Film Actor's Guild vs. Peter Jackson

[finn]

au.movies.yahoo.com/news/article/-/8020889/unions-urge-hobbit-boycott-angering-jackson/

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - All is not well in Middle Earth.

The Hollywood actors guilds and several international unions have issued an alert against the big-budget adaptation of "The Hobbit," stating that their members "are advised not to accept work on this non-union production." The guilds say the producers of the MGM/New Line fantasy blockbuster, to be directed by Peter Jackson, have rebuffed organizing efforts by the New Zealand unit of an Australian actors union.

Jackson shot back in a long statement issued on Sunday, hammering Australia's Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) union, threatening to move the "Hobbit" shoot to Europe and claiming his film is being used as a political football to secure gains for the guild.

"It sure feels like we are being attacked simply because we are a big fat juicy target -- not for any wrong doing," Jackson said. "It feels as if we have a large Aussie cousin kicking sand in our eyes ... or to put it another way, opportunists exploiting our film for their own political gain."

MEAA's Simon Whipp told The Hollywood Reporter that success with "The Hobbit" might pave the way for unionizing other productions in the country, but he also said that in a secret ballot held earlier in the decade, about 80% of 800 Kiwi actors voted to have MEAA open a New Zealand branch. MEAA did so in 2006.

Whipp also expressed hope that Jackson would be "the key to unlocking a solution." That does not seem likely now.

"The Hobbit" is not officially greenlighted but Jackson, his WingNut Films and Weta Digital have been actively preparing the adaptation of the J.R.R. Tolkien novel. The "Lord of the Rings" director has been casting the two-film "Rings" prequel for an anticipated 2011 shoot, while New Line parent Warner Bros. and the financially troubled MGM work out an arrangement to finance and distribute the pictures.

The labor discord in Jackson's home country of New Zealand, where "Hobbit" will likely be shot, has simmered for several weeks. MEAA, the International Federation of Actors (FIA), and others have written to the producers objecting to the refusal to sign a union contract.

MEAA has not managed to unionize any productions in New Zealand, making the country a sore spot for actors' unions across the English-speaking world. The unions allege that productions relocate to New Zealand specifically to avoid union terms.

But Jackson, in his statement, said targeting "The Hobbit" could have the opposite effect, chasing productions from the country and "endangering" the hundreds of millions of dollars that might flow into New Zealand from back-to-back "Hobbit" films.

"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," Jackson said in the statement. "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."

Jackson and the film's producers claim that actors are independent contractors, making union representation illegal under New Zealand law. MEAA disagrees, citing a court case involving crew members, and adds that there are alternative approaches that wouldn't run afoul of the law: either issuing a non-mandatory contract that provides better terms for actors, or creating a joint venture between the production entity and the union.

The dispute ratcheted up on Friday with the member alert from actors unions in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Australia.

"The (MEAA) agreement for large-budget international studio films ... provides for residuals that are equivalent to those under the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) agreement," the member alert states. "The residuals proposed by the producers of 'The Hobbit' are less in every respect."

A New Line spokesperson declined to comment, and Jackson was careful to say his views are not necessarily those of the studio. Reps for MGM, SAG, FIA and the producers were not immediately available for comment.

The U.S. actors guilds are known to issue member alerts of this sort from time to time, but it is extremely rare for a major studio film to be targeted.

For SAG and AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) members, the advisory essentially constitutes a Do Not Work order.

For instance, a SAG member working on the production would be in violation of the guild's Global Rule 1. That rule generally requires members not to work on productions not signed to a SAG agreement. SAG and AFTRA have posted the order on their websites, and the Association of Talent Agents forwarded the order on Saturday morning to its members.

Jackson said in his statement that New Line parent Warner Bros. planned to go beyond what was required and create a separate pot of profits to pay Kiwi actors who are not SAG members.

"Whatever damage MEAA is attempting to do -- and it will do damage, since that's their principal objective in targeting 'The Hobbit' -- we will continue to treat our actors and crew with respect, as we always have," Jackson said.

Another report I read said that Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving were the key figures being used by MEAA in trying to leverage this.

I am aware that there was some problems for the Australian Media workforce when US Studios set up in Sydney; some areas such as sound engineers were being pressured to accept much lower rates to get work. However, New Zealand gets a whole chunk of work and money for the filming and then gets a massive filip to its tourism which creates goodness knows how many extra jobs.

I think Weaving in particular is a bit cheeky (assuming for a moment that this is true), considering the boost his career had on the international stage thanks to the Matrix and LotR movies made down here in the antipodes. I am disappointed as I thought his performance as Elrond really created a powerful and multi-facetted character whose involvement in the Hobbit could be significant if the Necromancer thread is developed.

Holding a project such as this to ransom is a bit reptilian (IMO) and if it results in the movie being moved to Eastern Europe and familiar backgrounds and characters substituted, the movie would be poorer I think and the audience will bear the cost. Imagine the curators at museums holding a knife up to the art in their care as part of their industrial strategy!

Once more though this project teeters on the edge and the 'curse' lingers.......

[Usivius]

I agree. After reading the many sides on this, I have to side with Jackson. The union reptiles are looking for unfair leverage.

[Stone Magnet]

If any of you are interested, here is Jacksons full statement.

www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/416 ... on-claims=

Statement regarding The Hobbit and claims by the Australian Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA).

The Australian Labour Union, the MEAA is using our production The Hobbit in an attempt to widen it's membership, and power within the New Zealand film industry. As a New Zealand filmmaker, who has nothing to hide or be ashamed about, I'm not going to see this threatening behaviour continue without some form of sensible discussion about the "facts" and "truth" behind their various allegations.

