Does the National Minimum Wage (NMW) mean the end of micro budget film making the UK?

Let me start by saying, I don’t like polarised positions and I don’t like being drawn into debate where parties end up demonising each other. I seek to unite and not to divide. In that spirit, I have been asked to get involved in a very important debate on the National Minimum Wage in the UK.

Last year BECTU (the film and TV technicians union) won a ‘landmark’ case which seemed to imply that Indie film makers may be exposed to prosecution IF they do not pay the National Minimum Wage (NMW). Even if the crew members who got involved know and agree that there would be low or no pay, the producers could still be prosecuted under this law.

It’s a great headline grabber.

But the law itself is a minefield. Everyone interprets it in a different way, based on their own preconception and of course, their own beliefs and working practices. The whole area is a mess of contradiction, misinformation and woolly legal interpretations (and implied threats from some quarters) of a law that was never created for, or indeed suited to, the creative businesses (never mind low budget film making, what about fringe theatre or a local band playing down the pub, both in clear breach of the national minimum wage).

Next week, I am taking part in a formal parliamentary style debate between two BECTU members, one of whom is Martin Spence (who will be arguing for the national minimum wage to be applied to low budget film making) and with co-founder of Shooting People Jess Search and myself (opposing the national minimum wage being applied to low budget film making).

This is all couched under the less in your face motion of… ‘Working for free is the only way for new entrants to get a foot in the door of the film and television industry but are you shooting yourself in the foot?’

So are you for it or against it? (why do you have to be one of the other? So just to be clear, I am both for it and against it, just a little more for it, based on my own life experiences).

BECTU have organised the event in an attempt to better understand the problems and differences we all face in regard to this idea. Their aim is to draw up a code of conduct for indie film makers to follow so they can get behind it. And like most indie film makers who have looked into this problem, I do find myself agreeing with BECTU on many points. No-one wants to see people being genuinely and knowingly exploited by unscrupulous producers.

But… Will this actually help? Do we actually need more rules and regulations to ‘protect’ vulnerable film makers? I also find myself at logger heads with some of BECTU’s more aggressive assertions. And some I find downright offensive. More importantly, they are simply unsustainable and unworkable.

Frankly, this whole debate makes me quite sad.

In many ways, it’s very regressive thinking, harking back to an industry of yesteryear. In days gone by, there really were clear paths for film and TV professionals to follow, from assistants and runners, all the way up the ladder to the top of their chosen game. Back then, there was a viable and stable market for films, and a good producer could make a business of it, based on proven working practices and budgets.

I guess in those days, this kind of thinking and legislation made sense.

But in 2010, most film makers I know are producers, directors, self shooting, self editing, helping and collaborating on each others films, sharing knowledge and information generously... (I might add, back in the ‘good old days’, no-one shared any information, they kept it all to themselves, hence our Guerilla Film Makers Handbook). Today, the notion of a single career path seems a little absurd to myself and many other indie film makers I can call my friends. And the concept of a national minimum wage? Honestly? When we have spoken about it, we kind of giggle at it as a concept. It’s just kind of ridiculous out in the real world that I know and struggle through every day. I can only assume that the people who proposed this law have never been involved in a massive ‘against all odds’ creative endeavour such as a low budget film.

For me, there was no way into the film business unless I kind of smashed my way in (or you have personal wealth and connections). And no-one actually knows what the film industry will look like tomorrow (and I mean literally tomorrow, not one day some day…) Everything is sooooo unstable and in evolutionary flux.
 
I believe we are in a revolution as big as the industrial revolution. It’s MASSIVE! The industry is changing on a daily basis and I genuinely don’t know where a union such as BECTU belongs in this brave new world, let alone one who appears to take a stance where they may aggressively pursue film makers for alleged breaches of a law that is as open for interpretation as the NMW law appears to be. Maybe not open for interpretation legally, but certainly practically.

Of course in times like this there will be casualties – we are inside a brave new evolution of the film business. But there will also be extraordinary successes too. Inhibiting these breakthroughs by enforcing draconian and outdated thinking will only curb creativity, for both artists and entrepreneurs. And that is good for no-one.

And so I hope that BECTU really strive to find a middle ground. Lighten up a little. Go with the flow.

My final thoughts? If you have been to my blog before you will know I often film events to share knowledge with other film makers. And so I am going to ask BECTU if a couple of my friends can come and shoot the event so it can be edited, uploaded and shared with everyone who cannot make it (I am happy to organise the filming, get an editor in and to upload the event to the web all for FREE!).

