« Did Paul Henry breach broadcasting standards? | Main | Burning questions »
Key questions
By Steven | October 28, 2010
I’m no expert on employment law. I claim no insider knowledge on the Hobbit fiasco. But there are some obvious questions that I haven’t seen anyone in the media ask:
1. John Key says he’s going to pass law “clarifying” the difference between employees and contractors, at least in connection with the film industry. What exactly is it that needs clarifying? What is he going to clarify that wasn’t clarified by the Supreme Court in the 2005 Bryson case?
2. Doesn’t he actually mean “change” the law? If so, how? If not, why bother passing new law?
3. In fact, doesn’t he really mean: “make it harder for people on independent contracts to argue that they’re actually employees, even if they’re being treated as employees”? If so, what’s the justification for this?
4. In particular, since it seems that all the actors are happy being on independent contracts, and as far as I know none has ever challenged such a contract, or is likely to, then isn’t this change actually only going to affect the techies and the crew? In which case, is this about the threatened strike at all?
5. How is it going to be achieved? Will the government simply introduce a rule that if the parties describe their arrangement as a contract for services, that will be the end of the story? That is, the courts will not be able to look behind the contract to see if in practice it’s really an employment relationship, even if the studio exercises close control over the worker during an extended period of time, provides workplace and equipment, and integrates the worker into the fabric of the workplace? Or will the government instead be setting a higher threshold before independent contractors can show that they’re really employees? If that threshold is expressed in terms of a general test, or series of factors, how will this provide any greater “clarity” than we had before?
6. If it’s justified to change these rules for the film industry, why isn’t it justified to change them for everyone else? And if it’s not justified to change them for everyone else, why is it justified to change them for those in the film industry?
7. And why do this under urgency, in one day? Legislation can still be passed quickly without doing it this quickly. Isn’t there a danger that it will be rushed and botched? Isn’t it undemocratic to rush it through without at least allowing some degree of input from the public and interested parties through the Parliamentary process? Did Key promise Warners to pass it this way?
Topics: Media ethics | 50 Comments »
50 Responses to “Key questions”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
The media could ask those questions. Or it could just trawl Facebook fan pages and reckon the public endorse this deal to keep the Hobbit in NZ:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10683644
October 28th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Vernon Small’s First Reading column in today’s DomPost addresses some of these
October 28th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Here’s Vernon’s column. I’m not sure it gets far with many of the questions I raised.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/4281126/Its-not-all-the-film-unions-fault-but-they-picked-the-wrong-fight
October 28th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
I was thinking of these comments:
Sure, the film’s makers would have been appalled by the possibility that stars such as Sir Ian McKellen could pull the plug. And can it be true that unionists arguing for a better deal pointed to the James Bryson case – in which the Supreme Court found someone called a contractor was really an employee – with a flippant but threatening “perhaps we are all employees then”? If they did, that would have been red rag to a raging bull.
But even a cursory reading of that case would indicate the threat was hollow. The court ruled on the facts alone, and found model-maker Bryson’s case and contract were not typical of industry practice.
Ad Feedback
Nevertheless, the Government’s offer to clarify the law, and unions’ blanket assurance of a dispute-free journey for The Hobbit, ought to have been enough – were it not for Warner Bros’ warlike stance that it no longer puts much store by union promises.
Of course, taken at face value, that should be the end of the road. Dead hobbit. There and back. So why did the studio continue to contemplate filming here? Oh, that’s right, because all its disquiet about union disruption could be forgotten if it could wring a few extra millions out of the taxpayer.
October 28th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
[…] it looks like Andrew Geddis and Steven Price are asking the same […]
May 19th, 2020 at 5:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
May 21st, 2020 at 10:29 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
June 4th, 2020 at 12:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
June 25th, 2020 at 2:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
July 22nd, 2020 at 12:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 7:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 8:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 9:51 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 38019 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 15th, 2020 at 2:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 17th, 2020 at 2:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 6:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 74695 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 3:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 8:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 11:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
September 6th, 2020 at 6:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
September 24th, 2020 at 4:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
September 24th, 2020 at 12:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
October 2nd, 2020 at 5:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
November 5th, 2020 at 4:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
November 11th, 2020 at 12:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 3936 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
November 11th, 2020 at 1:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
November 21st, 2020 at 5:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
December 21st, 2020 at 2:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
December 21st, 2020 at 3:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
December 31st, 2020 at 3:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
February 10th, 2021 at 4:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
March 26th, 2021 at 6:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
April 21st, 2021 at 6:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
May 16th, 2021 at 8:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
June 15th, 2021 at 3:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 723 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 9:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 11:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 4:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 74269 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
August 21st, 2021 at 9:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
September 28th, 2021 at 10:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 79359 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
October 9th, 2021 at 9:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
October 18th, 2021 at 4:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
November 28th, 2021 at 12:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
December 11th, 2021 at 1:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
January 6th, 2022 at 11:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
January 25th, 2022 at 1:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
January 30th, 2022 at 5:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
February 1st, 2022 at 3:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
February 17th, 2022 at 11:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]
February 24th, 2022 at 11:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=397 […]