It's incredibly easy to wave the flag on behalf of workers and target the rich studios. It's not hard to generate an emotive response, nor is it hard to sway public opinion, since nobody seems to like the facts to get in the way of a good story in these situations.

Behind the claims of exploiting actors who are cast in the "non-Union" Hobbit production, and claims that various high-profile stars will refuse to take part in the films, there are clear agendas at work. As usual with these agendas, they are based on money and power.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in unions and how they operate - but I like to think I have a degree of common sense, and that's what I'm basing my observations on. Let me run over a few facts:

- Personally speaking, I'm not anti-Union in the slightest. I'm a very proud and loyal member of three Hollywood Unions - the Directors Guild, the Producers Guild and the Writers Guild. I support the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). All these organisations (I must confess I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between a "Guild" and a "Union") do terrific work on behalf of their members.

- Many Actors are members of SAG, but many are not - especially younger actors and many Australian and New Zealand performers. MEAA claims we are "non-Union", but whenever we hire an actor who belongs to SAG, we always honour their working conditions, their minimum salary agreements and their residuals.

- the SAG residuals is a small pot of money that comes from the movie's profits. The DGA and WGA have similar schemes. An agreed upon percentage of movie profits is placed in a pot, which is shared amongst the members of the guild who worked on the film in question. Despite MEAA claims that The Hobbit is "non-Union", our studio, Warner Brothers, is honouring these residuals, and making the profit sharing available to all the various Guild members - just as it did on "The Lord of the Rings", and Universal did on "King Kong".

- These residuals can be worth tens of thousands of dollars to an individual if the film is successful - however the normal situation is that if an actor is not a member of SAG, they do not share in the profit pot.

- this has always struck us as unfair, since most Kiwi actors are not lucky enough to be SAG members. For the Hobbit, Warner Brothers have agreed to create a separate pot of profit participation, which will be divided up amongst non-SAG actors who are cast in the film. This was not done because of any pressure from Guilds or Unions - it was actually Warners doing the decent thing, and New Zealand and Australian actors will be the principle beneficiaries. SAG members have their pot, and non-SAG members now have theirs. We have introduced the scheme to Kiwi agents and it's now part of all our Hobbit cast deals.

- whatever damage MEAA is attempting to do - and it will do damage, since that's their principal objective in targeting The Hobbit - we will continue to treat our actors and crew with respect, as we always have.

- As I said earlier, money and power lies behind this threatening behaviour from our Australian cousins, and to fully understand that, you simply have to step back and look at the greater picture in context.

- it starts with "NZ Actors Equity". This is a tiny organisation that represents a small minority of New Zealand Actors. They are not a Union, and have none of the legal status of a Union. They are a ... well, a smallish group who have some New Zealand actors as members. How many actors are members of NZ Equity? They guard that information very closely, but various reports I've seen put their membership at 200, although somebody in the know swears it's nearer 100.

- How many professional actors are there in New Zealand? Somewhere between 2000 and 4000, depending on just how you describe a "professional actor". Obviously most Kiwi actors have other employment too, but there's certainly over 2000 actors available to cast in a film production.

- so taking the most generous numbers, NZ Actors Equity represents 200 out of 2000 Kiwi actors, or 10%. Perhaps I'm wrong, and if so, NZ Equity will no doubt reveal their real membership numbers.

- Now there's nothing wrong with NZ Actors Equity representing 10% of the actors in this country. It's great that they offer that service, and if an actor chooses, there's a supportive group they can join. Obviously the more actors that join NZ Equity, the better, since these organisations usually survive by taking a small percentage of their members acting fees. I'm guessing that Equity do something like that. Recently they have been part-funded by MEAA.

- over the last 10 years our relationship with NZ Equity has been rocky - whenever we cast an "overseas actor", we get a letter telling us why such and such Kiwi actor would be so much better in the role. In most cases we have already auditioned the actor in question, and formed our own opinions - but what strikes me as unfair, is how this "helpful" service of suggesting better choices only includes the "Equity 200". If you happen to be a good actor who doesn't belong to NZ Equity (and many don't), you're automatically not good enough to be put forward.

- what really does strike me as wrong, and this is my personal opinion, is the why that the MEAA is using NZ Actors Equity as a vehicle to represent the voices and opinions of New Zealand actors. A couple of years ago, the members of NZ Actors Equity voted to join some kind of alliance with the Australian MEAA group. At the time, there were voices of alarm at how this relationship could damage the interest of Kiwi Actors, but the merger went ahead - and now we're about to find out just how damaging it's going to be.

- as far as I know, the membership of NZ Actors Equity was allowed into the MEAA, meaning that the Australian MEAA organisation represents 200 out of 2000 Kiwi actors. I don't believe it represents non-Equity NZ actors. It speaks on behalf of a tiny minority of our actors.

- the management of NZ Equity are clearly happy to be used as a political football by the Australians - but my sympathy goes to the 1800 New Zealand Actors who are not part of the "Equity 200", but who are going to suffer the fallout if this Hobbit thing goes nuclear.

- I also feel a growing anger at the way this tiny minority is endangering a project that hundreds of people have worked on over the last two years, and the thousands about to be employed for the next 4 years. The hundreds of millions of Warner Brothers dollars that is about to be spent in our economy.

- 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.

- the MEAA is demanding that the Hobbit production company (Warners owned, 3foot7 Ltd) enter into negotiations for a Union negotiated agreement covering all performers on the film.