But…

I will need to ask a few of my friends to do this for no-pay as there is no budget to do it. Sadly, I guess that to avoid breaching the NMW at a union organised event, I can only conclude that I had better not do it, just in case, you know, I get prosecuted. So if you can’t attend because you live too far away, for now, tough luck. You just experienced the effect of the National Minimum Wage on film making in 2010. It’s there to protect you and me. ;-)

I am of course being deliberately sabre rattling antagonistic. I only mean to illustrate the minefield ahead of us all in the UK.

Onwards and upwards!

Chris Jones, Film Maker and Author
www.livingspirit.com
mail@livingspirit.com

Comments

[Alex]

It would make me very happy if I were able to pay the minimum wage or more to anyone I have as crew! That's what we're all aiming for, making a living out of what we love to do. Equity don't seem to have a problem with actors acting for the love of it so why should BECTU have a problem with crew? If they do then I guess we'll have to look at using the phrase 'interns' instead of 'crew'.

[Mark]

For film makers the likely outcome is you will probably never make money I've never understood why a film maker is expected to pay for the privelage of directing or producing and pay everyones wages out of their own pocket and everyone else can learn their craft at his hers expense.

Most film makers are broke and we are all in the same boat We want to be succesful in our chosen fields and have to learn to a high standard

Its a collaberation benefitting those involved. In this way we all LEARN on a meagre amount of money If not how is anyone going to learn the film business which will be more closed off than it is.

Maybe thse acting in amatuer theatre and come to think of it those at school college or university should get paid.

With many film makers its quite scary seeing the sacrifice and often the result of that Often struggling to pay bills and yet still giving up what little money they have for the production. Even if you managed to get worldwide distribution they'd be lucky to claw back the budget Its expected if you should break out the first film wont make much its the world that opens after that may offer a professional career where pay is the norm.

Maybe some would say if you want to make a film then you have to pay all the costs I'd say in that case making a film on a low budget would be the domain of the wealthy and fools wishing to make themselves homeless and possibly in prison.

Is this just another way the social elite can stop the working class from ever breaking in Are we now a threat that needs to be stopped? Many times I've been denied opportunites becasue of my social status and its only this country thats ike that Thats why many leave whether in education or any other area of work or play there is a social glass ceiling and in truth Im sick of it. To me this is just another one of those games under the pretext of do gooding.

[Rob]

I believe that this debate works in a couple of ways. As a young filmmaker/ Runner, I can really appreciate how important voluntary work is to get your foot in the door. Without this option, productions would use the same runners for reliability and ease, and there would be no way of entry for the thousands of other budding filmmakers to use.

The NMW was put in place to stop exploitation, and I believe this is totally necessary in most jobs, shop work for example. However, when working on productions, many filmmakers, independent or otherwise, do have a set of rules that they abide to, and I know that I have always been taken care of on set.

This, of course, might not be similar with every production, but I think rather than bringing in the NMW, which could be very destructive to many indie producers, a better solution may be to make sure that every production has a very specific contract to abide by. This would detail exactly which each crew member can expect, with all the usuals such as being fed, and that way, the independent section of the industry can continue to run freely....

[Christopher Hughes]

Nobody puts a gun to your head to work or want to work in the film and television industry. But with a government that wants fairness and equality and industry, i.e tax receipts to get us out of this financial toilet we are in as a country, may be we should be questioning why they want NMW for every one. Well one possible reason is the tax and national insurance they will collect, not saying it would be much but every little hurts. I am a firm believer that people shouldn't take advantage of others but going to University to study film for argument sake will these days cost you anything up to £20K and you'll not be qualified to make tea on a film set. You will still have to start off at the bottom and learn the business. I learned more working on my first movie for a £100 a week than I learned in three years of university, which cost me £10K, who's taking advantage of who?

And lets face it we do unpaid jobs we are looking to get something out of it, contacts, training, or even just get out of the house, between paid jobs. It should be remembered without the paid job we couldn't do the free one as we got to it you know. If you don't like it don't do it, the industry is not for everyone, nor is it big enough.

[ADP]

Hmm I see both sides of this argument.

When I started in this game the non paid work was essential for me making contacts and gaining experience and I feel taking away this opportunity would be crushing to the industry as a whole.

However when 90% of job roles are advertised like 'crew member wanted with own equipment expenses only' it screams exploitation and I feel this is equally damaging.

