Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Peter Jackson, mental fragility, employees and contractors
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Morrissey Breen
Mar 8, 2013, 8:03:23 PM3/8/13
to
Peter Jackson, mental fragility, employees and contractors
by JOHN MINTO / March 7, 2013
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/07/peter-jackson-mental-fragility-employees-and-contractors/
Just before we set aside the new low in New Zealand reporting last
week – news coverage of the release of government communications with
Peter Jackson and Warner Brothers over the Hobbit debacle two years
earlier – the issue of contracting demands attention.
In case you’ve already forgotten, the documents the government
released under Ombudsman pressure last week showed, among other
things, that the blacklisting of the Hobbit by unions had been called
off two days before the orchestrated march, supported by Jackson and
Weta Workshop’s Richard Taylor, demanding the blacklisting be lifted.
What is also clear is that the government knew the boycott had been
lifted before the march but Minister Gerry Brownlee publicly denied
this and relished the media whipping up public hostility against the
entertainment unions.
If the media had done its job last week Brownlee would by now have
resigned for brazenly and deliberately misleading the public and New
Zealanders would finally understand just what was at stake for
Jackson, Taylor and Warner Brothers over the contractor issue. It
boils down to profit, more profit and even more profit while the
workers get screwed. How so?
For those not aware of the world of contractors here’s an example from
the last couple of weeks when a friend of mine applied for a job as a
full-time courier driver in South Auckland.
At the end of the first week the boss handed him a contract to sign
and because it said the role was “independent contractor” he rang me
for advice given I’ve previously worked for several years as a union
organiser.
So what did the contract say?
The pay was $625 per week which would be $15.63 per hour before tax
based on a 40 hour week. Miserly pay but at least above the minimum
wage (which will be $13.75 from 1 April).
But.
The company also deducts a $30 per week “servicing fee” for use of a
company vehicle which is provided for its “contractors”. This takes
the pay rate down to $14.88 per hour.
And worse.
The hours of work are from Monday to Friday from 6.30am to 5pm each
day without rest breaks or meal breaks – the “contractor” is expected
to take them on the run. This is 52.5 hours work per week, rather than
40, which takes the hourly rate down to $11.33 per hour before tax –
below the minimum wage and with no paid breaks.
And worse still. As a “contractor” there are no four weeks paid
holidays or five days paid sick leave (or overtime pay for statutory
holidays for that matter) which is worth approximately 10% of the
total gross pay. This brings the hourly rate down to about $10.14
before tax.
It couldn’t possible get worse could it? Yes. The contract says any
delivery mistakes or parcel breakages etc will be paid by the
“contractor.”
And accidents too. If the “contractor” has an accident in the company
vehicle then he or she is “.responsible for all costs incurred in such
an accident or incident”
The contract lists a host of other responsibilities which shift all
risk and liability to the “contractor” which should be the
responsibility of the employer.
In short contracting allows this employer to pay far less than the
minimum wage while piling all risks and liabilities onto the workers
themselves. It is abusive and oppressive and describes the kind of
slave-like conditions to which this kind of contracting inevitable
leads.
It’s easy to see why Jackson, Taylor and Warner Brothers love
“contracting” and hate unions. It is a license to screw workers even
harder.
So instead of once again fawning over a sad, mentally-fragile, union-
hating Jackson the media should have put the government on the mat and
told the public the truth about contracting.
Why is that too much to ask?
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/07/peter-jackson-mental-fragility-employees-and-contractors/
by JOHN MINTO / March 7, 2013
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/07/peter-jackson-mental-fragility-employees-and-contractors/
Just before we set aside the new low in New Zealand reporting last
week – news coverage of the release of government communications with
Peter Jackson and Warner Brothers over the Hobbit debacle two years
earlier – the issue of contracting demands attention.
In case you’ve already forgotten, the documents the government
released under Ombudsman pressure last week showed, among other
things, that the blacklisting of the Hobbit by unions had been called
off two days before the orchestrated march, supported by Jackson and
Weta Workshop’s Richard Taylor, demanding the blacklisting be lifted.