- I personally have a problem with any organisation who represent a small minority, but attempt to take control of everyone - but that's not the real issue. The complex web of NZ labour laws are the reason why this demand will never be agreed to.

- NZ law prohibits engaging in collective bargaining with any labour organisation representing performers who are independent contractors, as film actors clearly are. The NZ Commerce Act claims it would be unlawful to engage with an Australian Union on these matters.

In closing:

My personal opinion is that this is a grab for power. It does not represent a problem that needs a solution. There will always be differing opinions when it comes down to work and conditions, but I have always attempted to treat my actors and crew with fairness and respect. We have created a very favourable profit sharing pool for the non-Union actors on The Hobbit - and now the Union is targeting us, despite the fact that we have always respected SAG conditions and residuals.

I can't see beyond the ugly spectre of an Australian bully-boy, using what he perceives as his weak Kiwi cousins to gain a foothold in this country's film industry. They want greater membership, since they get to increase their bank balance.

The conspiracy theories are numerous, so take your pick: We have done better in recent years, with attracting overseas movies - and the Australians would like a greater slice of the pie, which begins with them using The Hobbit to gain control of our film industry. There is a twisted logic to seeing NZ humiliated on the world stage, by losing the Hobbit to Eastern Europe. Warners would take a financial hit that would cause other studios to steer clear of New Zealand.

- Seriously, if the Hobbit goes east (Eastern Europe in fact) - look forward to a long dry big budget movie drought in this country.

- others gain from that too. SAG would much rather have it's members hired on movies - as opposed to non-SAG actors. The easiest way to control that, is to stem what are called "runaway productions", which are American funded films made outside of America. The Hobbit is one of them, as was King Kong and LOTR. SAG, which is naturally supporting MEAA, would see it's own benefit in studios having a miserable experience in Australia/New Zealand. That may well be pushing the conspiracy theories one step too far, and it's perfectly natural that one Union would support another - but the point is that in the complex web of Hollywood intrigue, you never really know who's doing what to whom and why.

But it sure feels like we are being attacked simply because we are a big fat juicy target - not for any wrong doing. We haven't even been greenlit yet! It feels as if we have a large Aussie cousin kicking sand in our eyes ... or to put it another way, opportunists exploiting our film for their own political gain.

Peter Jackson

(NB. this represents Peter Jackson's opinion as a Kiwi filmmaker, and not that of Warner Bros or New Line Cinema, who were not consulted about this statement)

[Cagliostro]

Wow...so...is this another case of punishment for doing a good job?

[Zarathustra]

Wow...so...is this another case of punishment for doing a good job?

According to Jackson, it looks like punishment for following the law. He can't comply with Australian union's terms because it violates New Zealand law. So his hands are tied. In response, the union is throwing a temper tantrum for something he can't change.

I don't want to get political in this forum, but I really do think it's a shame that the New Zealand movie industry might get destroyed due to unions. When PJ chose to do LOTR in NZ, it looked like a stroke of genius because of all the money he could save by skipping out on Hollywood. In the process, he helped out his local community, and gave Hollywood some competition it sorely needed ... all while putting those savings into the 3 films themselves (which clearly showed!). He was able to do it faster, cheaper, and better than he could have done anywhere else, and he challenged the establishment industry in the process. A true underdog story.

And predictably, people who weren't responsible for that success are now trying to siphon off some of that success for themselves, and holding his movie as hostage to get their way. In my opinion, this phenomenon isn't limited to movies we fantasy fans would like to see get made, but is typical of unions everywhere, in every sector of the economy and the government. It's interesting to see this play out in a situation that is close to the hearts of this particular Internet community. I wonder if it's producing a fair amount of cognitive dissonance.

[wayfriend]

Wow...so...is this another case of punishment for doing a good job?

According to Jackson, it looks like punishment for following the law.

Jackson claims its against the law because he chooses to consider actors as a certain type of labor so that it becomes against the law. He need not consider them that way. It's all in the article quoted.

I don't want to get political in this forum, but I really do think it's a shame that the New Zealand movie industry might get destroyed due to unions.

But you do want to engage in anti-union fearmonguering?

The real story is actors who aren't even making a minimum wage are holding out for a minimum wage. Of course that will be transmogrified into "destroying an industry" by certain sorts. But it seems hardly likely ... the cost of moving filming to Europe far exceeds the cost of giving a few hundred actors a little bit of wages. It's just a threat. And a strategy for preventing actors unions - which they have everywhere else in the world - from existing in New Zealand.

"Holding a movie hostage" is equally a reprehensible mischaracterization. First of all, the union didn't make that the choice ... Jackson and the other producers made that the choice. Second of all, how else do a few hundred small-time actors ensure that they are treated fairly by a multi-billion-dollar corporation? The producers said, we'll treat you like crap and there's nothing you can do about it, and the actors said, oh yeah?

Sure ... the movie industry is great for the economy. Should that economy come at the cost of individuals sacrificing equitable pay so that everyone else can benefit? I guess to many, that's a big, obvious "yes".

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, I have absolutely no interest in debating you. All your objections are addressed by Jackson himself in his statement, which was the source upon which I based my comments.

[finn]

I think Wayfriend that a closer read of the above text will show that there are unions in NZ filmmaking and that both union and non-union labour is being hired and that accomodations for non union personnel are being put in place to provide some equity in sharing in the films success.

