The sorry saga of the Hobbit has lent itself to a union bashing frenzy the like of which hasn’t been seen in many years. In some ways, it reminds me of Don Brash’s now infamous Orewa speech on race, which unleashed a tide of unexpected racism.
The madness continues, with Matthew Hooten writing in the NBR that perhaps the law around good faith needs to be reviewed :
Good faith is meant to be a mutual obligation, requiring parties to interact constructively. It covers the whole relationship between employer and employee, not just formal bargaining, and includes not only current but intended employers and employees – including those working under commercial contracts who want to become employees. … .
Not even in their fevered imaginations could it be considered good faith to conspire with militant union thugs across the English-speaking world to organise a global boycott of a vitally important project which already pays above industry averages – and all without even giving prior warning to the employer of their intention to do so.
Matthew Hooten isn’t known for his well balanced views on unions and workers’ rights and as a commentator, he can be a nasty piece of work – for example, he says in the piece that :
Australian unions are overbearingly powerful and notoriously corrupt, with historic links to organised crime.
And then he’s into more conspiracy.
Actors aren’t alone in making a mockery of “good faith.” Similar conduct is under way in secondary schools from the PPTA, a union with a history of communist connections. It has no intention of dealing in good faith with the Ministry of Education because its true objective is industrial havoc in election year. The primary teachers’ union will no doubt also find a pretext for havoc in 2011, probably over national standards – a policy which, like few others, has received overwhelming mandates from parents and voters. Other unions plan to sabotage the Rugby World Cup.
The whole piece is misleading, especially as (duh) performers employed as independent contractors in the film industry aren’t covered by the Employment Relations Act. Either Hooten completely misses the point, or is flying a kite for others. Watch this space.
I wouldn’t mind good faith being beefed up a it more. The government continues to maintain that its 90 day no rights law still has the protection of good faith. Of course there are no remedies available to a worker if good faith is breached, so it is pretty meaningless.
But to suggest that good faith could encompass prevention of global solidarity by and between unions is bizarre.
Next someone will saying that it’s a breach of good faith for global corporations to dictate labour laws in New Zealand!
PPTA = Communist connections?
I lolled.
On nine-to-noon this morning, I thought Hooten was contradictory about unions and globalisation. He criticised the unions for not understanding that filmmaking and other businesses operate in a globalised world now. But surely, the international union solidarity is a totally suitable response to this globalised environment.
Hmmm, I’d like to see his sources for his claim that national standards has received overwhelming mandates from parents and voters. Everything I’ve seen says that the contrary is the case.
On top of that, bringing out the tired old ‘reds under the beds’ argument to discredit the PPTA shows a degree of desperation as he and his ilk realise that the tide is turning fast against the NACT shambles.
Yeah, lets see how well our entertainment industry does if we try and make actions by international film unions like the SAG etc illegal.
Time to prepare a hard push back in the forum of ideas.
One message being – pay and treat workers fairly, unless you want this society to return to the days of indentured servitude. Even more of our talented people will leave a country which is showing not just an increasing inability and will to pay what workers are worth, but an increasing inability to respect and treat people fairly, which is inexcusable.
One thing that’s a little encouraging is the media are not going along with the government line and there’s been some good commentary. The lastest is Tapu Misa’s column today : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10684395
But very surprised to find that I agree with Bill Ralston in the Listener this week who said we’ve lost our sense of proportion over the Hobbit dispute and :
….
Yip Bill. Spot on.
Hooten says”….probably over national standards – a policy which, like few others, has received overwhelming mandates from parents and voters.”
Parents support improved reporting on Children’s progress. That is OK too.
But National Standards is nothing to do with better reporting, and my guess that most parents and voters would know exactly how frail NT is!
Corporates try and have it both ways, global operations on the best terms for them, and riding nationalism too where it suits to get a compliant workforce as with the recent ’Hobbit’ demos. No one can blame workers for wanting to keep their gigs, but if everyone had stood with AE rather than the producers the thing would have been resolved in 5 minutes.
Actors Equity are not going to go away, though the CTU or UNITE needs to formally take them under their wing for future advice and support and unite all who can be united in the flim industry. It is quite likely also that a Lord Jackson friendly ‘company’ union will be instituted in the Wellington region sooner rather than later.
Union members only response can be to go global too in terms of solidarity agreements and actions with other workers. How else will international companies be held accountable at local level? It is already happening in the Dairy Industry via the IUF for example.
Was it too hard for Actors Equity to engage in dialogue with Peter Jackson first rather than just getting a union ban on the hobbit first? Good Faith much?
