Immigration Issues and Fair Compensation

Short jobs and short change

_50 issues of NZTECHO, that’s quite a milestone. _

Big thanks are due to** Tim Pope** and Tony Forster, our first two editors, for bringing us this far!

Immigration is an ongoing issue for the Techos’ Guild with the system as it is at present proving to be confused and inadequate.

I’ve heard it suggested that any job of 14 days or less should not require work permits for any crew coming in from off-shore. This would cover most incoming commercials and a great deal of other screen production work being done in this country. The argument can be made that this is only ever likely to mean a DoP coming in along with a director and producer. But if no work permits were required for these ‘short’ jobs then any crew or cast member would be allowed into the country, no questions asked, without any discussion and without any need for consideration of who might be suitable and available locally.

Such a scenario clearly goes against the spirit of our immigration law which is primarily designed to protect our borders and put the Kiwi workforce ahead of those from off-shore.

It can be argued that allowing a more open border policy could actually be good for local business, but it can also be argued that once we lose sight of who’s coming in to work here we are in danger of becoming no more than a service industry in our own country. On top of this there really is no other reliable way of ensuring visiting productions make contact with the NZ screen production industry which is necessary if we are to take good care of our locations and keep a watchful eye on health and safety issues within our industry. The immigration/work-visa application process also provides an avenue for gathering important information about what screen production is taking place here in Aotearoa.

It will always be a balancing act, weighing up the benefits of off-shore crew coming in against potential work gains and/or losses for local crew. I believe that balance should not be taken out of the hands of those most affected by the process.

Disturbing news about an Australian production company which was working on a commercial here in NZ earlier this year. It seems the Australian producers have been reluctant to pay cancellation fees to the soundie who was working on the job but whose services were cancelled with no notice and through no fault of their own. The soundie submitted an invoice for work completed, and work cancelled at no notice, but the Aussie producers argued that they should not have to pay any cancellation fees for the soundie’s equipment.

Would any of you running a truck full of equipment accept a cancellation fee which covered only your personal fee with no compensation for the loss of income from your equipment? A techo’s equipment, be it sound recording gear, a truck full of grip equipment or a wardrobe bus, is a major investment for the person who owns and hires out that gear and as such is also a major component of that person’s income, so why would one not charge a cancellation fee which includes the loss of income from that equipment?

After three months and a flurry of e-mails the situation has come to a resolution. The soundie’s invoice has now been paid. [Great outcome, I hear you sigh with relief. Well, yes, I got a bit happy myself. But before we totally lose sight of a reasonable world, ask yourself: Do you think the payment came with interest covering the period that the soundie waited for payment that – after all – they’d been due all along?… EO