In a number of fields of employment in NZ there is a disparity in the rates for personnel working as other than 'employed', with "contrators" getting a higher rate of pay. If the MEAA unionise the production; presumeably all will be required to join the MEAA, which if they are actors, well OK - fine, but doesn't that also include film production tradesmen who work as contractors and small businesses: set builders, sound, lighting, electical, gaffers, best boys etc?. Many will not join unions as they cannot earn commercial rates and will not submit to being 'taxed' by a union for plying their trade, which will again lower their rates of pay compared to that available elsewhere in the marketplace.

Bear in mind too, that the LotR required a 15 week commitment from extras and anyone could apply; without dwelling on the socio-economics of the Land of the Long White Cloud, the majority of extras used were unemployed locals; they being most easily able to take a 15 week leave of absense. It seems that the MEAA is planning to grab a huge slab of fees from casual extras, who will likely never get use of any services provided by that organisation, then throw their weight around the NZ film industry claiming that they have N thousand members.

The MEAA in Australia has already shit in its own nest, with many US production companies backing off as it and the Australian Government has employed various "protectionist" methods to safeguard the embryonic Australian film industry. Sadly many Aussie films are (IMO) pretty esoteric and either overly "arty" or just crap, but are lauded far beyond they appeal due to them being Aussia films. I might buy Aussi made cotton T-shirts rather than Chinese ones, but my time and recreation is more precious. I thinks its arguable that the few Aussie films that do make the grade have done so throught the benisons of an umbrella of protected status. Indeed it is more likely the industry has suffered a major setback as fewer big budget productions inject cash and employment into the industry.

I do not support corporate exploitation in any form, however I am equally not prepared to support union exploitation in the same vein, to do so is hypocritical in my view.

[Stone Magnet]

I do not support corporate exploitation in any form, however I am equally not prepared to support union exploitation in the same vein, to do so is hypocritical in my view.

Thanks finn. Political debate is never far away it seems. As a left wing, union supporting New Zealander with actor friends and relatives I can say I definitely support Jackson at this point. He's being placed in an impossible position at the cost of his film (which everyone surely realises is in a terrible state production wise anyway, kicking a dead horse much).

I'm not going to get into a political argument about this. Suffice to say those I know in the acting profession (which is only a few, to be sure) are more worried about the loss of work from the fallout from this than anything else. The NZ film industry (like the Aussie one, as finn pointed out) is just beginning to flower. I cannot overstate the effect it has on our economy when you consider the side-effect of tourism (a substantial slice of our income) and how that boomed after the LOTR trilogy. If reform is needed within the NZ film industry it should happen gradually and through the standard legal channels, rather than as a result of gangster pressure.

Nice to see an Australian on our side, finn.

[finn]

No worries cobber!

I spent 18 months on a contract in Auckland in '98/'99 when the LotR shooting was happening out of Wellington (which is how I know about the extras requirements....I was tempted but it'd have been a real career stopper!).

I too have friends in the entertainment business and I know there were problems surrounding the US productions here and how stubborn the trades people were. I have some sympathy because its an up and down enterprise in smaller countries with a far smaller infrastructure and more limited opportunity for work, but the penny pinching mentality has stopped the impetus in OZ for more movies to be made here. More movies means more work, means more infrastructure built over time and ultimately more wealth for all in the business through expertise, showcasing and general career development.

In a country like NZ the number of people who will benefit is significant in terms of population and business %'s. Tourism, not just post release but for years to come, will yield many millions directly injected into the economy and spread over every sector. This Union is holding the whole country to ransom not just the Hobbit!

[wayfriend]

Apparently not to many people are interested in the other side of the story before deciding their opinion. Hey, if a corporation says it, it must be true.

I think Wayfriend that a closer read of the above text will show that there are unions in NZ filmmaking and that both union and non-union labour is being hired and that accomodations for non union personnel are being put in place to provide some equity in sharing in the films success.

Apparently the deal is the producers can promise equity, and then after the film is made, decide to not deliver it if they choose to. One of the three union demands is that the "only pay it if you want to" clause is removed, so that the actors are guaranteed to get the equity that they promise.

The other two demands are minimum wage and a cancellation penalty, so that they are compensated if the producers cancel, which seems fair after they have turned down other offers because they committed their time to the movie.

I don't see that destroying the movie industry. Does anyone really see those demands as doing so?

What is destroying the movie industry is the movie producers turning this into a power play designed to keep unions out of New Zealand.

Apparently, the legal authorities of New Zealand have also explained how this idea that it would be illegal to deal with a union is just not true. Keep trusting the producer's opinion on the matter if you'd like.

I do not support corporate exploitation in any form, however I am equally not prepared to support union exploitation in the same vein, to do so is hypocritical in my view.

Exploitation? That's a bit of a prejudgement, isn't it?

It's based on an interesting premise: that negotions between a multi-billion dollar movie studio and a local actor will work out so much in the actor's favor that it would be reprehensible for him to think he should receive a little more compensation.

If reform is needed within the NZ film industry it should happen gradually and through the standard legal channels, rather than as a result of gangster pressure.

"Gangster pressure"? There's that pre-judgement again.

Speaking of movies, did you ever see a movie where the kidnapper tells the parent, "if you don't pay me the ransom, I will kill your kid, AND IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT" ? Of course, it's the kidnappers fault if he kills anyone. The parent didn't MAKE HIM kill someone. But the kidnappers job is to make you feel like it's your fault, even when it's not.

That's what Jackson's doing. He's saying, "if you don't work for less compensation, I will take my movie elsewhere, and it will be YOUR FAULT." But it's not the actors fault at all, it's just Jackson making them (and everyone in the world) feel like it is.