What is also clear is that the government knew the boycott had been
lifted before the march but Minister Gerry Brownlee publicly denied
this and relished the media whipping up public hostility against the
entertainment unions.
If the media had done its job last week Brownlee would by now have
resigned for brazenly and deliberately misleading the public and New
Zealanders would finally understand just what was at stake for
Jackson, Taylor and Warner Brothers over the contractor issue. It
boils down to profit, more profit and even more profit while the
workers get screwed. How so?
For those not aware of the world of contractors here’s an example from
the last couple of weeks when a friend of mine applied for a job as a
full-time courier driver in South Auckland.
At the end of the first week the boss handed him a contract to sign
and because it said the role was “independent contractor” he rang me
for advice given I’ve previously worked for several years as a union
organiser.
So what did the contract say?
The pay was $625 per week which would be $15.63 per hour before tax
based on a 40 hour week. Miserly pay but at least above the minimum
wage (which will be $13.75 from 1 April).
But.
The company also deducts a $30 per week “servicing fee” for use of a
company vehicle which is provided for its “contractors”. This takes
the pay rate down to $14.88 per hour.
And worse.
The hours of work are from Monday to Friday from 6.30am to 5pm each
day without rest breaks or meal breaks – the “contractor” is expected
to take them on the run. This is 52.5 hours work per week, rather than
40, which takes the hourly rate down to $11.33 per hour before tax –
below the minimum wage and with no paid breaks.
And worse still. As a “contractor” there are no four weeks paid
holidays or five days paid sick leave (or overtime pay for statutory
holidays for that matter) which is worth approximately 10% of the
total gross pay. This brings the hourly rate down to about $10.14
before tax.
It couldn’t possible get worse could it? Yes. The contract says any
delivery mistakes or parcel breakages etc will be paid by the
“contractor.”
And accidents too. If the “contractor” has an accident in the company
vehicle then he or she is “.responsible for all costs incurred in such
an accident or incident”
The contract lists a host of other responsibilities which shift all
risk and liability to the “contractor” which should be the
responsibility of the employer.
In short contracting allows this employer to pay far less than the
minimum wage while piling all risks and liabilities onto the workers
themselves. It is abusive and oppressive and describes the kind of
slave-like conditions to which this kind of contracting inevitable
leads.
It’s easy to see why Jackson, Taylor and Warner Brothers love
“contracting” and hate unions. It is a license to screw workers even
harder.
So instead of once again fawning over a sad, mentally-fragile, union-
hating Jackson the media should have put the government on the mat and
told the public the truth about contracting.
Why is that too much to ask?
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/07/peter-jackson-mental-fragility-employees-and-contractors/
David
Mar 8, 2013, 8:38:13 PM3/8/13
to
On Saturday, 9 March 2013 14:03:23 UTC+13, Morrissey Breen wrote:
> Peter Jackson, mental fragility, employees and contractors
I felt the contracting issue with The Hobbit was okay. The courier deal- well get a job as a paper boy or a letter box stuffer- similar pay and no liabilities.
> Peter Jackson, mental fragility, employees and contractors
A contact should be between a willing buyer and a willing seller... with room for negotiation.
Allistar
Mar 9, 2013, 2:13:48 AM3/9/13
to
What matters is whether someone voluntarily agrees to the conditions laid
out in the contract. If they don't agree then they don't sign it.
> It’s easy to see why Jackson, Taylor and Warner Brothers love
> “contracting” and hate unions. It is a license to screw workers even
> harder.
> So instead of once again fawning over a sad, mentally-fragile, union-
> hating Jackson the media should have put the government on the mat and
> told the public the truth about contracting.
between (usually) two parties?
> Why is that too much to ask?
to be a contractor then they will be treated as a contractor. I'm astounded
that some people think that is unfair.
The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even though the
people involved agreed to be contractors.
> http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/07/peter-jackson-mental-fragility-
employees-and-contractors/
--
A.
Allistar
Mar 9, 2013, 2:14:31 AM3/9/13
to
--
A.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
peterwn
Mar 10, 2013, 3:50:20 PM3/10/13
to
On Mar 10, 11:22 pm, A...@any.where.ver wrote:
> On , , Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:14:31 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental fragility,
> It is if the worker is standing against capitalists with all the power in the
> bargaining, or in reality, demands.