I believe that entry roles shouldn't be monitored (as they in essence are work experience) but to ask for department heads to work for free is kinda taking the mick.

HOWEVER I do see an alternative to all this trouble!

If, before the project started, the producers of micro budget productions would have to officially define their efforts as either 'amateur' or 'professional' I think this could be a way of making it fair for everyone involved.

This way if the project was created to make money then of course the crew should be paid correctly... however if made as a hobby or student production then the NMW could be wavered.

My two pence worth anyway :)

[Pete]

You would of course have to get the speakers and the audience to sign waivers for you to distribute the footage on YouTube.

Something tells me you don't want any regulation, which in turn means no protection for anyone who is in any way involved in your films.

Its still work even if you call yourself an artist.

[Mark Morris]

Every film msker wants his film to be succesful and thinks there idea will be the one that breaks through but thats very rare. So how would you define professional? ITV Channel four the BBC all have a guaranteed income what income does an independent film maker with no backing have? because all of them or should I say 99% are going to lose money. They will overspend on credit cards work hard cleaning beg borrow and steal in the production process Oh wouldnt it be nice to be a learning actor or crew member given an opportunity all they have to do is learn the part and turn up to practice their craft and spend no money. Maybe a fairer deal is all the crew and cast PAY the film maker who then gives everyone a percentage of the profits.. Heh heh. Thats A GREAT IDEA.

[Guy Rowland]

ADP makes some good points. This is an industry that lumps everything together below a few million as "low budget". There needs to be a clear distinction for genuinely microbudget features - everyone knows is the best way to start, and for everyone to learn their trade.

But, as ADP says, I see the microbudget ethos creeping into the mainstream, and I DON'T think that's a good thing. Proper production companies with real budgets are increasingly relying on ultra-cheap or free labour, while keeping their profit margins.

Your job, Chris Jones, is to steer a way through this! Film and TV is (still) a genuine career, and employees get old, have families with mouths to feed etc. But entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged. I think BECTU should be looking at defining what microbudget is and isn't, and waiving NMW requirements for true microbudget filmmakers.. surely this can't be beyond the wit of supposedly intelligent people, can it?!

[Dominic Took]

Films, especially features can be so huge in size that you need a lot of people. I like other people would happily pay people fully for their time if I had the money, but generally this isn't feasible.

All I can really think of is, god forbid I came into the indsutry in a few years (IF) we go this way and films get harder to make. It will probably cause the industry to shrink before it adapts and then blossoms again (as is the way). But the real question here is, who will it cut off? It may just cut off the next Spielberg or Mike Leigh. We can't know what their early backgrounds were all like and where they came from. It could even have stopped you Chris and you've done a lot for indie filmakers.

It's never as bad as it looks, fact of life, but who will it ostracize? That's my question.

[Amir]

I honestly cannot see how this won't seriously damage indie filmmaking, especially as there is so little money going around as it is. It will mean less opportunities for emerging talent, less opportunities for people wanting to gain valuable experience and less of the budget being on screen.

Yes it is still work, but the realm of low to no budget is a different beast entirely from fully financed pictures and should not be thought of or treated in the same way. This issue is most definitely anti-guerilla filmmaking...

Perhaps some kind of 'volunteer' contract will need to be put in place in the future- if the worker is willing, then why should there be an issue- it's their choice after all- plus, its not as if they get nothing in return- you can't buy the kind of experience you get on a film set- they may not get paid in pound sterling, but they are rewarded with experience- its an investment of their time and effort that is rewarded down the line.

[Richard Purves]

We're now living in a time where there has never been less cash available for the struggling filmmaker, and as a result the rug has quite literally been pulled from under our feet.

I'll give a real world example. The short film I directed back in 2007 had a total budget of £3500. We shot over four days, 12 hours a day and there was a minimum of six members of crew on set at all times.

So assuming minimum wage at £5.80 per hour, that's £278.40 per person or £1670.40 extra i'd have to have found just to pay the crew! That's a lot of money considering I financed the entire film from my own pocket. (I've deliberately left out cast in order to keep the maths simple, since they won't always needed every day.)

A fellow filmmaking friend of mine made the point of "can people not volunteer and work for free that way?". The link Chris posts has an interesting guideline .pdf for download. To summarise, if what people are doing on set cannot be classed as a "Volunteer Learning Activity", then they're considered an employee and you have to pay them. This pretty much exempts most film projects.

