accord….”

The simple fact of the matter, is that generally speaking, workers on ‘individual’ (ie:’independent’ contracts) are worse off than those in Unions with collective agreements.

(Employers are thus better off.)

Please refer to my previous post on this thread that has some key FACTS and EVIDENCE from the Australian Department of Statistics which confirm my position.

“FACTS which prove Aussie workers better off in Unions.
…….

Here are some FACTS from Australia which disprove this – possibly why Peter Jackson is so allergic to the Australian-based Media and Entertainment and Arts Alliance?

Because workers unions in Australia have been effective in protecting workers wages and conditions?
______________________________________

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures published in March 2005 show that hourly wages of workers on AWAs (Australian Workplace Agreements) were two percent lower than the hourly wages of workers on registered collective agreements, mostly negotiated by unions.[3]

[ 3. ^ The impact on Workers of Australian Workplace Agreements by Professor David Peetz, June 2005. ABS Statistics show a two percent disparity in wages between AWAs and collective agreements – Page 11.]

For women, AWAs paid 11 % less per hour than collective agreements.[4]

[ 4. ^ The impact on Workers of Australian Workplace Agreements by Professor David Peetz, June 2005. Women’s earnings 11% less under AWAs on Page 11.]
______________________________________________

Australian workplace agreements (AWAs) were formalised individual agreements negotiated by the boss and employee.

…………………………… ”
________________________________

It appears now with the Hobbit negotiations the attempt to use this exercise to bash unions in general and the MEAA in particular has backfired.

It appears that it has been Peter Jackson, Richard Taylor (objectively film industry ’employers’ in this ‘industrial dispute’) and John Key who have ‘overplayed their hand’.

There weren’t 120,000 people who turned out in Wellington to support Peter Jackson, the Hobbit and MEAA ‘union-bashing’ on Monday 25 October 2010 – there were 2000.

Where were the ‘thousands’ who were predicted to turn out?

At the Lord of the Rings premiere held in Wellington on 1 December 2003 there were 120,000.

Spot the difference.

If John Key and this National/ACT government think they have a mandate to bash unions (especially Actors Equity and the MEAA), and change legislation to make it harder for unions and collective bargaining, I respectfully suggest that they think again.

Penny Bright

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 07:49 am on October 27, 2010
Hysteria

is not an argument Penny Bright.

* reply
* report this

Posted by hmmmm at 09:29 am on October 27, 2010
2,000

is actually thousands Penny not so Bright.

* reply
* report this

Posted by spot the difference at 09:31 am on October 27, 2010
ahhhhh

One was a movie premiere and one was a protest? How are they similar other than people attend them? Argue relevant facts please Penny Bright – you are quick to accuse others of flim flam.

* reply
* report this

Posted by apples with apples at 09:33 am on October 27, 2010
Penny

If you read through what Penny Bright has said she has some very cogent auguments in supportof her case. I suggest those who disagree address the augument not the messenger

* reply
* report this

Posted by Ionis at 10:42 am on October 27, 2010
The highs and the lows

What is very revealing in this play within a play, within a play is the posturing of our leaders Brownlee, Key et al. After presenting a genuine leadership role to their fellow New Zealanders in Christchurch through the past few weeks they now abase themselves (and us) to a group of foreigners wanting hand outs. This really is a disturbing puzzle. Does anyone have an explanation apart from ‘its just politics’?

* reply
* report this

Posted by Ionis at 10:51 am on October 27, 2010
as opposed to

the rest of us taxpayers debasing ourselves giving handouts to local actors?

* reply
* report this

Posted by sinecure at 11:06 am on October 27, 2010
Handouts

Well its clear to me that some of the subsidy would certainly head in that direction. I mean a fim without actors……..

* reply
* report this

Posted by Ionis at 01:04 pm on October 27, 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/no-bidding-war-keep-hobbit-nz-says-key-132108?headsup=1
No ‘bidding war’ to keep hobbit in NZ, says Key
NZPA | Tuesday October 26, 2010

UPDATE 6.45pm: The first, two-hour meeting between Warner Bros executives and the government ended without any conclusion to the Hobbit stand-off. At a 6.40pm press briefing, Prime Minister John Key said there would be more talks overnight, and tomorrow, before any decision is made.

