Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob
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.
|
Not hindsight. I told the FSC this was coming. Go read the articles and the interview I did with Joanne for XBiz on work comp and safety issues.
Quote:
|
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.
|
CalOSHA was NEVER going to work with the FSC on this matter.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Again go read my interview... better yet here's a quote from the article...
Quote:
|
But what will end up happening, and this I can almost guarantee, is that at some point, something is going to happen, whether that's another injury, an HIV outbreak, a special report by a news station, the federal government taking a look at this, a state governmental agency taking a look at this ? something is going to happen at some point where there's going to be more interest in this issue and it could be detrimental for the industry.
|
If you didnt see this coming you had to be wearing blinders. We were told over and over again in Sacramento by the politicians to get our act together on this issue.
Quote:
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.
|
Then start working with the companies to make it happen. Tell them to start offering condoms to those that want them. Might as well see how condom porn sells while there's still some time left. Try having the studios pay for testing and try one test one shoot as a new standard. There's a viable alternative to condoms. Try setting up a hotline that the talent can call to report companies that are in violation to the FSC. Give them an option beyond AHF and CalOSHA. Start policing the industry or someone else will.
Quote:
|
For your information, the FSC still has hundreds and hundreds of companies and individuals supporting its efforts as active members.
|
Sure okay. But on a percentage basis how much money comes from the Big 5 - Wicked, Vivid, Digital Playground, Hustler & Adam & Eve compared to the hundreds of others ?