” Other unions plan to sabotage the Rugby World Cup.”
Which they have already come out and said. I quote “will bring this city to a standstill”
So much for good faith etc when the unions have already shown that they are going to strike (and are planning to do so) for demands not yet made.
AE need to be explaining their case to industry workers ASAP, and need to be retaining + signing on new members.
There is a strong mandate for national standards. In the 2008 election campaign National put its education policies at the centre of their party advertising. Their main video opened with their policies on education. I haven’t been able to find a copy of that video online but here is their education advertisement: http://www.youtube.com/user/NZNats#p/u/519/diAXfbISefI. It was pretty obvious that a vote for National was a vote for National standards.
I think only the most ill-informed voter was unaware of what national standards meant. People voted for it and now to claim that no mandate exists is nothing less than ridiculous.
Also there is a strong indirect mandate. If people were actually outraged about reporting information about children’s progress against benchmarks then Labour wouldn’t be doing so badly in the polls. For some policies a strong direct mandate may not exist,like raising GST, but national standards are not an example of such a policy.
Was it too hard for Actors Equity to engage in dialogue with Peter Jackson first rather than just getting a union ban on the hobbit first? Good Faith much?
Apparently it was Jared, because Peter Jackson wouldn’t engage in dialogue.
NZ Actors‘ Equity asked to have a dialogue with Peter Jackson and SPADA before this all started. Peter Jackson and SPADA refused to speak to them.
Since when did PJ represent the whole NZ film industry and when was he given a mandate to negotiate a broad collective on its behalf. It was a stupid and irrelevant request when tested agianst their claim of seeking an industry binding collective.
‘National’ Business Review
A silly magazine for those who ‘want’ to run a business!
What do you honestly expect…. of course they are going to react like this.
The biggest challenge facing the union movement in NZ is how to most effectively distance itself from the PR word deleted Trevor that AE/MEAA/CTU put on display to the NZ public.
No Sean. The Union passed a resolution banning union members from working on the hobbit well before their letter on the 17th of August to the Hobbit directors asking for a meeting. That is not good faith.
Sean.
PJ cannot speak for the whole NZ film industry.
SPADA had tried to meet with NZEA for years to renegotiate the pink book. NZEA would not meet with SPADA.
NZEA was, in my opinion, used by MEAA to further it’s own agenda, and then the CTU got involved. The CTU has claimed the matter is resolved, because NZEA is now in dialogue with SPADA, which is what SPADA was trying to acheive in the first place.
If SPADA approached NZEA in good faith, which they appear to have done, and NZEA conspired with the MEAA, Actors Equity in Canada, The UK and US, and with the Screen Actors Guild to have a boycott in place before contacting the studio involves and cc-ing Peter Jackson, is that good faith bargaining?
#Edwin I seriously doubt that national standards had anything to do with the election result. Labour was voted out and that ‘nice smiling Mr Key’ was voted in with all his lovely aspirational language that actually didn’t mean much, being carefully chosen to attract votes. I suspect he could have used a completely different set of slogans and still won the election. Are you telling us that everyone who voted National made an informed decision and that national standards was a deciding factor? Or that everyone who votes for any political party makes informed and well reasoned decisions? No one actually knew, (including, one suspects, the National Party) exactly what standards would look like and how they would be implemented.
All research done post-election shows a very widely spread concern over the potential for damage to our education system. I suggest you do some open minded research and you will easily find this information, much more valid than an election advertising campaign.
This just in from a friend overseas who has a lot to do with the film industry.
Darien, you say, in response to something Mr Hooten wrote –
“he can be a nasty piece of work – for example, he says in the piece that :
Australian unions are overbearingly powerful and notoriously corrupt, with historic links to organised crime.”.
As far as I’m concerned what Mr Hooten says is correct, so could you please explain to us what is ‘nasty’ about stating a truism ?
Truisms are frequently platitudes full of obsolete assumptions and out of date/irrelevant knowledge.
Is that what you mean?
@richgraham$: a truism is just that, associated with the truth but not necessarily factual. Hooten generalises, and lies by omission of the facts, which is indeed nasty because it helps create a false idea for people who are not familiar with Australian unions or taken the time to research their history. Do you think most Aussie cops are bent because you may have viewed “Underbelly”? It is lazy and manipulative language which too many people accept on face value.
@richgraham could you please explain to us what is ‘nasty’ about stating a truism ?
A truism is a self-evident truth, esp. one of slight importance.
For example, “it is a truism that people commenting on blogs have no idea what they are talking about”.
Perhaps you mean something else.