This sudden change in regulations has completely scuppered my low budget film plans for next year. It will make the various short film schemes run by the regional funding bodies virtually impossible to be workable unless their budgets are dramatically increased.

But back to my original point. There's a distinct lack of private investment cash available, and the new rules only serve to make that scarcer still as everyone's budgets suddenly jump through the roof.

The no to low budget film in the UK is now dead thanks to these rules and guidelines. I now see a lot of filmmakers who are simply going to leave the country as a result because it's now impossible to generate a track record of feature films without breaking the law! (Who's going to give anyone £250k or more now with only short films behind them?)

[Benetta Adamson]

"I also find myself at logger heads with some of BECTU’s more aggressive assertions. And some I find downright offensive. More importantly, they are simply unsustainable and unworkable."

Which assertions are those, Chris?

As the lone voice here of the "opposition" (of which concept, more later) let's backtrack over this ground for a moment.

BECTU supported a worker who had been enticed by ads in Mandy.com and Shooting People (among others) into an unpaid placement on a feature film. She was one of many on that project who was misled and abused; I understand many people were left considerably out of pocket when hire charges were not reimbursed, for instance. Nicola was the only person who felt able to put her head above the parapet and protest.

The producers boasted of a self-funded budget of several million pounds. These weren't struggling independent filmmakers, they were rich playboys making a vanity project. They simply decided not to pay their junior crew: why on earth should they, if they're queuing up to work for nothing?

There is no new legislation. The National Minimum Wage has been on the statutes for well over ten years. What is new is that finally someone was willing to cry foul, and I haven't heard anyone from the independent filmmaking community who wants to defend "London Dreams Motion Pictures Inc".

I don't think the real collaborators Chris describes want anything to do with operations like this one. But how on earth is anyone meant to tell the difference between them?

BECTU is not and has never been against genuine collaborations, but BECTU is very definitely against the cynical exploitation of keen new entrants to the industry. So let's get together and come up with a code of practice that everyone's comfortable with to act as a sort of kite mark and exclude the parasites. That's what this debate is about. Join us at ULU on 18th March to get the conversation underway.

PS: "Opposition". Unfortunately the nature of these kinds of debates (whether the forthcoming live debate or indeed some of the discussion on the internet) is that people tend to take sides. I don't believe that's very helpful, not least because in the end we all believe in much the same thing, as Chris acknowledges. There is a middle ground which will allow low budget movie making to flourish, but without that enthusiasm and goodwill being turned to pure and simple exploitation for the profit of others - as exemplified by London Dreams.

[Mark Morris]

All to often those in the lower ranks are just forgotten about or dismissed to fight maybe a single example or even a few examples that exploit loopholes.

Lets hope the laws reflect common sense and accomadate collaberation projects for films maybe below a certain budget for example Because if they dont then they ruin the possible futures of film makers and the promotion of new talent for the future. Unless of course your wealthy which would be a sad indictment of Bectu who shut off all opportunity save for the rich with an explanation we did it for your own good.

Funny how the rich get richer and the poor poorer aided by laws made allegedly for the poors benefit.

Already this country is stifled by glass ceilings everywhere Look at the film industry and who gets on these days.

[Pete]

If its a student film then the resources are funded by the educational establishment.

Its incorrect to assume its the student's responsibility - its the film school/uni's responsibility. Some of them are charging their students £18,000+ per annum.

Get the film schools paying everyone and we might have started an educative process for the long term sustainability of our industry.

[Mark Watson]

Chris, your posting does suggest someone who is deliberately agitating the pond to cloud over the real issues. The point of the debate is to see if it is possible to create a way of working where no-one is exploited and everyone benefits from the work they are doing, without falling foul of the (very old) regulations.

It's very obvious, very "old thinking" and very inaccurate to suggest that BECTU is trying to drag everybody backwards and into the courts. And these gren happy fields where filmmakers play together happily in perfect harmony and collaborative joy is not a description of the real world at all - not the one where most young people have to work unpaid for months on end on other people's ill conceived, uninsured pet projects or free videos for commercial bands in oirder to make a start in the industry...

[Mark Morris]

And these gren happy fields where filmmakers play together happily in perfect harmony and collaborative joy is not a description of the real world at all

It's closer though than your one.

not the one where most young people have to work unpaid for months on end on other people's ill conceived, uninsured pet projects or free videos for commercial bands in oirder to make a start in the industry...