> That is why the unions need to be involved in these negotiations.
Except most of the workers involved do not want to have a bar of
unions.
> On , , Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:14:31 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental fragility,
> bargaining, or in reality, demands.
> That is why the unions need to be involved in these negotiations.
Except most of the workers involved do not want to have a bar of
unions.
Allistar
Mar 10, 2013, 7:48:03 PM3/10/13
to
A...@any.where.ver wrote:
> On , , Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:13:48 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
> fragility, employees and contractors, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> The two sides are of unequal strength. The capitalist fears the unions
> because they restore the balance of power between the workers and the
> capitalist. Alone the capitalist can pick them off and then deal with the
> cowed remains of the workforce.
> Something that you are obviously deeply scared of or you wouldn't come up
> with such facile statements.
> The capitalist needs to pay as little as possible to his workers to
> maximise his profit or he will go broke.
> balance is restored.
> The collective will obviously never demand too much or they would not get
> the jobs.
> The capitalist must learn to pay his workers their due or they can take
> his industry or business out of contention.
> A balance which works to both parties satisfaction.
We're not talking about "workers", we're talking about independant
contractors. The independant contractor has a choice to not work on this
project and to find work elsewhere.
>>> So instead of once again fawning over a sad, mentally-fragile, union-
>>> hating Jackson the media should have put the government on the mat and
>>> told the public the truth about contracting.
>>
>>What truth? That contracting is about a voiluntary and consensual
>>agreemeet between (usually) two parties?
>
> But it isn't voluntary or consensual if the capitalist has all the power.
Nonsense. Having an inbalance in power does not in any way mean that any
eventual agreement is not consensual and voluntary.
> The balance needs to be restored by unionism.
No it doesn't.
>>> Why is that too much to ask?
>>
>>In The Hobbit fiasco the government decided that if someone willingly
>>agrees to be a contractor then they will be treated as a contractor. I'm
>>astounded that some people think that is unfair.
>
> Why then was Jackson so desperate to keep the entire correspondence
> secret?
You'd have to ask him that.
>>The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even though
>>the people involved agreed to be contractors.
>
> Because it sets up as usual unequal positions or power, (the contracting
> position wanted by the capitalist)
Hang on - the sontract AGREED to be a contractor. Willingly. Every week they
signed a piece of paper stating that their relationship with their client
was one of contracting.
> We don't make anything out of these deals that are done with capitalists
> like Warners or Jackson, apart from tourism which brings tourists who come
> expecting Hobbiton or huge battle scenes all over the landscape. Most, if
> not all, jobs in tourism are basic pay positions which entrench workers in
> wage slavery.
What wages? We're talking about contractors. Not employees.
--
A.
> On , , Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:13:48 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
> fragility, employees and contractors, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It's not abusive.
>>
>>What matters is whether someone voluntarily agrees to the conditions laid
>>out in the contract. If they don't agree then they don't sign it.
>
> And those with the gold make the rules.
>
>>It's not abusive.
>>
>>What matters is whether someone voluntarily agrees to the conditions laid
>>out in the contract. If they don't agree then they don't sign it.
>
> The two sides are of unequal strength. The capitalist fears the unions
> because they restore the balance of power between the workers and the
> capitalist. Alone the capitalist can pick them off and then deal with the
> cowed remains of the workforce.
> Something that you are obviously deeply scared of or you wouldn't come up
> with such facile statements.
> The capitalist needs to pay as little as possible to his workers to
> maximise his profit or he will go broke.
>
>>> It’s easy to see why Jackson, Taylor and Warner Brothers love
>>> “contracting” and hate unions. It is a license to screw workers even
>>> harder.
>>
>>No it's not. Contracts are agreed to by both parties.
>
> From positions of unequal power. When the workers collectivise the power
>>> It’s easy to see why Jackson, Taylor and Warner Brothers love
>>> “contracting” and hate unions. It is a license to screw workers even
>>> harder.
>>
>>No it's not. Contracts are agreed to by both parties.
>
> balance is restored.
