I love the Hobbit. I’ve read it twice. My kids applied to be extras on the Hobbit. Am really pleased the films will be made here.
But just why are we changing our employment law to strip protections from film workers?
I don’t know. And it appears the government doesn’t know either. Or they do, they haven’t got their stories straight.
Yesterday Steven Joyce said in the House that if we didn’t change the law under urgency then the Hobbit films wouldn’t be made here.
In question time yesterday Gerry Brownlee insisted that Warner Brothers had no role in requiring this law change to go ahead:
Keith Locke: Did Warner Bros require that changes to our industrial legislation be passed this week, therefore requiring urgency in Parliament today?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Warner Bros did not put any requirements on us to do anything. The New Zealand Government has recognised that there were employment issues that needed to be sorted out, and we are going to move to clarify those. We think that the last 7 weeks have been shameful as far as the support for the film industry is concerned, and we are going to urgently move to fix that situation.
Who’s right? What employment issues had to be sorted out? And why does it have to happen in urgency? The government is not putting up any cogent reasons to change the law. Govt members are not even trying to argue a case for the new law. Unless… did they offer to change the law off their own bat because they thought it was a good idea?
Does anyone other than the government think we need this law change? We are strongly arguing the case against it.
Here’s what we think:
- The National government is using this as an excuse to further undermine the rights of New Zealand wage and salary earners
- If the change to employment laws was really the “critical” issue for Warners, as John Key has claimed, why was the relevant Minister Kate Wilkinson not at the negotiating table?
- The changes they are proposing to employment laws are entirely unrelated to the earlier dispute with the New Zealand Actors Equity and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. That was about independent contractors wanting to remain as independent contractors but to negotiate collectively. This law change is about whether an independent contractor can be considered to be an employee.
- The government says this is about clarifying the law, but this isn’t about clarification, it’s about removing protections.
- The current law says that if you’re hired as an independent contractor but for all intents and purposes you are treated as an employee, other than the fact you are not entitled to employment rights such as sick leave, holiday pay and redundancy pay, then the courts will look through that contract and recognise you as an employee.
- This is a very important protection in the law. This will allow film companies to deprive workers on basic rights including sick leave and holiday pay.
- As Professor Nigel Haworth from the Auckland University Business School said it is very unusual for a developed nation to go this far to make an investment attractive. He cannot see the need for a change in the law because it has already been very well clarified. He sees this as a move back to an Employment Contracts Act style model and a reduction in protections.
There’s no need to amend the Employment Relations Act. We’ve been making movies in NZ without problems for years.
I don’t know what to say, other than it’s not about consistency. It’s not about an economic plan, it’s not about sensible law making. It’s not about a strategy to build long term sustainable industries. It’s not about any of those things.
It’s about a shambles, opportunism and populism. What on earth do NZers make of it?
No no, I’m talking about the film workers Darien, not the others. Those ones. You know, the only ones the bill affects. Them.
Go get a contract in Auckland as a builder and see if you can get enough to cover those extra costs.
hint: You can’t. Reality tells us that the extra costs are lumped on the contractors but no extra money is forthcoming.
@Dylan [It is] odd [it includes the video game industry] because that’s a very small industry in NZ, and probably not as project-based as film and TV, which has been excluded.
It includes the video game industry because the computer animation work (or variants of it) done at Weta for The Hobbit (and possibly new Avatar films, etc) will also be used in the inevitable video game spin-offs.
The technicians/artists who do this stuff will be working on Tuesday on the movie and on Wednesday on the video game.
This is all about preventing those workers claiming that they are employees. The ones who marched to “save” the Hobbit.
The actors were always on contracts and there was never any doubt about that. The doubt (which this supposedly addresses) is in the case of technicians/artists who are employed for much longer periods and do substantially the same job from project/movie to project/movie.
” The doubt (which this supposedly addresses) is in the case of technicians/artists who are employed for much longer periods and do substantially the same job from project/movie to project/movie.”