The Government has made it clear it will not enter a “bidding war” to keep the Hobbit films in New Zealand, Prime Minister John Key says.

Mr Key will this afternoon meet several high-powered executives from the film’s main producer Warner Brothers and head of production company New Line, Toby Emmerich, in a bid to keep the movies here.

He indicated the Government was open to looking at changing industrial relations laws, but ruled out a substantial financial incentive.

“In the conversations I’ve had with Warner Brothers so far I’ve made it quite clear if it comes to a bidding war, then New Zealand’s out, because I don’t think that’s the right way to run this,” Mr Key told reporters this morning.

“We don’t want to be renegotiating with every single production company that comes to New Zealand.”

Warner Bros said it could move to another location after a dispute between producer Sir Peter Jackson and the Actors’ Equity union, which issued a do-not-work order on the film over the issue of a collective agreement for actors.

Mr Key said he had been assured by the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) that no further industrial action would take place, but the issue was not resolved.

“I don’t know how much store Warner Bros put in that, but I understand not a great store,” he said.

“They can’t un-see what they have now seen…I’m worried about the long-term implications for the industry.”

He said he would consider looking at changing the definition of contractors in employment legislation.

That follows a court case in which former Weta Workshop model maker James Bryson was deemed to be an employee, not a contractor.

“There’s no question that industrial relations issues around the definition of a contract vis a vis an employee run to the heart of this whole issue,” he said.

Mr Key was critical of the Australian-based union Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) union, which the New Zealand Actors’ Equity union is part of.

“The Australian movie industry is in tatters … So if we want the same thing to happen in New Zealand, we should go ahead and let them run our industrial relations policy in this country.

“I for one don’t intend to let them do that.”

Mr Key said he had not received any advice on preventing foreign-based unions like the MEAA from registering here, adding it was a “very complex issue”.

The MEAA’s Simon Whipp said this morning that placing blame on the MEAA was unfair.

“Performers in New Zealand have made a decision about how they wish to be represented, and they’ve chosen to be represented by us. They make the decisions about how their industrial interests are advanced, not me. I work to their instructions,” he told Radio New Zealand.

Labour deputy leader Annette King said her party would not commit to any changes to labour laws until it had seen proposals in writing and considered the effects.

A law change would affect all New Zealanders, not just the film industry.

“Of course we’d be worried if that was an excuse (for wider changes to employment laws).”

Ms King said she thought films would stay in New Zealand.

“I cannot see why it would not be made in New Zealand, with the major issues we’re told about off the table, I would hope there is now commonsense.”

Labour MP Trevor Mallard this morning said he did not want to make it a political issue, but added that Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee could have developed a better relationship with the studio.

Mr Mallard said that when he was a minister with the previous government he built relationships with Warner Bros.

“It was a positive relationship and we felt that that worked much better than working in a crisis mode.”

Mr Brownlee laughed off suggestions he did not have a good enough relationship with the studios, adding he had been in contact, but not regularly.

“The reality is it wouldn’t matter have mattered how much I’d spoken to Warner Brothers, as long as you’ve got the Australian MEAA passing the sort of resolutions that they did and confronting the studio like that – that’s a real breaker,” he said.

* Hobbit concerns go beyond exchange rate, says Govt
* Weta Digital could lose all Hobbit work, fans told

Follow NBR on Twitter

* Print
* Share or email

Post to:

* Twitter
* Facebook
* Linked In

Comments
Wake me up

Wake me up when the fat lady sings!
More spin than bollywood, what else to expect from the masters of smoke & mirrors. Union in tatters when half the ‘talent’ announce they would work for nix and even the PM quoted by media as Mr desperate despite this seeming report that he might be a hard man after all. Meanwhile the nation sits mouth agape for the next exciting episode in a soap downunder …hi ho silver.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Pete at 05:01 pm on October 26, 2010
Smoke and mirrors

Is it any wonder the country is stuffed, typical mealy mouthed politicians, blame unions for gross incompetent by other parties and then practice corporate welfare to bribe Warners to keep the movie here. What next John Key.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Alan at 07:42 pm on October 26, 2010
John Key needs to

John Key needs to concentrate on the overall economy, no just the trendy photo shoot type situations.