All the actors are doing is saying, we want what we consider to be more fair compensation, or we won't take the job. There's nothing wrong with that. If that somehow hurts the movie, it's only proving that they deserve the compensation that they ask. It's "market forces", and it's okay for everyone to do that ... except if they are in a union, I guess.

Billy Boyd recently revealed that he made NO MONEY from the Lord of the Rings. He got paid minimum and that's it. I'm not saying he was screwed - he accepted that offer after all. But I am saying that this shows that actors compensation depends on leverage with the producers. If you got no leverage, you get no pay -- REGARDLESS of the value of your contribution. If that's the way the producers want to play the game, it's hardly "gangster pressure" to play the game that way yourself.

[finn]

Wayfriend, by and large I agree with many of your positions on issues, however I must respectfully disagree with your summation on this.

The arguments for the "other side" as you've quoted and linked to, are in fact highly ambiguous especially about the definitions and scope. The MEAA is clearly using the size and expected interest in this project to make its point, a little like baggage handlers or air traffic controllers do at holiday times. So far no-one has refuted Peter Jackson's statistics on the size of the union concerned or its levels or representation within the NZ acting fraternity. This picture offers up a massive opportunity for the tiny NZ based part of the MEAA to put itself on the map by trading status and accompanying bonuses to non-professional persons who "perform" in the film in any capacity, in return for membership.

The MEAA skims a nice slice of the pie from the dues and beefs itself up numbers-wise to elbow a way to a place at the top table for future projects.

The statement that "ways" have been found to circumvent the employment laws of NZ are also specious. Firstly in NZ and Australia you cannot contract out of the law. Secondly the "ways" may be possible but may be equally impractical unless access to the production was limited by a leveraged studio to enforce that circumvention, leaving a situation of "work under our rules of go hike" being demanded and enforced by the union NOT the Studios. Does anyone else see here the quite ludicrous irony of a union enforcing a situation whose outcome leads to lower pay and worse conditions?

The simple truth is that many performers possibly into the thousands, will likely be non professional performers who may well have no normal everyday jobs and whose committment of time is not one of lost opportunity elsewhere (see my earlier post for the committments and the practical ability to be able to fulfill them for the LotR project). NZ law ensures a minimum wage and a cancellations penalty is standard in most contracts but it will not be a payout for the whole period, rather a notice period as would be common in any employment contract.

Naturally none of us know ALL the facts here, but I know enough about employment legislation in NZ that I can attest that the performers will be getting a pretty fair shake under the legislation that gives them basic rights and protections as employees. In addition they will likely have a great time; few complained about the time they spent making LotR even if like Billy Boyd they didn't make a fortune from it.

Some non union labour is provided by persons operating as "contractors", who trade as small businesses, often for a number of purposes including tax minimisation. As "corporate entities" they cannot enter into collective bargaining under monopoly and cartel prevention legislation. Many of these will be unwilling (unless forced) to take work under "employed" status as it will effect their earned and taxable liabilities in any given tax year.

The production costs will rise, the non union performers many of whom are not professional actors, will get little back for their efforts and constributions except to increase the risk that this production is cancelled of moved MEAA is backing a wounded tiger (MGM) into a corner. This will likely kill the movie or at least kill a New Zealand production and in turn damage the movie business in NZ as a whole and for what, a bit part player like the MEAA trying to steal the show?

I don't see that destroying the movie industry. Does anyone really see those demands as doing so?

I fear that you are not familiar with the criticality of business, employment and commerce in small economies and the effects winning or losing such projects creates not just for the economy, but also the national psyche. These demand ARE holding NZ ransom and if pursued WILL damage if not destroy, the NZ movie business

[wayfriend]

The MEAA is clearly using the size and expected interest in this project to make its point, a little like baggage handlers or air traffic controllers do at holiday times.

Agreed. But omitted from this summation is the fact that these demands have been an ongoing concern for many years, with the studios refusing to discuss the issue. So it's more fair to say its like baggage handlers who have been trying to negotiate for better terms for years and years while the airlines refuse to sit down and talk with them and so THEN they decide to strike on a holiday. I think it doesn't sound so bad when facts aren't omitted.

The MEAA skims a nice slice of the pie from the dues and beefs itself up numbers-wise to elbow a way to a place at the top table for future projects.

"skims", "elbows" ... all perjorative characterizations for actions which are reasonable when anyone else does the same thing. They indicate that your argument starts with the premise that unions are objectionable, rather than it being a conclusion.

The statement that "ways" have been found to circumvent the employment laws of NZ are also specious.

Hardly. Even Jackson has indicated that he has honored SAG requirements for SAG actors. So it's hardly arguable that it's illegal in principal or that it can't be done in principal.

leaving a situation of "work under our rules of go hike" being demanded and enforced by the union NOT the Studios.

There's more of that pre-judged prejudice. However, it is ludicrous to assert that a union can force a movie project to "go hike". All it can do is force a movie project to work without it's actors. Everything else is, as I said, the movie studios blaming the results of their hard line tactics on the unions.

Does anyone else see here the quite ludicrous irony of a union enforcing a situation whose outcome leads to lower pay and worse conditions?

As already demonstrated, that's a gross mischaracterization and an impossibility.

It's fairer to say that studios are punishing unions for having the temerity to demand concessions, and punishing the rest of New Zealand as a means to that end. On the basis that New Zealand will blame the unions rather than the movie studio for the situation, and treat them accordingly. Hence the corporate spin control to ensure that this in fact happens.

This will likely kill the movie or at least kill a New Zealand production and in turn damage the movie business in NZ as a whole and for what, a bit part player like the MEAA trying to steal the show?