Yes but so what?
where’s the evidence that these people were demanding protection?
You don’t have any, do you?
Why is it apparently incomprehensible to some, that these people might actually prefer to be on individual contract and they neither asked for nor require any adjustment whatsoever to their terms and conditions?
@Reid
where’s the evidence that these people were demanding protection?
Ask Brownlee/Key etc.
The fact that this law attempts to remove such worker’s capability to claim that they are really employees, suggests that either Warners or National or the wider film industry are concerned that some workers might otherwise exercise this right.
What is it with your evidence meme?
Our opinons are better than yours, but thats what they are, opinions.
And is it incomprehensible to you that some people might actually prefer a collectively negotiated employment contract?
And would be safer and better off with one?
Classic quote from Key, who is relaxed about law-making:
Mr Key dismissed accusations the legislation was poorly drafted. “I rely on PCO and the lawyers to put all that stuff together.” (stuff.co.nz)
So know we know. The Prime Minister of New Zealand is only responsible for photo-ops, not for “all that stuff” (otherwise known as “laws” and “government”).
“now we know”, sorry.
Clare, what would Labour have done to keep The Hobbit in New Zealand?
“And is it incomprehensible to you that some people might actually prefer a collectively negotiated employment contract?
And would be safer and better off with one?”
Well yes it is in this case, for there is evidence as to the precise opposite. See normally, if people want something, they say or do something to indicate it. This didn’t happen here. Ergo, they don’t want it.
It’s not complicated, is it.
Those technicians are typically contracted on a per-project basis, as that’s the way the industry operates – it’s project-based. Between projects the population at these companies drops dramatically – the ones who remain are typically employees.
I simply don’t buy the arguement that this is an attempt to screw workers over. They’ve worked as contractors forever and continue to do so, there will be no material change. When Bryson took 3 Foot 6 to court, and won, others in the industry were as surprised as everyone else, because they understand the nature of their work.
I don’t understand why this is a right? The relationship between an business and contractors if very different between the business and wage/salary employees. Not least of which is the issue of payrate and taxation. For someone to accept work as contractor and then later claim the benefits of employment is unfair to employers, employees and possibly taxpayers – they are paid a higher rate than employees, and probably taxed at a lower rate.
@Dylan I don’t understand why this is a right?
The right that is at issue is the right to be treated as an employee (rather than a contractor) if your work is actually that of an employee — even if you are nominally engaged as a contractor.
If you are truely a contractor, then you could never claim to be an employee. However, if you acting like an employee, i.e. are employed doing the same thing on an ongoing basis, then the previous precedent was that you could claim the same rights as a employee. The previous precedent protected an employee from an employer who refused to acknowledge that a job was not really a contract position.
Under the previous ruling, if you were acting as a contractor in fact, then the court would do nothing. Likewise, if were happy being a contractor, despite acting in fact like an employee, then the courts would not intervene.
Film workers have lost something here. For some workers it will make no difference. For others it will make a big difference — particularly when (for whatever reason) their “contract” ends.
Sheesh they wanted it and Jackson/the rest of the NZ film industry blocked it. Not rocket science.
What, like join a union and boycott a production?
The Act very specifically limits the scope to “film production” and includes a definition of what it is…
Protection such as..?
It seems to me to eliminate the possibility of anyone signing a contacting contract and then wanting to appeal in court to have this amended to an employee contract… It behooves those in the film industry to sign employee contracts but it does not fundamentally strip film workers of rights (they still receive holiday pay, sick leave, etc)…
@Jeremy Protection such as..?
The protection that has been removed is the protection from being employed on the wrong type of contract. Under the previous system the type of work that you did determined whether you should be an employee or a contractor. If the studio signed you as the wrong one, then the court could rule that you were the other. Now, whether particular work (in film) is an “employee” or “contractor” job is solely at the discretion of the employer.
Employees have different rights to contractors; especially around termination. The film industry finds those rights expensive/inconvenient, therefore they will sign virtually everyone as “contractors”.