Film makers romping in green fields Other peoples ill concieved pet projects? Thats pretty insulting? AND worse they're not even insured slave driving poor innocent cast and crew. WOW Nice put down labelling for those at the bottom.

My goodness it sounds like film making except for those who have money really is going to be over for those without BIG wallets.

Why dont you concentrate in areas that count like how the BFC spend all the money on plush offices and red tape and help out friends like tessa jowells husband.

[Mark Watson]

I can't distill much meaning from what you have typed, however the fact that other people and organisations are behaving badly is hardly a justification for others to do so.

[Mark Morris]

I'd like to make it clear to all film makers out there that I would be very interested to here of any acting roles you might have for me to audition for or any crewing posts and if I like the project and can work around my jobs etc maybe I may need to take time off whatever then I'll work for free even for a big production company. I recognise the hard work you put in and the likliehood you may never make any money only lose and I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to promote myself and to learn and to showcase to potentially the world what I can do. If I give a performance that make you loads of money then good luck to you I want none of it only the great opportunity that will afford me in the future. I am of sound mind although that might be argued by some new rule makers I will never allow myself to be exploited and I do appreciate any opportunity that can be given to me.

I guess that makes me a victim who needs to be protected from himself so thank goodness Bectu can come along and tell me what to do and correct my mind...

[Richard Purves]

Pete: I don't know what educational establishments you've been to, but I not only paid for my tuition fees ... I also had to pay for any expenses incurred in making my student films excluding equipment hire.

So I paid over the odds for various tutorials and equipment hire. Yeah they're really going to take on that extra expense, especially when educational funding is being slashed across the board in this country.

[Christopher Hughes]

As a member of BECTU I have seen this discussion going on for some time and unfortunately the union movement has become marginalised in recent years especially in the film industry. They have little or no influence in independent film production other that though the PACT agreements which need the producers to be signed up to for it to mean anything. Studio movies yes BECTU has influence, low budget not really. For me safety is the most is the most important aspect of working on anything, paid or not, that and insurance. Cover this and every one is happy. The NMW is important for those who work in full time employment, and I am talking long term employment but film production unless you are the producer or director is not going to go on for more than a couple of months in the low budget world. I'm not saying this is an excuse but it becomes a choice because there is no expectation of long term employment of career development and both sides are aware of this and so the employer is 'not taking' advantage because everyone is aware of what they are getting into. I would love BECTU to be more supportive of the British Film Industry but it would seem they are more concerned with being a union and not really the industry their members represent. Everyone wants to be paid and it is an industry after all and an industry where everyone should have an equal chance of working in but adding restrictions will mean the industry will become less inclusive (old boys network) and far smaller. Positive? I'm not sure.

[Mark Watson]

It's great to hear you are very happy to work unpaid Mark Morris, I'm sure it's something that will work well for you for many years to come. Many young people don't share that sanguinity about paying their bills however, and it's good to know that BECTU can protect them against employers who seek to deprive them of what they are legally due.

[Pete]

Richard,

"So I paid over the odds for various tutorials and equipment hire."

Hmm prepared to pay for paid professionals to tutor you but not for others.

What kind of a future do you want. One where no one pays but some people can make a fast buck off the back of others - so something better and altogether more sustainable not aimed at supporting those with the most money who can afford to work for nothing.

[Mark Morris]

QUOTE
It's great to hear you are very happy to work unpaid Mark Morris,

No when I work as a cleaner I get paid I dont consider film making at my level as work I consider it to be an opportunity and a dream of breaking into a future better life. My work as a cleaner pays my bills AND I WORK DAMN HARD for a pittance..

Do you think its right I should work harder than many and get the minimum wage? Why should those born to wealth get opportunities and those with the right backgrounds get on and do well? Do you think those in government should have gold plated pensions yet steal. Your thinking is all the wrong way round BECAUSE you only care about members of your union often times those in our British film industry get there through friends of friends or relatives working there or money and that all involved in the film industry should be under its protection and that makes you a liability to those at the lower end who want to break in whose chances you would remove by making those with no money pay everyone Am I being hard on you? Your here trying your best to take away my dreams and the dreams of all those on the outside with little hope. I could make a film that might be good enough to bypass all the old establishment and turn it on its head maybe you need to protect your members from those in the lower ranks or maybe its insurance that you need to squash everything I and others are working for. Your posts have turned to sarcasm and putdowns which basically means you lost the argument and now have to resort to underming me as a person.