> The collective will obviously never demand too much or they would not get
> the jobs.
> The capitalist must learn to pay his workers their due or they can take
> his industry or business out of contention.
> A balance which works to both parties satisfaction.
We're not talking about "workers", we're talking about independant
contractors. The independant contractor has a choice to not work on this
project and to find work elsewhere.
>>> So instead of once again fawning over a sad, mentally-fragile, union-
>>> hating Jackson the media should have put the government on the mat and
>>> told the public the truth about contracting.
>>
>>What truth? That contracting is about a voiluntary and consensual
>>agreemeet between (usually) two parties?
>
Nonsense. Having an inbalance in power does not in any way mean that any
eventual agreement is not consensual and voluntary.
> The balance needs to be restored by unionism.
No it doesn't.
>>> Why is that too much to ask?
>>
>>In The Hobbit fiasco the government decided that if someone willingly
>>agrees to be a contractor then they will be treated as a contractor. I'm
>>astounded that some people think that is unfair.
>
> secret?
You'd have to ask him that.
>>The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even though
>>the people involved agreed to be contractors.
>
> position wanted by the capitalist)
Hang on - the sontract AGREED to be a contractor. Willingly. Every week they
signed a piece of paper stating that their relationship with their client
was one of contracting.
> We don't make anything out of these deals that are done with capitalists
> like Warners or Jackson, apart from tourism which brings tourists who come
> expecting Hobbiton or huge battle scenes all over the landscape. Most, if
> not all, jobs in tourism are basic pay positions which entrench workers in
> wage slavery.
What wages? We're talking about contractors. Not employees.
--
A.
Allistar
Mar 10, 2013, 7:50:08 PM3/10/13
to
A...@any.where.ver wrote:
> On , , Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:14:31 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
> fragility, employees and contractors, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
have worked somwehere else. If all people with their skills did the same
thing then the company seeking contractors would have no choice but to offer
more. It's supply and demand.
> That is why the unions need to be involved in these negotiations.
Unions have their place, but only with employees. Not with contractors.
Having contractors (i.e. private companies) engage in collective bargaining
amounts to price fixing.
--
A.
> On , , Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:14:31 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
> fragility, employees and contractors, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> It is if the worker is standing against capitalists with all the power in
> the bargaining, or in reality, demands.
This particular client was not the only show in town. The contractor could
> the bargaining, or in reality, demands.
have worked somwehere else. If all people with their skills did the same
thing then the company seeking contractors would have no choice but to offer
more. It's supply and demand.
> That is why the unions need to be involved in these negotiations.
Having contractors (i.e. private companies) engage in collective bargaining
amounts to price fixing.
--
A.
victor
Mar 10, 2013, 7:55:10 PM3/10/13
to
Message has been deleted
Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
Mar 15, 2013, 1:21:00 AM3/15/13
to
Peter Jackson:
Who Allowed That Dirty Looking, Probably Stinky
Trouble-Making Turd Englishman Into Zealand
In The First Place ?
Money Talks And Bullshit Walks !
Look At Kim Dotcom's "CORPORATE CITIZEN"
Status.
Racist Anti-Maaori (Māori) Evil Paakehaa Vermin
Invaders, And Their Insipid POM Inspired Law Factories,
Of Organised Oppression Against Maaori People !
†
†
†
ﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣ
Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
Maangai Kaawanatanga - Tainui Kiingitanga - Te Aotearoa
http://www.exorcist.org.nz Ko te Mana Motuhake
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/anzus_drug_mafias.html
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/iankahi_eriya_nation_john_frum.html
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/bligh_set_adrift_with_leaks_1.html
ﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣ
" Mr. Edward R. Murrow, As Far Back As Twenty (20)
Years Ago, Was Engaged In Propaganda For Communist
Causes, For Example The Institute Of International
Education, Of Which He Was The Acting Director --
Was Chosen To Act As A Representative By Soviet
Agency To Do A Job Which Would Normally Be Done
By The Russian Secret Police"
" Mr. Murrow's Organization Acted For The Russian
Espionage And Propaganda Organization Known
As V.O.K.S. "
-- Senator Joseph Mc Carthy (R)
March, 1954
C.B.S. / 'See It Now'
Message has been deleted
Allistar
Mar 17, 2013, 4:31:16 PM3/17/13
to
A...@any.where.ver wrote:
> On , , Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:48:03 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
> What you really mean is they have the choice to work for the money offered
> or starve.
