Adult Agencies Now Being Targeted By California Department of Industrial Relations
 

From
http://www.mikesouth.com

On Saturday morning I got a text message from the owner of a big porn agency.

“You were right”

I asked, what can you tell me? here it is in a nutshell.

AHF filed a complaint against one of the agencies represented by LATATA. The complaint was based on the idea that California Labor Law 1700.33 was being violated by porn agencies. That law states that agents can not knowingly send a person to a hazardous work environment. AHF alleges that the agency sent people to porn sets were condoms were not used, even though required by law and that is, according to AHF, a hazardous work environment.

The California Department of Industrial Relations has launched an investigation into that complaint and charges are expected. LATATA intends to fight on behalf of it’s member.

When I asked if LATATA could expect any help from the producer whose set was alleged to be hazardous, the answer was what was expected….No.

I am sure the FSC will pay it some lip service but I wouldn’t look to them for any help either.

If porners still think they are going to circumvent the condom laws they had better pay close attention to what is happening here. AHF is attacking on multiple fronts, they are equipped to spend a lot of money to see this through and they are preparing for war. The FSC amounts to a bunch of idiots shooting themselves in the foot, Porn had better come together, quick,.

What needs to happen is a migration OUT of LA for porn companies to survive all this shit.

Canada? Las Vegas? Miami? Eastern Europe? Where's the best place to relocate and carry on doing biz as usual? That's what I'd be figuring out about now....

I dont think that would help. AHF will follow porn wherever it goes. plus thats like saying Hollywood should move somewhere else...it really isnt practical...much cheaper to fight it intelligently. Of course porners have never done anything intelligently, but I expect now would be a goos time to consider it.

sounds like a pretty serious complication :2 cents:

I rcon Eastern Europe?

You're more likely to be infected at the grocery store. That's why they provide wet wipes right at the entrances to wipe the cart handle. Do you know how many sick people go shopping and touch all the same things you need to touch? Carts, checkout lane, credit card pad, pen. Who do I complain to?

How about a condom dispenser placed on a wall near the door?

haha tricky tricky

i bet that isn't the last joke they pull either

LOL Nice that sounds straight outta the mouth of Diane Duke....ya use that in your defense against AB332

and people wonder why we consistently get our asses kicked on these issues

huuuuummmmm... Hollywood has moved somewhere else stud muffin :2 cents:

Damn I missed where Universal, MGM, and the like relocated to someplace else....Did they move the Oscars too?

I really should read more apparently

www.Hollywood.com

www.Bollywood.com

www.Dollywood.com

It seems in Montreal at least if the girl wants a rubber the guy wears a rubber and they shoot it. I think in some respects this is problem brought on by LA attitudes towards talent. So the problem will likely follow them wherever they go until they smarten up.

Meaning Hollywood is the result of the movie business up and moving.

Good point. I've been saying for years that condoms in porn CAN be sexy, even erotic, if done right. Meaning, the putting on of the condom, the unwrapping of the pack, the whole ballet of sex can be erotic if done right.

But this is hard to do when you gotta bang out 5 scenes a day.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


Dollywood is an amusement park. Bollywood is a term for the Hindu language film industry based in India. Neither of those have anything to do with Hollywood and the US movie industry's location in California.

This one is going to be tough for AHF to win and can implicate mainstream agents as well.

Condoms are in the exclusive realm of porn... dangerous workplaces are not.

Anyone can make an argument that common physically injuries not to mention the head injuries and ALS (think Junior Seau) make an NFL football field an inherently dangerous workplace.

How would sports agents in California handle that issue ? LATATA is one thing - I dont think the DIR wants to take on the NFL and www.NASAAR.org

On this issue we disagree...heres why

It is the agents responsibility to insure that the workplace carries the proper workers comp insurance. IIRC the agency must keep records of every job every performer is sent on. OSHA falls under the Dept of Industrial relations

now you do the math...this is gonna get UGLY

I dont know if I fully understand your response.