Thank you for demonstrating how unions get blamed for what studios do.

I fear that you are not familiar with the criticality of business, employment and commerce in small economies and the effects winning or losing such projects creates not just for the economy, but also the national psyche. These demand ARE holding NZ ransom and if pursued WILL damage if not destroy, the NZ movie business

No, Peter Jackson is holding New Zealand ransom, and convincing New Zealand it's the union doing it.

All the unions are doing, and all they can do, is ask for better compensation or refuse to work. (Most of the compensation asked for might not even COST anything!)

They can't make studios move elsewhere. They can't make business go away.

The decision to "go hike" is not caused by union demands in any way, shape or form. It's caused by a movie studio's desire to punish unions for making demands - that's the only, sole, real reason.

[Stone Magnet]

If reform is needed within the NZ film industry it should happen gradually and through the standard legal channels, rather than as a result of gangster pressure.

"Gangster pressure"? There's that pre-judgement again.

...If that's the way the producers want to play the game, it's hardly "gangster pressure" to play the game that way yourself.

Heh. I thought long and hard about adding that "G" word...should I add it? Will wayfriend pick it apart? (Seriously, I thought this over ). In the end I figured sure, why not. Heh. Silly me. It shows my point of view pretty clearly I think though. It being:

That I am not opposed in ANY WAY to the actors demands. As I have already pointed out my bias is with the UNIONS not the producers. Those demands which you list above are A OK by me brother.

My problem is their TACTICS.

I think you're pitching for an argument where there isn't one. I agree with you that NZ actors should be paid well, and have reasonable rights (heck, it's my cousin and friends! Though they aren't members of the Equity union)...everything they are campaigning for. I don't see ANYTHING wrong with that...and since i've admitted my strong left-wing/pro-union bias in previous posts I figured you would assume that.

I don't see that destroying the movie industry. Does anyone really see those demands as doing so?

What is destroying the movie industry is the movie producers turning this into a power play designed to keep unions out of New Zealand.

Not their demands, of course not. Keep unions out of NZ? We have unions...actors unions...the low membership rates are the problem, and foreign intervention. Has anyone thought bout the REASON only a small percentage of NZ actors belong to unions? I'd hazard a guess that it's because we have so few full-time professional actors, and far more freelance, myself-as-a-business type actors (like my oft-mentioned cousin). For sure the production companies response is strong, but I wouldn't say that's because of the demands per se. Their business interests are hanging by a thread now. The hobbit's had enough problems as it is...

Apparently, the legal authorities of New Zealand have also explained how this idea that it would be illegal to deal with a union is just not true. Keep trusting the producer's opinion on the matter if you'd like.

I'm certainly not one to take big businesses word for it. But which apparent "legal authorities are you referring to?

Screen Production and Development Association of New Zealand chief executive Penelope Borland said it was not legal for a production company to enter into collective bargaining with MEAA/Equity, or any other labour organisation regarding performers who were independent contractors.

She said The Pink Book, to which NZ Actors' Equity is a party, had operated successfully for more than 15 years and specified standard terms and conditions.

New Zealand Film Commission chief executive Graeme Mason said major films provide employment, training opportunities, production experience, and international exposure for New Zealanders.

"It's critical this issue be resolved before it damages the film industry and the wider economic environment we operate within."

Perhaps you were referring to this:

Jackson, who has called the union an "Aussie bully", said actors were independent contractors, which made union representation illegal under New Zealand law.

MEAA disagrees, citing a 2005 landmark decision that ruled a Lord of the Rings model maker was an employee, not a contractor. The Supreme Court awarded the worker costs of $38,000.

At the very least it is a legal grey area that could be difficult (and potentially time consuming) to clear up. Possible court hearings/changes to NZ employment law...all while the film languishes in development hell. It's not all bad, however! Gordon Campbell illustrates an upside...that a compromise may yet be reached. His article shows the underlying issues (including our ruling center-right National parties film stance).

www.nznewsuk.co.uk/news/?id=12126

Is the outlook all bad? Not at all. One positive thing about the current situation is that there seems basic agreement in principle, when it comes to profit sharing. In his statement, Jackson makes it clear that he is willing to pay Screen Actors Guild (SAG) rates to members of that guild/union, and also to create a separate pool for non-SAG members, the bulk of whom would be the local New Zealand/Australia contingent. Logically, that second pool would have to be SAG comparable, though the locals may have to fight to lock down that parity. The haggling on this point will come down, as it always does, to the fair and acceptable amounts on the table. At least the mechanism though, is not in dispute. The principle has been accepted.

The hazier area is the issue of wage rates and work conditions. Clearly, New Zealand cannot compete on wage rates and hours of work with the pittances and virtual slave labour available in eastern Europe, If the union does back down, it would be their second embarrassment in recent months, after an ill-advised campaign to deny the US actor Vincent Gallo a work visa for New Zealand, on the basis of him being an alleged non-entity of insufficient stature to meet the criteria for entry to work here, albeit on a beer commercial. Soon afterwards Gallo won the ‘Best Actor’ award at the oldest major film festival in Europe. Very embarrassing.

The reason I use the "G" word is because the MEAA and NZ Equity have kicked up massive media fuss in NZ and around the world. NZ employment law is different to Australian, something the MEAA seemingly fails to realise. The instant gratification they seek may not be forthcoming (or even possible without substantial legal jiggery pokery). Why not let NZ actors make these demands through the usual channels, rather than jeopardising the entire national film industry by gathering international condemnation of it? Pressure/awareness, fine. But this is less clear cut than say, a non-union big budget production in the United States. Surely this is counter-productive to the NZ actors careers. Lobby and increase union membership (which is staggeringly low), rather than quickly calling for a blanket boycott.