No, I mean they have the choice to work for the conditions offered, try to
renegotiate different conditions, or find work elsewhere. Nobody owes anyone
else a job.
>>>>> So instead of once again fawning over a sad, mentally-fragile, union-
>>>>> hating Jackson the media should have put the government on the mat and
>>>>> told the public the truth about contracting.
>>>>
>>>>What truth? That contracting is about a voiluntary and consensual
>>>>agreemeet between (usually) two parties?
>>>
>>> But it isn't voluntary or consensual if the capitalist has all the
>>> power.
>>
>>Nonsense. Having an inbalance in power does not in any way mean that any
>>eventual agreement is not consensual and voluntary.
>
> If only you could see the hypocrisy in your post.
Enlighten me.
>>> The balance needs to be restored by unionism.
>>
>>No it doesn't.
>
> Merely saying "No it doesn't" is not a reasoned response or any kind or
> reasoned rebuttal.
I think unions have their place, so long as they have no more teeth than the
individuals they represent.
>>>>> Why is that too much to ask?
>>>>
>>>>In The Hobbit fiasco the government decided that if someone willingly
>>>>agrees to be a contractor then they will be treated as a contractor. I'm
>>>>astounded that some people think that is unfair.
>>>
>>> Why then was Jackson so desperate to keep the entire correspondence
>>> secret?
>>
>>You'd have to ask him that.
>
> Because it shows him as the capitalist he really is.
By "capitalist" you mean someone who trades freely with other people?
> He has no regard
> other than gouging as much money as possible out of his workers.
What workers? We're talking about contractors.
>>>>The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even though
>>>>the people involved agreed to be contractors.
>>>
>>> Because it sets up as usual unequal positions or power, (the contracting
>>> position wanted by the capitalist)
>>
>>Hang on - the sontract AGREED to be a contractor. Willingly. Every week
>>they signed a piece of paper stating that their relationship with their
>>client was one of contracting.
>
> They were forced to do that to be employed here in New Zealand.
They weren't forced to do any such thing.
>>> We don't make anything out of these deals that are done with capitalists
>>> like Warners or Jackson, apart from tourism which brings tourists who
>>> come expecting Hobbiton or huge battle scenes all over the landscape.
>>> Most, if not all, jobs in tourism are basic pay positions which entrench
>>> workers in wage slavery.
>>
>>What wages? We're talking about contractors. Not employees.
>
> We gave $67 million in tax breaks and the movie made over a billion
> dollars. That is inequitable.
You are correct. The state should stop all welfare.
But that's besides the point - the actors you're talking about are not
employees, they are contractors.
A union cannot represent them because doing so would amount to price fixing,
and that is illegal.
--
A.
> On , , Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:48:03 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
> or starve.
No, I mean they have the choice to work for the conditions offered, try to
renegotiate different conditions, or find work elsewhere. Nobody owes anyone
else a job.
>>>>> So instead of once again fawning over a sad, mentally-fragile, union-
>>>>> hating Jackson the media should have put the government on the mat and
>>>>> told the public the truth about contracting.
>>>>
>>>>What truth? That contracting is about a voiluntary and consensual
>>>>agreemeet between (usually) two parties?
>>>
>>> But it isn't voluntary or consensual if the capitalist has all the
>>> power.
>>
>>Nonsense. Having an inbalance in power does not in any way mean that any
>>eventual agreement is not consensual and voluntary.
>
Enlighten me.
>>> The balance needs to be restored by unionism.
>>
>>No it doesn't.
>
> reasoned rebuttal.
I think unions have their place, so long as they have no more teeth than the
individuals they represent.
>>>>> Why is that too much to ask?
>>>>
>>>>In The Hobbit fiasco the government decided that if someone willingly
>>>>agrees to be a contractor then they will be treated as a contractor. I'm
>>>>astounded that some people think that is unfair.