QUOTE
I'm sure it's something that will work well for you for many years to come. Many young people don't share that sanguinity about paying their bills however,

QUOTE

and it's good to know that BECTU can protect them against employers who seek to deprive them of what they are legally due

I THINK THAT statement sums you up your agenda is your union AND is seemingly more important than those in it.

now Im going to take a guess here and say that possibly Bectu members are mostly working in the industry and its convenient to close down opportunities for anyone else breaking in especially working class.

jobs are hard to find and your organisation can help cut out any future competition. making it more attractive to those working and divi it all out between your members isnt that the REAL strategy?

[Pete]

Mark,

I think you need to consider what a union is there for. It exists to protect and improve workers pay and conditions - its not a society of artists or technicians or a glee club.
Don't knock it for doing exactly what it says its supposed to do on the tin.

[Daniel Cormack]

You are right to put 'landmark' in inverted commas. BECTU's press
release said "Expenses-only engagements are illegal". No caveats. No
qualifications. It was patently absurd.

I make no apologies for London Dreams who by all accounts were utter
rogues in many ways other than asking people to work for free.
However, to tar every low budget filmmaker with the same brush and to
exaggerate the implications of the tribunal decision was always going
to be tactical blunder.

If the London Dreams tribunal set such an all-encompassing precedent,
why did BECTU feel compelled to use union members' subs to pursue a
second case which had an obvious legal impediment and was thrown out
by the judge before it even came to be heard? It smacks of
desperation.

I am totally unconvinced by this eleventh hour attempt to win hearts
and minds. It was obvious from the BECTU press release and the
increasing belligerence of the closely allied attack forum that their
initial reaction was to go on the war path. The clunking fist
approach.

It was only once the internet forum was closed down (not once but
TWICE!) for numerous abuses and the Shooting People survey showed a
resounding majority of its membership supported an individual's
freedom to choose that we suddenly saw this charm offensive.

I believe it is only a matter of time before this small "group of
undemocratic anonymous agit-proppers" (in their own words) revert to
type and start the abuse again.

Furthermore, past experience has shown that any written documents made
with the union - especially those masquerading under the title of a
"quality mark" or a "charter" or "guidelines" - will be treated as de
facto binding agreements on ALL filmmakers which can be progressively
advanced and "improved". Indeed, I remember one BECTU meeting I
attended where the supervisory official had just returned very
excitedly from some jolly involving international entertainment
industry unions. The Americans had told him that the best tactic was
to get any kind of agreement as a "foot in the door" which could then
be used as a wedge to extract further concessions. As an example of
how "guidelines" are used (or rather misused), I give you the
GUIDELINES FOR TELEVISION EMPLOYERS OFFERING WORK EXPERIENCE
PLACEMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS created in 2006/7. Not only were these
"guidelines" treated as if they had some sort of status in law, but
they were also applied extensively to filmmakers who were not making
"Television", were not "Employers" and were not offering "work
experience" nor who were even a member of any of the organisations
which were consulted during the creation of the "guidelines", eg.
PACT.

Shooting People - and indeed any similar organisation approached by
BECTU - should take independent advice and offer GUIDES to its members
rather than having GUIDELINES handed down to them by BECTU. If
nothing else, Shooting People is not constituted to collectively
bargain on behalf of employers with trade unions.

Chris, I wish you the best of luck in the debate and I hope you do get
to record the event and put it up on your website. One of the most
striking things about the way BECTU has handled this issue is their
desire to regulate what information comes into the public domain.
It's the old-fashioned "command and control" school of PR, which has
become virtually obsolete with the rise of the internet. The London
Dreams tribunal was kept hush-hush so that BECTU could get its
triumphant (but demonstrably false) headline before anyone in the
press or the industry could subject their puffed up claims to any
proper scrutiny. Similarly, the failure of the second tribunal was
kept extremely quiet and when news leaked out that it had been thrown
out there was some considerable consternation on their newly restored
forum.

In spite of transparent attempts to rig the event in BECTU's favour, I
believe you will make a good argument. A positive and moderate
approach will always win over a negative and extremist one.

--

Actaeon Films Ltd, 50 Gracefield Gardens, London, SW16 2ST, UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 (0)208 769 3339
Fax: +44 (0)870 134 7980
Mob: +44 (0)7855 859 546
daniel@actaeonfilms.com
www.actaeonfilms.com