I'd also like to point out that I don't really have anything invested in the film, in terms of it getting made or not. My first thought (as stated earlier in this thread) was the leaving of Del Toro would mean he can concentrate on At the Mountains of Madness which I am greatly looking forward to. I don't really care too much about The Hobbit as a film (sorry guys ). Which kinda puts our discussion out of "The Hobbit" thread and into the Tank...

[wayfriend]

That I am not opposed in ANY WAY to the actors demands. As I have already pointed out my bias is with the UNIONS not the producers. Those demands which you list above are A OK by me brother.

My problem is their TACTICS.

Okay.

I view their TACTICS as refusing to work unless the demands are met.

Do you have a reason why such tactics are a problem? Or do you consider their tactics to be something other than that?

Will wayfriend pick it apart?

Heh. I am disgruntled at the one-sided response that this news has generated. If your comment wasn't one of several similar, I wouldn't have mentioned it. And I'll admit I may be missing subtle distinctions among the general opposition.

[Zarathustra]

Finn and SM, you guys are doing a fine job, but I just wanted to point out a couple facts that are being overlooked in this case:

1. Not all members of the production are members of the union.

2. However, the union is trying to negotiate for all members of the production, as if they were.

This isn't dependent upon Jackson's interpretation. An actor who isn't a member of a union isn't chosen (by Jackson) to be considered nonunion. They are by definition nonunion by their own choice (they can join the union if they want to).

- the MEAA is demanding that the Hobbit production company (Warners owned, 3foot7 Ltd) enter into negotiations for a Union negotiated agreement covering all performers on the film.

- I personally have a problem with any organisation who represent a small minority, but attempt to take control of everyone - but that's not the real issue. The complex web of NZ labour laws are the reason why this demand will never be agreed to.

- NZ law prohibits engaging in collective bargaining with any labour organisation representing performers who are independent contractors, as film actors clearly are. The NZ Commerce Act claims it would be unlawful to engage with an Australian Union on these matters.

How is that up for interpretation? You're either a member of a union, or you're not. Jackson isn't defining the nonunion people as private contractors in order to get out of paying them what they deserve. In fact, he's going out of his way to make sure they get compenstated equally compared to the union guys. Either way--union or not--Jackson is going to compensate them fairly. So the issue isn't whether the actors themselves are getting screwed by Jackson--they clearly are not--the issue is whether the MEAA is going to get a cut of everyone's pay by representing people who don't want to be represented by them. If the actors wanted to be represented by the union, all they'd have to do is join the union.

Being pro-union or anti-union is one thing, but that's not even what this is about. Even Jackson admits he is pro-union, and he always honors union contracts. However, there is absolutely no basis in either reason or the law to force people who don't want to be members of union to be represented by a union. There are good reasons why that's illegal: it's immoral and it's anti-freedom. I can't think of a single good reason to force nonunion employees to accept the representation (and the paid dues!) of a union which they didn't even join. If anyone can explain that one, I'm all ears. [And by anyone, I mean anyone who doesn't call my posts fearmongering or who hasn't admitted to harboring a personal agenda against me. Such posts will be ignored. Thank you.]

[wayfriend]

the issue is whether the MEAA is going to get a cut of everyone's pay by representing people who don't want to be represented by them.

The union demands that all actors be compensated in terms that the union holds to, or else the union won't work on the film.

The parts you have added about the union representing non-union actors, or getting a cut for non-union actors, are, as far as I can tell, not even facts. Such things are certainly not in the posts you refer to. Nor are they mentioned in anything I have read so far.

I can't think of a single good reason to force nonunion employees to accept the representation (and the paid dues!) of a union which they didn't even join. If anyone can explain that one, I'm all ears. [And by anyone, I mean anyone who doesn't call my posts fearmongering or who hasn't admitted to harboring a personal agenda against me. Such posts will be ignored. Thank you.]

(Still spamming the world about the personal agenda you invented about me, eh? Let's frame THAT technique on the wall of shame.)

Meanwhile, I hope no one is suckered into believing that you need to explain the inexplicable to justify the unions because, as has been demonstrated, all that inexplicable stuff isn't actually happening. Such trickery is a technique people use, but it's not a nice one, and people who resort to such things are sad.

[finn]

Z you add a good point....(you old dog you... )

What we are really talking about here is the "closed shop" a practice that has been pretty widely discredited and removed from most Western workplace industrial relations.

Wayfriend wrote:
The union demands that all actors be compensated in terms that the union holds to, or else the union won't work on the film.

This is not accurate, they are demanding that "performers" be compensated in that manner. The distinction is that extras and LotR had thousands, will all be performers and all be required to register for what will be a closed shop production. Leaving the exaggerated numbers aside, the pay packet will propel the MEAA into a position of power within the NZ film industry, power they have yet to earn or have demionstrated they know how to weild properly. Thus....

finn wrote:
The MEAA skims a nice slice of the pie from the dues and beefs itself up numbers-wise to elbow a way to a place at the top table for future projects.

.......you may not agree with my characterisation but that is purely incidental to the outcome.

Zarathustra wrote:
the issue is whether the MEAA is going to get a cut of everyone's pay by representing people who don't want to be represented by them.