The National Govt actually failed to maintain regular contact with the Hollywood film companies and the Hobbit scenario should never have happened. Now they have to dig their way out of the situation.

So John Key, please become creative and come up with new initiatives to stimulate the economy. That is what NZ needs and the genera;l public are still waiting for – that is why we voted for you but you have seriously not delivered as yet.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 08:55 pm on October 26, 2010
losers & actors

Funny but to me the seems to have fired a blank here… morons!! To their members hahahaaa keeping giving it money – rest of us need a giggle… times are though in NZ

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 10:10 pm on October 26, 2010
Is John Key ‘doing a Peter Jackson’ and just ‘making it up’?

“Mr Key was critical of the Australian-based union Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) union, which the New Zealand Actors’ Equity union is part of.

“The Australian movie industry is in tatters … So if we want the same thing to happen in New Zealand, we should go ahead and let them run our industrial relations policy in this country.

“I for one don’t intend to let them do that.”

Where are the FACTS and EVIDENCE from John Key that back up THAT statement?

Or is our Prime Minister just ‘doing a Peter Jackson’ – getting ‘creative’ and just ‘making it up’?

Peter Jackson certainly didn’t have his facts straight when he stated:

“- Why is this endangered? Because the “demands” of MEAA cannot be agreed to, or even considered – by law – and therefore the only options that remain involve closing the Hobbit down, or more likely shifting the production to Europe.

It could so easily happen. I’ve been told that Disney are no longer bring movies to Australia because of their frustration with the MEAA.”

Responds to Unions About The Hobbit
Source: Peter Jackson
September 27, 2010

THE CHAIR OF THE WALT DISNEY STUDIOS PUBLICLY CORRECTS PETER JACKSON:

Rich Ross, chairman of The Walt Disney Studios, dismissed claims by New Zealand director Peter Jackson that Disney is avoiding bringing its productions to Australia due to problems with unions, but admitted that it is “challenging” due to the exchange rate.

“It’s not the case [that Disney is not bringing productions due to the MEAA], and I’m not sure why anybody would talk about somebody else’s company. I’m not sure why he said it; we go where it makes sense,” Ross told Encore.

PostDateIconTuesday, 12 October 2010 14:28
_______________________________

Looking forward to John Key investigating how to ‘close the wage gap’ with Australia by introducing legislation into NZ which makes it easier for Unions to organise and spread ‘collective bargaining’.

Penny Bright

* reply
* report this

Posted by Penny Bright at 10:16 pm on October 26, 2010
Posted by Penny Bright

No commentry on the Union behaviour Penny… lets be objective both ways now….

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 10:57 pm on October 26, 2010
Gone…………… you are the weakest link NZ

Gone gone gone – nice one all the parties involved with the union….

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 10:59 pm on October 26, 2010
Hey Penny

But I thought you were a right winger Penny, surely if you were you wouldn’t be pushing for the unions now would you. It must’ve be another of your lies to try to get a suck on the public teat via the mayoralty.

* reply
* report this

Posted by Anonymous at 09:22 am on October 27, 2010
Aussie’s should keep out of our business!!

Simon Whipp = Ultimate Arrogant loser.

Simon Whipp totally botched up this entire process & HE is to blame for the mess we now find ourselves in.

THESE ARE THE FACTS!!

Rule #1 You don’t go Boycotting/Blackisting a major movie production, PRIOR to entering into negoitiations & then expect to be able to negoitiate better terms & conditions!! This is exactly what Simon Whipp done.

I can’t believe that the New Zealand Media aren’t picking up on this crucial fact.

Furthermore on Campbell Live last Simon Whipp was aksed “would you feel any guilt if The Hobbit doesn’t go ahead in New Zealand”He answered, without hesitation “No” – so there you go people, he never cared one bit about New Zealand or our actors!!

* reply
* report this

Posted by G at 10:33 am on October 27, 2010
@ Penny Bright

It’s idiots like you that got us into the mess we are now!!!

* reply
* report this

Posted by G at 10:35 am on October 27, 2010