|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iolite
The Shire
Oct 29 2010, 3:26am
Views: 6414
Shortcut
|
Not sure if this explains it any better, but....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The unions didn't want a change in contractor status/law, they simply wanted a collective agreement that would update their working conditions to be more in line with those of overseas actors, such as members of SAG (Screen Actors Guild of America). The actors had no quibbles with the laws around who is deemed a contractor vs an employee. The whole law clarification/amendment thing is based on a single case that happened in 2005 where a modelmaker took 3Foot6 (= Newline) to court because the nature of the work he had been doing on LOTR was that of an employee rather than a contractor, but he had not received the same benefits that an employee would (e.g. a minimum holiday period each year and other benefits that I must admit to being a little hazy on). This time Warner Brothers were presumably wary that it could happen again, since the Hobbit will be employing contractors for jobs that will have conditions that are probably closer to being an employee than a contractor, e.g. working 5 days every week, set hours every day, for potentially 2-3 years, with equipment provided by the company. That modelmaker was awarded damages of (if I recall correctly) NZ$44,000. Naturally Warner Bros wouldn't want that to happen again and they don't want to have to employ people officialy as employees - they want a contractor to be a contractor if that is what is written in the work contract, regardless of the actual day-to-day nature of the working arrangement.
|
|
|
Subject
|
User
|
Time
|
Parliament Passes Hobbit Bill
|
Elentari03
|
Oct 29 2010, 12:43am
|
I still don't understand
|
duats
|
Oct 29 2010, 12:45am
|
I don't either
|
Tim
|
Oct 29 2010, 12:50am
|
never ending headache?
|
Melkors_Wrath
|
Oct 29 2010, 12:59am
|
So the unions push for changes and end up worse in the sense
|
Eruonen
|
Oct 29 2010, 1:43am
|
Not sure if this explains it any better, but....
|
Iolite
|
Oct 29 2010, 3:26am
|
They lose recourse
|
Gildor
|
Oct 29 2010, 2:03am
|
I'm still puzzled
|
Moahunter
|
Oct 29 2010, 2:44am
|
I don't think this was about industrial action.
|
Silverlode
|
Oct 29 2010, 4:38am
|
I love...
|
Gildor
|
Oct 29 2010, 4:49am
|
Completely agree
|
entmaiden
|
Oct 29 2010, 4:50am
|
You do paint a vivid picture...
|
Earl
|
Oct 29 2010, 6:09am
|
Your speculation sounds pretty solid to me
|
Peredhil lover
|
Oct 29 2010, 7:22am
|
I agree with this point
|
Tim
|
Oct 29 2010, 3:23pm
|
In reply to Moahunter
|
SirDennisC
|
Oct 29 2010, 7:24am
|
Employee or contractor.
|
Moahunter
|
Oct 29 2010, 7:35am
|
Nobody tells me where I can't or can't work. //
|
SirDennisC
|
Oct 29 2010, 7:37am
|
Let me clarify my position
|
Tim
|
Oct 29 2010, 4:26pm
|
Well reasoned. //
|
SirDennisC
|
Oct 29 2010, 5:04pm
|
other things to consider
|
Jettorex
|
Oct 29 2010, 5:33pm
|
Just to get things straight...
|
Huan71
|
Oct 29 2010, 8:44pm
|
Are contractors more protected than employees, in some ways
|
squire
|
Oct 29 2010, 10:27pm
|
My thoughts
|
Peredhil lover
|
Oct 30 2010, 1:39pm
|
Thanks, Gildor
|
Altaira
|
Oct 29 2010, 4:40am
|
Right...
|
Gandalf'sMother
|
Oct 29 2010, 5:41am
|
I agree
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
|
Oct 29 2010, 6:40am
|
maybe not to the "industry" ...
|
AngryDwarf
|
Oct 29 2010, 7:45am
|
Any faith...?
|
Huan71
|
Oct 29 2010, 10:57am
|
Actually
|
Gandalf'sMother
|
Oct 29 2010, 3:56pm
|
Huzzaaaaah!//
|
Owain
|
Oct 29 2010, 12:45am
|
Thats what I call backfiring ....
|
AngryDwarf
|
Oct 29 2010, 7:31am
|
This bill is about stability
|
sphdle1
|
Oct 29 2010, 11:55am
|
Rather Uncomfortable
|
Lord Maegmoth
|
Oct 29 2010, 3:10pm
|
|
|
|