Wayfriend wrote:
The parts you have added about the union representing non-union actors, or getting a cut for non-union actors, are, as far as I can tell, not even facts. Such things are certainly not in the posts you refer to. Nor are they mentioned in anything I have read so far.

I cannot see how you reach that conclusion, Z's assertion is entirely accurate....one thing is consequential of the other. Wayfriend you need to read more carefully, the devil is in the detail.

As Z pointed out a number of these "performers" do not want to be "employed" as is defined by NZ employment laws. They operate as contractors which technically makes them businesses. As businesses, regulatory rules of conduct do not allow for unfair competition practices: collective bargaining in this instance is called "cartel" and is illegal as it is technically a price fixing mechanism.

As Stone Magnet has said the basic working conditions are pretty good in NZ compared with many other countries with protection provided to employed workers and freedom to operate outside of representative bargaining if they so choose. The MEAA is actually demanding to "force" those who choose not be part of a union to be a part of the MEAA and then taking a fee for doing so. That many of these "contract businesses" will actually be paid less and may have their status as taxable entities effected, will act as a negative control on the availability of some actors and "performers". Thus.......

finn wrote:
leaving a situation of "work under our rules of go hike" being demanded and enforced by the union NOT the Studios.

.....and thus.....

finn wrote:
Does anyone else see here the quite ludicrous irony of a union enforcing a situation whose outcome leads to lower pay and worse conditions?

I think if you read the (earlier) posts more carefully...

Wayfriend wrote:
And I'll admit I may be missing subtle distinctions among the general opposition.

....and sift through the parts that are opinion, you might see that a number of the concerns you have, HAVE been addressed and though my comments reflect my view, they are not made to be gratuitous.

[wayfriend]

I cannot see how you reach that conclusion, Z's assertion is entirely accurate....one thing is consequential of the other. Wayfriend you need to read more carefully, the devil is in the detail.

I will explain how I reach my conclusion, so that you can no longer claim not to see how I reach it. I read.

More specifically, I have read several pieces on this issue that assert Z is factually incorrect, and have read zero pieces that substantiate any of it.

For example,

"The union is simply seeking to set the minimum terms and conditions for workers - whether its an employment agreement or contractual agreement there can still be standard terms and conditions."

Here's where you could post some sort of evidence that supports your position or refutes mine.

The MEAA is actually demanding to "force" those who choose not be part of a union to be a part of the MEAA and then taking a fee for doing so.

Again: Please substantiate this claim.

Thus.......

Pardon me, but the text leading up to thus doesn't "thus" anything that you say it does. Nor do you offer any explanation as to how it would.

How do unions make movie makers leave? Please explain. (Noting that "choosing to retaliate by" does not constitute "make".)

I think if you read the (earlier) posts more carefully...

Of course. I disagree with you. Therefore it must be I didn't read your posts carefully. It's got nothing to do with you and Z introducing claims to bolster your arguments that haven't been substantiated and which all evidence is to the contrary. Of course.

[Zarathustra]

My points are entirely based on Jackson's statement. If Jackson is wrong, he's wrong. I'm not stating my version of the facts, I'm merely commenting on Jackson's version of the facts.

Jackson said:

the MEAA is demanding that the Hobbit production company (Warners owned, 3foot7 Ltd) enter into negotiations for a Union negotiated agreement covering all performers on the film.

Is that true, or false? It would seem to be an easy thing to verify or disconfirm.

It seems obvious to me that not all performers are union members, otherwise there would be no controversy whatsoever, because Jackson already said he'd honor union contracts for the union performers. And there would be no legal problem entering into collective bargaining if every performer was part of the union. (Nor would the MEAA be calling The Hobbit a "nonunion" production if every member of the production were union members.) Therefore, I think it's safe to say that not everyone involved is part of the union. That, too, is a fact.

So put those two facts together, and my understanding of the facts is correct: the union is trying to force Jackson into collective bargaining wherein they represent people who aren't part of their union. That's pretty straightforward, and should be easy to disprove if it's not true.

Whether or not you think they are going to do this for free, out of the goodness of their hearts, is up to you to believe. I find it hard to believe, and it seems to contradict the fact that unions charge dues everywhere else they operate. But even ignoring the money issue, they don't really have the right to speak for people who aren't members, even if it's for free.

Nor is the issue of whether or not the Hobbit is being forced to move out of NZ by the union a matter of interpretation. It's either a fact, or it's not. As noted on the last page, SAG is supporting the MEAA. And main cast members--like Hugo Weaving and Kate Blanchet--are members of SAG. So I suppose that Jackson could go ahead and make the movie in NZ without these actors, but to do so would violate his own personal preferences in the matter of his artistic vision. So either way you look at it, the MEAA (in conjunction with SAG) is forcing Jackson to do something he doesn't want, whether it is to stay in NZ and deal with actors who aren't his first choice, or to move out of NZ and have actors who form continuity with the LOTR movies. Either way, he is forced into making a choice that he wouldn't have to make if the MEAA weren't trying to impose their will in an area which is not their right. I think "holding the film hostage" (and by extension, the entire NZ film industry--indeed, the economy of NZ) is a fair characterization of this situation. MEAA doesn't have the right to force Jackson to make artistic or logistical choices he'd otherwise not make in order to impose their will on actors who don't want to be represented by them. This is as clear a case of "ganster pressure" or "holding his movie as hostage" as I can imagine.

The only way that's a matter of interpretation is if you think a union has the right to force producers to make choices they don't want to make, or to force actors to be represented by a union they don't want to join. I don't see how in any interprtation that can be true, unless your position is to support unions at all costs no matter who's authority or rights they trample.