What case law/ holding are you referring to that states it is an agent's responsibility to pull the insurance coverage for every production company they book talent with?

Here is the database of every talent agency case under the Talent Agency's Act since 1982 and I cant find a case on point with your statement...

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse-tacs.htm

Nor do I see a similar case on a database of important cases on ATA's (Association of Talent Agents) website (by the way this is the group that LATATA was based upon)

http://www.agentassociation.com/fron...Recent%20Cases

Your statement means they would have to pull the insurance on every job they book the talent on every time that talent works for any company (insurance can be terminated at any point). This would be unduly burdensome for agents. And I dont think the law requires that or it would say it. When you analyze a statute you look at the plain meaning. I dont read "pull work comp insurance" from

"No talent agency shall send or cause to be sent, any
artist to any place where the health, safety, or welfare of the
artist could be adversely affected, the character of which place the
talent agency could have ascertained upon reasonable inquiry."

Reasonable inquiry doesnt mean requiring proof of insurance. Should agents do more to protect talent - absolutely. Pulling work comp insurance goes too far though. Thats a slippery slope. Do agents have to run background checks on every person on set to make sure no one has been convicted of a violent felony ?

The act has gone through several changes and most recently was modified in 1986. If they wanted to add that language the Legislature could have easily added that language since every employer in California is required to have work comp insurance but they didnt.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/faqs.html

Again AHF is chasing its tail. They are trying to enforce an unenforceable law that no one wants to take an active role in enforcing from the City of Los Angeles to LAPD to the Los Angeles County Health Department. Even AB 332 has an excellent chance of dieing in committee... Its been referred to Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media.

http://aart.assembly.ca.gov/

Its not even set to be heard yet... http://aart.assembly.ca.gov/billhearings

If its not heard before Spring Recess (March 21) it probably wont make it out of committee. Its been sitting now for almost 3 weeks with no action and no hearing date...

As you may have guessed Michael I'm privy to info that you are not.

I expect this will not be the last time you see the ideas in that post...right or wrong.

it may not make it out of committee...but you can bet your ass it will be on the ballot if it doesn't

It doesnt matter what information you are privy to. Courts in general and the Labor Commissioner rely on precedent. What you are stating has no precedent in any case law I am aware of. And I litigate cases in front of the DLSE and I practice work comp and employment law as well.

I understand AHF will stop at nothing to see their ill advised ballot measure be enforced but they dont really understand how to win and influence people. Since Weinstein cant get his way with the Los Angeles County Department of Health he now wants the voters of Los Angeles to vote on a ballot measure that will cost them untold expenses so he can set up its own Department of Health. I see that going no where fast as well.

If AB 332 dies in committee and if he tries to get it on a state wide ballot, he will face the same issue state wide that he faces in Los Angeles County - no one will care to enforce it.

Perhaps if Weinstein had a little more sense he could have spent his money in a way that would have guaranteed results. If he would have taken the millions he spent on the ballot the measure and now the millions more he will spend and simply paid the producers to use condoms he would have probably found a willing market.

How many producers in Los Angeles would welcome condoms if AHF was paying the tab on their content production ? He probably could have spent $5 million and funded condoms in porn for several years.

You cant force people to do what they dont want to do - but you can certainly pay them to do it.

it will all go back to the days of paper bag payoffs - everything that is organized will crumble and in time everyone will move where there's not so much hassle - customers want non-condom jerk off material and shooters have to provide that if there's any hope of a return of investment - supply and demand will make decisions a lot easier.

90% This - if two informed pros, Mike and Michael, cannot agree, little producers are already saying, "fuck it."

Personally, I don't think this has as much to do with 'condoms' as it has to do with the fears of an industry that has historically signed girls off the street to exclusive contracts, used them up and then spat them back out being forced to take responsibility for the welfare of their employees. It's a 'don't tread on me' attitude. Next thing you know they'll start having to pay health insurance and into a retirement fund.