That “infamous” speech by Don Brash was entitled “One law for all”. Which was not actually racist. Quite the opposite, in fact. It was partly in response to policies like “Closing the gaps” which Labour finally abandoned after spending $250 million and making not the slightest bit of difference. This is on top of the billions we spend each year on Maori for being Maori.
In the largest poll I saw, of nearly 40,000 people, the support was in favour of the speech by around 90%. It also gave National a huge surge in support. And, I believe, it did a great deal to alleviate the disquiet around the institutional racism that is now ingrained in the gummint.
@johnbt : yeah – it’s called dog whistle politics.
AGAIN, seriously. what would Helen Clark and Micheal Cullen done differently? Nothing. There’s the rub.
Hooton knows as much about IR as I do about origami. He needs to spend some time at the coalface if he wants any credibility.
.
I love how the Right pretends to be able to mystically channel long gone Labour MPs while simultaneously gazing into a predictive crystal ball.
richgraham, agreeing with something someone says doesnt make it the truth, it means you share their opinion. It’s amazing how many otherwise intellgient people make this error.
Jared, so if it’s not in writing, then no one can have tried to speak with Mr Jackson? If Jennifer Ward-Lealand says she tried to talk with Mr Jackson and he refused, she is a liar?
Wouldnt it have been in her best interests to speak with him?
I doubt this thing has been as black and white as some make out.
Still it seems
Union bad. Jackson good. Is the beginning and end of any reasonable dialogue on this for some.
What do you mean “what would they have done”, cant we just look at the history of film-making til 2008 and conclude that they did something which didnt result in this kind of drama?
If I see a union calling for an international boycott or meddling I would say what right have they got to get people from overseas to meddle in our domestic affairs.
Helen Kelly has meddled in getting a US unionist who was invited to come to NZ to discuss free trade. Clearly our international trade interests and therefore economic wellbeing of this country are secondary to petty point scoring.
Unions have monopoly power granted them in the Employment Relations Act and as such this should come under very close public scrutiny, every instance of meddling is really just asking to be scrutinised even more.
Johnbt
Brash – one law for all
Best joke of the day. Next joke – Brash seeking equity within NZ society.
chris
Sabotaging the World Cup.
It is a sound idea. You should support it.
Any event that creates such a monstrous carbon footprint needs immediate reconsideration.
The argument for economic advantage is insignificant. The harm done for a few bucks now is reprehensible.
Professional Rugby will be swallowed by multinational backing and bear little resemblance of the game NZ knew.
And the madness still continues.
Begin forwarded message:
From: EPMU Communications
Date: 5 November 2010 6:37:42 PM NZDT
To: EPMU Communications
Subject: Seizure of business and threat to 50 jobs by govt agencies an
outrageous overkill – EPMU
Seizure of business and threat to 50 jobs by govt agencies an outrageous
overkill – EPMU
The threat today by agents for the New Zealand Transport Agency and Inland
Revenue to seize Mt Roskill business Faulkner Collins is an outrageous response
to a long simmering conflict and will only threaten 50 good jobs, the EPMU,
which represents most of the staff, says.
Representatives of the state agencies entered the business premises this
afternoon to enforce the state’s demands in relation to compulsory acquisition
of the site for the Waterview tunnel project, even though valid disagreements
over a replacement building and liability for professional costs remain.
The state agencies attempted to change locks on the premises which would
prevent the workforce from carrying out their scheduled Saturday shift
tomorrow. This time of year is one of the busiest for the business.
Faulkner Collins is not due to vacate the Mt Roskill premises until January
2011.
The agencies retreated after several EPMU officials arrived to assist the
management to deal with today’s heavy-handed treatment.
“These are state agencies roughing up a good business in a disagreement that
should be resolved properly and professionally,” EPMU national secretary Andrew
Little said.
“The government has shown it can assist people affected by the collapse of
South Canterbury Finance and Warner Brothers over “The Hobbit” movie, so it
isn’t out of their reach to help this business deal with the compulsory
relocation required for the Waterview Tunnel project.
“The government agencies should be assisting businesses like this, especially
at this difficult time for the New Zealand economy.
“The government needs to show it cares about these jobs as much as any other
and work with the business, not use its might to push it around to get what the
government wants.”
The government agencies have said the firm has until midday Monday (8
November) to make a payment or face the same threat.
The EPMU has undertaken
to support the firm again if necessary.
Ends
For further information contact EPMU national secretary Andrew Little on 027
551 3476.
Whats this about, sounds like they want the firm to move before lease expires and then last para about they want payment?
So whats the story?