>>>
>>> Why then was Jackson so desperate to keep the entire correspondence
>>> secret?
>>
>>You'd have to ask him that.
>
By "capitalist" you mean someone who trades freely with other people?
> He has no regard
> other than gouging as much money as possible out of his workers.
What workers? We're talking about contractors.
>>>>The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even though
>>>>the people involved agreed to be contractors.
>>>
>>> Because it sets up as usual unequal positions or power, (the contracting
>>> position wanted by the capitalist)
>>
>>Hang on - the sontract AGREED to be a contractor. Willingly. Every week
>>they signed a piece of paper stating that their relationship with their
>>client was one of contracting.
>
They weren't forced to do any such thing.
>>> We don't make anything out of these deals that are done with capitalists
>>> like Warners or Jackson, apart from tourism which brings tourists who
>>> come expecting Hobbiton or huge battle scenes all over the landscape.
>>> Most, if not all, jobs in tourism are basic pay positions which entrench
>>> workers in wage slavery.
>>
>>What wages? We're talking about contractors. Not employees.
>
> dollars. That is inequitable.
You are correct. The state should stop all welfare.
But that's besides the point - the actors you're talking about are not
employees, they are contractors.
A union cannot represent them because doing so would amount to price fixing,
and that is illegal.
--
A.
Message has been deleted
Allistar
Mar 17, 2013, 10:33:13 PM3/17/13
to
A...@any.where.ver wrote:
> On , , Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:31:16 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
> Do you really not know the meaning of the work "capitalist"?
Someone who advocates capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which
investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and
exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or
corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means
of wealth.
So a capitalist is someone who increases their wealth by trading freely with
other people.
>>> He has no regard
>>> other than gouging as much money as possible out of his workers.
>>
>>What workers? We're talking about contractors.
>>
>>>>>>The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even
>>>>>>though the people involved agreed to be contractors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it sets up as usual unequal positions or power, (the
>>>>> contracting position wanted by the capitalist)
>>>>
>>>>Hang on - the sontract AGREED to be a contractor. Willingly. Every week
>>>>they signed a piece of paper stating that their relationship with their
>>>>client was one of contracting.
>>>
>>> They were forced to do that to be employed here in New Zealand.
>>
>>They weren't forced to do any such thing.
>
> If they didn't sign then they wouldn't have been employed.
They weren't employed, they were contractors. That's my point.
>>>>> We don't make anything out of these deals that are done with
>>>>> capitalists like Warners or Jackson, apart from tourism which brings
>>>>> tourists who come expecting Hobbiton or huge battle scenes all over
>>>>> the landscape. Most, if not all, jobs in tourism are basic pay
>>>>> positions which entrench workers in wage slavery.
>>>>
>>>>What wages? We're talking about contractors. Not employees.
>>>
>>> We gave $67 million in tax breaks and the movie made over a billion
>>> dollars. That is inequitable.
>>
>>You are correct. The state should stop all welfare.
>
> The two sentences you post above have no relationship to each other.
> They aren't even what I said.
> Are you determined to be so dishonest by wrongly trying to put into
> writing things I have never written.
> That is the absolute nadir of dishonesty.
You complained that the state gave $67 million in tax breaks (though I'm not
sure how confisacting less wealth from someone is the same thing as giving
them something). I assumed you saw this as a form of corporate welfare. My
apologies if that's not the case.
>>But that's besides the point - the actors you're talking about are not
>>employees, they are contractors.
>
> Nonsense, they were forced to become contractors or they would have no
> jobs.
...or they would have no jobs with that particular company.
There, fixed it for you.
>>A union cannot represent them because doing so would amount to price
>>fixing, and that is illegal.
>
> Laws do not dictate morality.
You got that right. Though I see nothing immoral happening here.
--
A.
> On , , Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:31:16 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
Someone who advocates capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which
investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and
exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or
corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means
of wealth.
So a capitalist is someone who increases their wealth by trading freely with
other people.
>>> He has no regard
>>> other than gouging as much money as possible out of his workers.
>>
>>What workers? We're talking about contractors.