If you read any of the AMA's with porn editors/producers/directors over reddit it quickly becomes clear that at least over there most of the consumers think there is too much cock in porn anyway. They want to see the chick so if the condom law forces directors to shoot around the dick as much as possible then that may very well be an improvement in the eyes of the average porn consumer. TBH I think a lot of people in the industry are so desensitized that they have lost touch with what the viewer wants to see which is probably why we are seeing a resurgence in 'big budget' and glam. The industry raced to the bottom only to find out no one wanted to pay for the crap they were peddling. So this is not about condoms at all - this is about a general attitude in the porn industry that they shouldn't be responsible for the well-being of a bunch of cum-guzzlers (a common term in some segments of the industry girls).

LOL Michael... I admire your altruism and the idea that a politician with an agenda would never try something like this, forcing the opposition to spend a lot of money they dont have to defend themselves.

Maybe you should call Assemblyman Isadore Hall and explain the error of his ways to him

so you think this will be tough for AHF to win based solely on the potential precedent it could set for sports and 'dangerous work environments'?

Why would you think the DIR would be reluctant, if that's exactly what they have done?

If i were a LLB, id expect a US judge to look at a porn case a whole lot differently than a football case

:1orglaugh

For those who doubt or those who just want to see some cool shit : Click these
links and zoom in and you can see some of the outdoor sets. Notice the scale of
the land plot for the studios : Fucking massive! You think it's going to move? :1orglaugh


https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Warne...alifornia&z=17

To the right of Warner Bros above is NBC and ABC (incase you missed it above):

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=NBC+S...,0.016512&z=17


https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Unive...alifornia&z=16


https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sony+...+City,+CA&z=17


https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sunse...ywood,+CA&z=18


Ok, let me stop because this could go on all day.
That is just a quick short list of places where I actually worked and have check stubs
from. Many many more! Plus Sherman Oaks and Van Nuys is huge.

Solely is a little misleading. The NFL and football in general in the US is under a microscope right now in light of the findings linking concussions and repeated head injuries to diseases such as ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease). The NFL has a Player's Union and they are going after the owners. I talked with two former NFL players, one that played for 16 yrs. He cannot get health insurance and he's worried about what may happen to him as he gets older. Congress is even holding hearings about it.

https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/...Head-Injuries/

A finding that a porn set is a inherently dangerous work environment sets a precedent when a porn set is not nearly as dangerous as a football field.

I would expect a judge to understand that a decision in favor of AHF on this has far-reaching consequences. Not only for the NFL, the NFLPA but also for mainstream sets. The LATATA agents are licensed and bonded no differently then any sports or mainstream agent that does business in California.

The DIR will not be the final arbitrator of any fines (if any are imposed). We have an appellate system. And at some point this will catch the attention of the sports agents and the NFLPA and I would expect them to file what are called amicus curiae briefs on any appeal to help educate an appellate court how a finding against a porn agent could be a precedent used elsewhere. Also, I could see the NFL adding their own amicus curiae briefs to the mix.

In another talent agency case that was heard by the California Supreme Court, amicus curiae briefs were filed by the National Association of Artists? Managers, the National Conference of Personal Managers, the Talent Managers Association, the Association of Talent Agents, and various guilds including SAG, AFTRA, DGA and WGA West.

http://www.lbbslaw.com/publicationdetail.aspx?ID=3259

I would expect an appeal and then for the other interested parties to jump in to educate the court.

How this plays out will be interesting. In regards to 2257, mainstream was able to carve out exceptions for themselves. But I dont know if that would be possible with an issue like this.

Bottom line : The defense of the agents is :

"It's safer to be tested."

- Testing performers is a tracking method.
- Testing performers is how bad ones were caught and sidelined
- Condoms break/leak, therefore there is nothing safer than testing; except abstinence
- Confirmation of approved testing is a reasonable inquiry to insure safety
- Adding a condom improves safety; but testing is the scientific measure of safety

The so called "porn scandals" only illustrate that testing performers works.
They were caught!!!

The test caught what broken condoms can't, infected fluid.