CAL-OSHA Visits Porn Set in SoCal on Mon.

[pornlaw]

From Lukeisback.com...

Cal-OSHA?s representative was pleasant and professional. He wanted to know if the sex on set was protected. He passed his card out to all the performers and encouraged them to call or email him if they had any question about their rights.

Cal-OSHA published guidelines about 18 months calling for an end to unprotected sex but this was the first time, to my knowledge, that a Cal-OSHA rep visited a set, inquired if the sex was protected, and handed out his business cards to all the porn actors.

If Cal-OSHA enforces these guidelines, it would be the end of Southern California?s porn industry.

I don?t yet know whose set this was but I?m told it was a major player who came in from the web and that they are not known for shooting features.

AVN knows about this story but they have not yet published anything.

The director copped an attitude, saying we?re not doing anything wrong and here are our permits.

I don?t know if somebody called CAL-OSHA in or if this is just a case of a bureaucracy moving slowly.

This is not going to be pretty if they start regular inspections, mandating condoms and handing out fines.

[MrPinks]

Looks like another way to erradicate hardcore porn from the states. Fucked up.

[RawAlex]

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/AdultFilmIndustry.html

Technically speaking, it would appear that pretty much everything that happens on an adult film set would be against the rules.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/AdultFilmIndustry.html

Technically speaking, it would appear that pretty much everything that happens on an adult film set would be against the rules.

yup, the entire point of porn is to exchange body fluids. this all started a few years ago with the HIV issue. -bmb

[DaddyHalbucks]

At least this government agency is actually trying to help sex workers.

[neewwman]

I want to see a porn movie where they comply with all OSHA recommendations. The guys will be using condoms, pussy-eating will be through dental dams, and everyone will have latex gloves and eye protection!

Next OSHA will set a standard that for a double-anal-penetration scene the stunt cocks can't be more than X number of inches around.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

From Lukeisback.com...



This is not going to be pretty if they start regular inspections, mandating condoms and handing out fines.

Guess I missed it . . . what fines?

[porn blogger]

"If Cal-OSHA enforces these guidelines, it would be the end of Southern California’s porn industry."


That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Who wrote this?

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/AdultFilmIndustry.html

Technically speaking, it would appear that pretty much everything that happens on an adult film set would be against the rules.

There is probably a loophole such as talent being independent contractors as opposed to employees, etc.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by NemesisEnforcer

There is probably a loophole such as talent being independent contractors as opposed to employees, etc.

Unfortunately, they are not independent contractors in the eyes of CAL-OSHA. They already levied fines several years ago against TTBoy. And during a think tank last October they stated publically they were going to treat performers as employees.

[After Shock Media]

Does this mean an end to girls standing on one leg while the other leg is draped across a guys shoulder geting pounded only wearing a pair of 6 inch stilleto heels on a staircase?

[munki]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Does this mean an end to girls standing on one leg while the other leg is draped across a guys shoulder geting pounded only wearing a pair of 6 inch stilleto heels on a staircase?

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Unfortunately, they are not independent contractors in the eyes of CAL-OSHA. They already levied fines several years ago against TTBoy. And during a think tank last October they stated publically they were going to treat performers as employees.

I remember that. Was that ever challenged in court? If not, it should've been.

[minusonebit]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Unfortunately, they are not independent contractors in the eyes of CAL-OSHA. They already levied fines several years ago against TTBoy. And during a think tank last October they stated publically they were going to treat performers as employees.

There is a legal definition as to exactly what constitutes a contractor and an employee. So while OSHA may have decided to "treat" one group as one or the other, doesn't mean thats what they are. Someone needs to take that to Court.

Yeah, porn will be real sexy with protective eye wear.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by minusonebit

There is a legal definition as to exactly what constitutes a contractor and an employee. So while OSHA may have decided to "treat" one group as one or the other, doesn't mean thats what they are. Someone needs to take that to Court.

The unfortunate aspect of that is if they lose, then there's no ambiguity in the law. Sometimes not knowing, from a legal perspective, is better than knowing for sure.

However, in this instance, come December when a California Work Comp Appeals Board Judge decides the fate of a performer that contracted HIV on set we will know for sure. EE vs IC.

I know the Judge and the plaintiff attorney in that case, and I can almost assure you that the decision will be that the performer was in fact an employee.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

However, in this instance, come December when a California Work Comp Appeals Board Judge decides the fate of a performer that contracted HIV on set we will know for sure. EE vs IC.

why don't you just tell us who 'EE' and 'IC' are? it's public information so why not just let us know the parties in this important case?

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

However, in this instance, come December when a California Work Comp Appeals Board Judge decides the fate of a performer that contracted HIV on set we will know for sure. EE vs IC.

If it's the case I'm thinking of, I believe AVN reported that the talent was also hired as an employee to do other things with the company.

[uno]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Does this mean an end to girls standing on one leg while the other leg is draped across a guys shoulder geting pounded only wearing a pair of 6 inch stilleto heels on a staircase?

God I hope not.

[minusonebit]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

The unfortunate aspect of that is if they lose, then there's no ambiguity in the law. Sometimes not knowing, from a legal perspective, is better than knowing for sure.

However, in this instance, come December when a California Work Comp Appeals Board Judge decides the fate of a performer that contracted HIV on set we will know for sure. EE vs IC.

I know the Judge and the plaintiff attorney in that case, and I can almost assure you that the decision will be that the performer was in fact an employee.

I could see that in some cases. Ambiguity is (usually) supposed to be construed to favor the defendant. However, as we all know, thats just not the way it works in real life. What is fair and what should be done has as much to do with a court of law/trial as a ink pen and a wet puppy. In this case, I really think this is one of those things that should be nailed down as being one way or the other. Though, its important that the test case be right and the parties properly represented by competent counsel. Once a precedent is set, it will be triple hard to get it removed later on.

Originally Posted by NemesisEnforcer

If it's the case I'm thinking of, I believe AVN reported that the talent was also hired as an employee to do other things with the company.

If you are both thinking of the same case, then the decision in this mentioned case that is to be decided in December would have nothing to with the hypothetical case we are talking about today, provided that the talent is not also being hired for other things. IIRC, the line between contractor and employee is drawn by some rather in-depth, fairly clear rules in the tax code. I cannot see how it would be hard to determine which side of the fence a given individual falls on.

And while we are on this topic, should point out that hiring talent to do office work (or whatever) is really not a good idea for this very reason. I can think on one hand of the reasons why someone might have done this, all of them ending at having something pretty to look at. Talent should be talent and thats it.

[pornlaw]

The case is Brooke Ashley and there is no confusion here. She was hired as talent. The person everyone is referring to is someone that was hired to do craft services and ended up reviewing the AIM tests. Ashley was talent and only talent on set that day for "The Worlds Biggest Anal GangBang."

As for the tax code, that applies to the IRS, not necessarily the Work Comp Bd or OSHA. I practiced in front of this board and this particular Judge. She is liberal. I also represented Warner Bros and Fox in cases involving claims made by stuntmen. Trust me the court has always determined that the stuntmen are indeed employees, not independent contractors.

If you shoot content in California, be prepared for adverse ruling in December. Im not saying its a lock, but I would be shocked if this Judge ruled that performers in adult films are IC when every other mainstream actor and stuntman is considered an employee.

[minusonebit]

Interesting, well, it does not sound good them then.

What about the case on appeal? How will the appellate courts look at it? Also, is this in front of a Court or an ALJ? I am not that familiar with how and if ALJ decisions are reviewed in CA, but I do know from personal experience in my family that ALJs sometimes come up with whacky decisions that are easily reversed on appeal to a proper Court, when such an option is possible. And sometimes the decisions they crank out hold up.

[Mutt]

Brooke Ashley? that's years ago - and it's just coming up in December of 2007? wow California really is a fucked up state.

[After Shock Media]

Mutt in real life when cases are going all the way to trial, including all the motions, depositions, delays, and everything else sometimes yes years can pass.

[JP-pornshooter]

where will the next porn epicenter be located ? las vegas or possible eastern europe or ? no doubt with these rules being pushed, it is moving out of california.

also i read in lukeisback brandon iron and tony t says they welcome the inspections and thinks it is good osha is protecting the workers safety.. lol thats too funny.. dont think brandon could do a scene with a condom.. most of the studs loose all "wood" when you tell them to put on a condom.

[JP-pornshooter]

where will the next porn epicenter be located ? las vegas or possible eastern europe or ? no doubt with these rules being pushed, it is moving out of california.

also i read in lukeisback brandon iron and tony t says they welcome the inspections and thinks it is good osha is protecting the workers safety.. lol thats too funny.. dont think brandon could do a scene with a condom.. most of the studs loose all "wood" when you tell them to put on a condom.

[GOOFBALL]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

The case is Brooke Ashley and there is no confusion here. She was hired as talent. The person everyone is referring to is someone that was hired to do craft services and ended up reviewing the AIM tests. .

Didnt this entire set of circumstances(infetctions with HIV) happen before AIM existed? I thought this outbreak in 1999 was the catalyst for the formation af AIM.