>>
>>>>>>The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even
>>>>>>though the people involved agreed to be contractors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it sets up as usual unequal positions or power, (the
>>>>> contracting position wanted by the capitalist)
>>>>
>>>>Hang on - the sontract AGREED to be a contractor. Willingly. Every week
>>>>they signed a piece of paper stating that their relationship with their
>>>>client was one of contracting.
>>>
>>> They were forced to do that to be employed here in New Zealand.
>>
>>They weren't forced to do any such thing.
>
They weren't employed, they were contractors. That's my point.
>>>>> We don't make anything out of these deals that are done with
>>>>> capitalists like Warners or Jackson, apart from tourism which brings
>>>>> tourists who come expecting Hobbiton or huge battle scenes all over
>>>>> the landscape. Most, if not all, jobs in tourism are basic pay
>>>>> positions which entrench workers in wage slavery.
>>>>
>>>>What wages? We're talking about contractors. Not employees.
>>>
>>> We gave $67 million in tax breaks and the movie made over a billion
>>> dollars. That is inequitable.
>>
>>You are correct. The state should stop all welfare.
>
> They aren't even what I said.
> Are you determined to be so dishonest by wrongly trying to put into
> writing things I have never written.
> That is the absolute nadir of dishonesty.
You complained that the state gave $67 million in tax breaks (though I'm not
sure how confisacting less wealth from someone is the same thing as giving
them something). I assumed you saw this as a form of corporate welfare. My
apologies if that's not the case.
>>But that's besides the point - the actors you're talking about are not
>>employees, they are contractors.
>
> jobs.
...or they would have no jobs with that particular company.
There, fixed it for you.
>>A union cannot represent them because doing so would amount to price
>>fixing, and that is illegal.
>
You got that right. Though I see nothing immoral happening here.
--
A.
Fred
Mar 17, 2013, 10:46:12 PM3/17/13
to
negotiated and agreed by both parties.
Message has been deleted
Allistar
Apr 2, 2013, 8:09:08 PM4/2/13
to
A...@any.where.ver wrote:
> On , , Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:33:13 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
> By employing people at the lowest possible rate
...based on a consensual agreement...
> to make goods or provide
> services to sell at the highest possible prices
...based on a competitive free market...
> to enrich themselves and
> pay as little tax as possible. The capitalist makes money out of surplus
> value.
The working man who does a 9 to 5 day makes money out of surplus value too.
He trades his time and labour with someone for money, some of which he
spends, some of which he saves. How is he not also a capitalist?
>>>>> He has no regard
>>>>> other than gouging as much money as possible out of his workers.
>>>>
>>>>What workers? We're talking about contractors.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even
>>>>>>>>though the people involved agreed to be contractors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it sets up as usual unequal positions or power, (the
>>>>>>> contracting position wanted by the capitalist)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hang on - the sontract AGREED to be a contractor. Willingly. Every
>>>>>>week they signed a piece of paper stating that their relationship with
>>>>>>their client was one of contracting.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were forced to do that to be employed here in New Zealand.
>>>>
>>>>They weren't forced to do any such thing.
>>>
>>> If they didn't sign then they wouldn't have been employed.
>>
>>They weren't employed, they were contractors. That's my point.
>
> That was my point, they were employees and forced to become contractors to
> hold onto their jobs.
They weren't forced - they had a choice.
>>>>>>> We don't make anything out of these deals that are done with
>>>>>>> capitalists like Warners or Jackson, apart from tourism which brings
>>>>>>> tourists who come expecting Hobbiton or huge battle scenes all over
>>>>>>> the landscape. Most, if not all, jobs in tourism are basic pay
>>>>>>> positions which entrench workers in wage slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What wages? We're talking about contractors. Not employees.
>>>>>
>>>>> We gave $67 million in tax breaks and the movie made over a billion
>>>>> dollars. That is inequitable.
>>>>
>>>>You are correct. The state should stop all welfare.
>>>
>>> The two sentences you post above have no relationship to each other.
>>> They aren't even what I said.
>>> Are you determined to be so dishonest by wrongly trying to put into
>>> writing things I have never written.
>>> That is the absolute nadir of dishonesty.
