|
Michael,
First, I can only speak for myself, not the FSC.
Diane, the Executive Director, and Jeffrey, the Chairman of the Board, are in-route from Cartagena to LA. I will forward your comments to them for a response. They know much more about this issue than I do.
But, I will say this.....looking backward with perfect hindsight as you are, I believe that attempting to work within the system to affect change is still preferred to litigation when such an approach is possible.
Litigation will place one in a permanent adversarial relationship with CalOSHA which makes future cooperation difficult. The FSC's mission statement says that it will use litigation only as a last resort. I have found that some attorneys don't really agree with this position.
As the rule in question has been on the books for years and unenforced, who knew that it would, suddenly, become a major concern, AHF would become a major agitator, or an actor would proclaim to the world how poorly the Industry had treated him.
Personally, I do believe that we need to provide our talent a safe work environment. The rub comes in who defines "safe"? Is 99%, 99.9% or is 99.9999% safe enough? Condoms break, splashes and accidents happen; therefore, no safety equipment will be absolutely 100% safe, 100% of the time.
Should our efforts be focused on prevention at the testing level; or, focused on transmission on the sets? Or, both? Again, personally, I'd like to see our industry's talent healthy and disease free so I think testing should be the emphasis instead of transmission by bodily fluids. But, I am just one person and not a decider in this matter.
For your information, the FSC still has hundreds and hundreds of companies and individuals supporting its efforts as active members.
Yours,
Redrob
|