5 ms·

I’ll admit I’m inferring a lot from a single anecdote here: but from when I toured Weta the guide we had seemed very honest in saying the high proportion of con

I’ll admit I’m inferring a lot from a single anecdote here: but from when I toured Weta the guide we had seemed very honest in saying the high proportion of contract employees was because of the unpredictable nature of the work. She’d work there for 6mo, then a project would wrap, and she’d have to go find a different job. Hopefully being able to come back if/when the next project came a long. That’s a very different experience to the rite of passage a lot of devs (myself included) have taken because there’s high constant demand and high day rates.

follower 5y ago
Weta & Peter Jackson explicitly went out of their way to get a law change to prevent people who were working in the industry from having the worker protections to which they were entitled. Thus, they're not "contract employees" but "independent contractors"--which, without the law change, wouldn't have been legal in the same way "gig workers" failed to meet the criteria of "independent" in many places/cases (e.g. working for more than one client at a time, having control over work location etc). (There was some recent coverage of this history in this article (although it appears the relevant full text is not available online): https://web.archive.org/web/20210921132447/https://northandsouth.co.nz/2021/09/12/1-billion-and-counting/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210921132447/https://northands...)
LAC-Tech 5y ago
I get that most NZ 'contractors' are de-factor permanent employees doing long stints that are quite stable. But for me - 6 months is a good engagement length. Happy to move on at that point. Have no insider scoop on Weta in particular, but just hitting back that having contractors instead of employees is somehow unethical.
- follower 5y ago
  > just hitting back that having contractors instead of employees is somehow unethical. It's unethical when the people concerned aren't independent contractors but are treated as such because it's cheaper for the company (e.g. in regard to sick pay, holiday pay etc) than treating them as employees. If you like a 6 month engagement length, that's cool, there's nothing stopping you from agreeing to a 6 month employment contract. Although even that is unethical on a company's part if they're taking advantage of power imbalances in the employment market to transfer risk/cost onto employees only "agreeing" to short term contracts under duress.
  - LAC-Tech 5y ago
    But I don't want to be an employee. I want to be a contractor. With all the rights & responsibilities that entails. I mean how far do we take this - you've got 3 months worth of building to be done at your house, so you have to form an LLC and employ carpenters directly?
    - follower 5y ago
      > I want to be a contractor. With all the rights & responsibilities that entails. Cool, and one of those responsibilities is ensuring that the contract arrangement is that of independent contractor and not employee. (Well, actually, it's more that your right as an employee is that your employer has the responsibility to ensure the arrangement isn't being misrepresented. So, really, you're free to make whatever arrangement you like but if your "client" is actually your employer they open themselves up to legal risk.) And, if your arrangement meets the legal criteria, then great, you can be a contractor. And, if it doesn't, then you can "lobby" the government to change the law so that you get what you want and other people get to be more easily exploited by their employers. Or, you know, you can ensure that you have multiple clients, work at times & locations & on equipment controlled by you, on specific pre-agreed tasks and/or whatever other legal requirements need to be met to be considered a contractor. With regard to the carpenters, company structure is unrelated to whether or not you're considered an employer by law. If the arrangement you have with the carpenters meets the criteria of being an employer/employee relationship, then, that's what it is. But most likely they're independent contractors free to accept & refuse work as they wish, have & use their own tools etc etc or they're employees of a building firm you've actually contracted with.
aprdm 5y ago
Digital Artists who are contract based are not the ones developing software, the ratio is probably around 100 people in tech for 1k artists

follower 5y ago

Weta & Peter Jackson explicitly went out of their way to get a law change to prevent people who were working in the industry from having the worker protections to which they were entitled. Thus, they're not "contract employees" but "independent contractors"--which, without the law change, wouldn't have been legal in the same way "gig workers" failed to meet the criteria of "independent" in many places/cases (e.g. working for more than one client at a time, having control over work location etc). (There was some recent coverage of this history in this article (although it appears the relevant full text is not available online): https://web.archive.org/web/20210921132447/https://northandsouth.co.nz/2021/09/12/1-billion-and-counting/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210921132447/https://northands...)

LAC-Tech 5y ago

I get that most NZ 'contractors' are de-factor permanent employees doing long stints that are quite stable. But for me - 6 months is a good engagement length. Happy to move on at that point. Have no insider scoop on Weta in particular, but just hitting back that having contractors instead of employees is somehow unethical.

follower 5y ago
> just hitting back that having contractors instead of employees is somehow unethical. It's unethical when the people concerned aren't independent contractors but are treated as such because it's cheaper for the company (e.g. in regard to sick pay, holiday pay etc) than treating them as employees. If you like a 6 month engagement length, that's cool, there's nothing stopping you from agreeing to a 6 month employment contract. Although even that is unethical on a company's part if they're taking advantage of power imbalances in the employment market to transfer risk/cost onto employees only "agreeing" to short term contracts under duress.
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  But I don't want to be an employee. I want to be a contractor. With all the rights & responsibilities that entails. I mean how far do we take this - you've got 3 months worth of building to be done at your house, so you have to form an LLC and employ carpenters directly?
  - follower 5y ago
    > I want to be a contractor. With all the rights & responsibilities that entails. Cool, and one of those responsibilities is ensuring that the contract arrangement is that of independent contractor and not employee. (Well, actually, it's more that your right as an employee is that your employer has the responsibility to ensure the arrangement isn't being misrepresented. So, really, you're free to make whatever arrangement you like but if your "client" is actually your employer they open themselves up to legal risk.) And, if your arrangement meets the legal criteria, then great, you can be a contractor. And, if it doesn't, then you can "lobby" the government to change the law so that you get what you want and other people get to be more easily exploited by their employers. Or, you know, you can ensure that you have multiple clients, work at times & locations & on equipment controlled by you, on specific pre-agreed tasks and/or whatever other legal requirements need to be met to be considered a contractor. With regard to the carpenters, company structure is unrelated to whether or not you're considered an employer by law. If the arrangement you have with the carpenters meets the criteria of being an employer/employee relationship, then, that's what it is. But most likely they're independent contractors free to accept & refuse work as they wish, have & use their own tools etc etc or they're employees of a building firm you've actually contracted with.

aprdm 5y ago

Digital Artists who are contract based are not the ones developing software, the ratio is probably around 100 people in tech for 1k artists