>>
>>You complained that the state gave $67 million in tax breaks (though I'm
>>not sure how confisacting less wealth from someone is the same thing as
>>giving them something). I assumed you saw this as a form of corporate
>>welfare. My apologies if that's not the case.
>
> Basically they didn't have to pay $67,000,000 tax. $67,000,000 that should
> have been paid in tax. They were given $67,000,000 profit.
They earned that money, the state decided not to confiscate it from them.
That's not the same thing as the state giving them money.
>>>>But that's besides the point - the actors you're talking about are not
>>>>employees, they are contractors.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, they were forced to become contractors or they would have no
>>> jobs.
>>
>>...or they would have no jobs with that particular company.
>>
>>There, fixed it for you.
>>
>>>>A union cannot represent them because doing so would amount to price
>>>>fixing, and that is illegal.
>>>
>>> Laws do not dictate morality.
>>
>>You got that right. Though I see nothing immoral happening here.
>
> By not paying tax they were acting immorally.
They paid the taxes that the law demands they pay. Are you saying that
legally avoiding tax is immoral?
--
A.
> On , , Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:33:13 +1300, Re: Peter Jackson, mental
...based on a consensual agreement...
> to make goods or provide
> services to sell at the highest possible prices
...based on a competitive free market...
> to enrich themselves and
> pay as little tax as possible. The capitalist makes money out of surplus
> value.
The working man who does a 9 to 5 day makes money out of surplus value too.
He trades his time and labour with someone for money, some of which he
spends, some of which he saves. How is he not also a capitalist?
>>>>> He has no regard
>>>>> other than gouging as much money as possible out of his workers.
>>>>
>>>>What workers? We're talking about contractors.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>The union wanted a contractor to be treated as an employee, even
>>>>>>>>though the people involved agreed to be contractors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it sets up as usual unequal positions or power, (the
>>>>>>> contracting position wanted by the capitalist)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hang on - the sontract AGREED to be a contractor. Willingly. Every
>>>>>>week they signed a piece of paper stating that their relationship with
>>>>>>their client was one of contracting.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were forced to do that to be employed here in New Zealand.
>>>>
>>>>They weren't forced to do any such thing.
>>>
>>> If they didn't sign then they wouldn't have been employed.
>>
>>They weren't employed, they were contractors. That's my point.
>
> hold onto their jobs.
They weren't forced - they had a choice.
>>>>>>> We don't make anything out of these deals that are done with
>>>>>>> capitalists like Warners or Jackson, apart from tourism which brings
>>>>>>> tourists who come expecting Hobbiton or huge battle scenes all over
>>>>>>> the landscape. Most, if not all, jobs in tourism are basic pay
>>>>>>> positions which entrench workers in wage slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What wages? We're talking about contractors. Not employees.
>>>>>
>>>>> We gave $67 million in tax breaks and the movie made over a billion
>>>>> dollars. That is inequitable.
>>>>
>>>>You are correct. The state should stop all welfare.
>>>
>>> The two sentences you post above have no relationship to each other.
>>> They aren't even what I said.
>>> Are you determined to be so dishonest by wrongly trying to put into
>>> writing things I have never written.
>>> That is the absolute nadir of dishonesty.
>>
>>You complained that the state gave $67 million in tax breaks (though I'm
>>not sure how confisacting less wealth from someone is the same thing as
>>giving them something). I assumed you saw this as a form of corporate
>>welfare. My apologies if that's not the case.
>
> have been paid in tax. They were given $67,000,000 profit.
They earned that money, the state decided not to confiscate it from them.
That's not the same thing as the state giving them money.
>>>>But that's besides the point - the actors you're talking about are not
>>>>employees, they are contractors.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, they were forced to become contractors or they would have no
>>> jobs.
>>
>>...or they would have no jobs with that particular company.
>>
>>There, fixed it for you.
>>
>>>>A union cannot represent them because doing so would amount to price
>>>>fixing, and that is illegal.
>>>
>>> Laws do not dictate morality.
>>
>>You got that right. Though I see nothing immoral happening here.
>
They paid the taxes that the law demands they pay. Are you saying that
legally avoiding tax is immoral?
--
A.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages