Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
Dont get me wrong I agree with you about optional condoms, but a judge isnt going to believe either of them. Trying to prove that a performer contracted an STI except for HIV and Hep C and possibly syphilis on set will also be impossible.
It would be akin to proving that you caught a flu from your cubicle mate in an office environment.
The California legislature tried to pass a bill last year (AB 375) in favor of hospital workers placing the burden of proof on the employer to show that because of exposure to a blood borne pathogen an infection DIDNT happen. Burden of proof is usually on the injured worker...
The bill was defeated in the Senate... 20-16
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...b_375&sess=CUR
I dont think there will be a presumption made in favor of pornstars if hospital workers couldnt get one....
If someone at the FSC knew a little something about research legal or otherwise there could be much better arguments being made against Ballot Measure B as B&B points out... |
My point isnt so much that an individual case or whatever of where did you catch it would hold up, its during the appeal when they say heres the helth dept stats on the industry that they are required by law to send us, heres the general population stats, this is why workplace safety laws need to be in place on this industry, they are a burden to the healthcare system and they have a reckless disregard for the safety of their employees, to the extent that they DONT ALLOW condom use.
When it comes time to uphold mandatory condom use that's going to be the hurdle we have to clear and we aren't going to do it with bullshit.
We can do better I know you agree I know Theo agrees I know a lot of people in porn agree, why are we being led around by the dumbest among us?
Is Manwin spending a 250K to lead us all to slaughter so they can further devalue or bankrupt the companies they don't yet own? ( Hey I love a good conspiracy theory even if I dont believe it)