Ernest Greene Admits Producers Are Breaking The Law - GoFuckYourself.com

Darrah · 08-25-2010, 11:37 AM

Someone sent this in to me.

Opinion/Editorial

http://bppa.blogspot.com/2009/06/lat...r-control.html

This article by Ernest Greene contains the following paragraph. Ernest Greene, aka Ira Levine, is the President of the Board of Directors Of AIM Healthcare.

Quote:

?There?s just one little hitch in this plan. It is against the law in California for any employer to require an HIV test, or even to ask about a potential employee?s HIV status, as a condition of employment. Doing so is considered employment discrimination and carries significant penalties to the employer.?

So Mr. Levine (Greene) are you saying that AIM is helping these companies violate the law by granting them access to performers private medical information? What responsibility does AIM have when you have openly admitted to assisting these companies in violating the civil rights of performers?

If it is illegal for producers to ?even ask about a potential employee?s HIV status,? as Ira Levine states, could it be considered illegal for AIM to give those employers that information?

And for the record, the AIM waiver does not come close to being legal?..Every single disclosure of private medical information to a third party must be in writing, and specifically have the name of the person to whom the results are being given, and the location (fax number, mailing address etc.) of where the results are being sent. This is NOT done at AIM.

And then there is Levine?s all or nothing mandate??I repeat; testing or condoms; that is the choice.? Why is that the only choice? Why would requiring condoms all the sudden change the industry?s already illegal practice of ?requiring? testing? Does anybody really think that performers like Belladonna, Evan Stone, Sasha Grey, Stormy Daniels, Jenna Haze, or any other responsible performers are going to stop testing? The very idea is ridiculous. Will NINA HARTLEY not get tested before performing if condoms become mandatory?

The testing done by the industry is already illegal. Levine tries to make you believe that the industry would all of the sudden follow the law if condoms were mandatory. That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing about his entire misguided argument. What is really needed is LEGISLATION like in Nevada, to make the testing legal. Would Levine support such legislation? Of course not.

And as far as the reliability of the current system??wasn?t that system NOT FOLLOWED in 2004, when all those guys went to Brazil and worked with performers who weren?t tested, and wasn?t that system NOT FOLLOWED last year when the person worked without a current test, and no other performer or producer checked to see if this person was tested? Looks like there is a 100% failure of the system every time someone tests positive in the industry?.and Levine is proud of this record? What a joke.

I wonder what Levine has to say about the other part of the OSHA regulations that require condoms?..I am talking about the part that says EMPLOYERS must pay for post exposure testing and treatment??Of course he will NEVER address this issue. And if porn is made without condoms, what responsibilities do producers have when performers catch diseases on their sets, which Levine admits does happen ?regularly???..Mr. Levine, what do you think the producers should be liable for?..and what is the current protocol in the industry when someone catches a disease? Who pays for that?

ottopottomouse · 08-25-2010, 12:02 PM

And what's your opinion?

Darrah · 08-25-2010, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

And what's your opinion?

It smells like shit and everyone is guilty.

NaughtyVisions · 08-25-2010, 06:28 PM

Whatever happened with the argument of independent contractors vs. employees? All of these articles recently refer to the actors/actresses as employees, but I remember an argument that they were IC's and OSHA couldn't mandate shit.

CYF · 08-25-2010, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions

Whatever happened with the argument of independent contractors vs. employees? All of these articles recently refer to the actors/actresses as employees, but I remember an argument that they were IC's and OSHA couldn't mandate shit.

I was going to post something similar, but you stated it better.

pornlaw · 08-26-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions

Whatever happened with the argument of independent contractors vs. employees? All of these articles recently refer to the actors/actresses as employees, but I remember an argument that they were IC's and OSHA couldn't mandate shit.

In California its already been legally determined that performers are employees. There is case law on it. So that argument is going to fail.

The best argument against condoms would be a challenge on a First Amendment basis but no one seems to want to take on that fight.

NaughtyVisions · 08-26-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

In California its already been legally determined that performers are employees. There is case law on it. So that argument is going to fail.

The best argument against condoms would be a challenge on a First Amendment basis but no one seems to want to take on that fight.

I didn't say it was a good argument...

I didn't know there was case law on it. I had heard the argument presented before, and then it just disappeared. I was wondering what happened with it. I'm in Pennsylvania, and sometimes it takes awhile to hear stuff back this way in Amish Country.

Thanks for answering that for me though.

pornlaw · 08-26-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions

I didn't say it was a good argument...

I didn't know there was case law on it. I had heard the argument presented before, and then it just disappeared. I was wondering what happened with it. I'm in Pennsylvania, and sometimes it takes awhile to hear stuff back this way in Amish Country.

Thanks for answering that for me though.

Actors/actresses/stuntmen in mainstream have been employees for 20 yrs. In porn there was a decision in a work comp case in which for WC purposes, performers are employees.

Under the IRS standard of review you may be sucessful in arguing that someone that only worked once/twice may not be an employee for tax purposes only.

davecummings · 08-27-2010, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

In California its already been legally determined that performers are employees. There is case law on it. So that argument is going to fail.

The best argument against condoms would be a challenge on a First Amendment basis but no one seems to want to take on that fight.

I hope the First Amendment basis/argument surfaces if Cal/OSHA and AHF don't back off; adult film productions result in expressive speech, thus strict scrutiny; testing is reasonable "equivalency", thus Cal/OSHA's regulations/enforcement is not the least restrictive means; etc, etc.

The effects of Cal/OSHA, piracy, 2257, and .xxx make the future of porn look iffy.

I hope PornLaw can get his opinion voiced and supported by everyone.

MaDalton · 08-27-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

In California its already been legally determined that performers are employees. There is case law on it. So that argument is going to fail.

The best argument against condoms would be a challenge on a First Amendment basis but no one seems to want to take on that fight.

how can someone be an employee that you book for one afternoon and never see again?

weird

Slutboat · 08-27-2010, 09:14 AM

AIM gives me the creeps, why can't they clean it up and remodel, make more like a real clinic...it has the feel of an adult book store when you go in there

Complication · 08-27-2010, 10:48 AM

Shouldn't the verification of testing be something that the participants are responsible for? As in the participants need to agree to the various acts they will and will not do with specific other participants. Being able to show a current test would be one way for one participant to allow the other participant(s) to feel comfortable. Much like what happens (or should happen) between two people that are dating before they become intimate.

Producers will find a way around the condom issue. Some will go to other states or countries. Some will reverse the arrangement so that the video is produced by the stars themselves and footage sold to the studios. It isn't illegal to have unprotected sex. It isn't illegal (yet?) to have that act filmed, hire a director to make you look good, and then sell the film rights. The difference is that you wouldn't be able to do this with everyone on the streets and non-condom porn would become a higher priced commodity.

Just my $0.02

davecummings · 08-27-2010, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Complication

Shouldn't the verification of testing be something that the participants are responsible for? As in the participants need to agree to the various acts they will and will not do with specific other participants. Being able to show a current test would be one way for one participant to allow the other participant(s) to feel comfortable. Much like what happens (or should happen) between two people that are dating before they become intimate.

Producers will find a way around the condom issue. Some will go to other states or countries. Some will reverse the arrangement so that the video is produced by the stars themselves and footage sold to the studios. It isn't illegal to have unprotected sex. It isn't illegal (yet?) to have that act filmed, hire a director to make you look good, and then sell the film rights. The difference is that you wouldn't be able to do this with everyone on the streets and non-condom porn would become a higher priced commodity.

Just my $0.02

Almost always (Vivid and other contract girls might be exceptions?), we participants DO pay for our own AIM tests---it's been that way for the 16 years that I've been performing.
It seems like CalOSHA is the entity mandating that "employers" pay for testing, training, medical treatments, etc --perhaps that makes their case of us being employees more defendable?

At the 6/29/10 public meeting with Cal/OSHA, I asked who was my "employer" since I seldom am booked by the same studio, and don't have the same work hours or place of performing, etc---rather than them answering my questions, the Aids Healthcare Attorney cited the recent case law and made it seem like a done deal for us, i.e., no matter what we Independent Contractors feel, the contention/case law says we're employees and hence under Cal/OSHA rules:-(.

Anybody have any comments about the idea of us performers getting filmed and selling the footage to the studios? Would it be legal? Would that make us exempt from being "employees"? Would Cal/OSHA somehow still be able to "enforce" their BS regulations against us?

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-27-2010, 06:18 PM

Dumbest cunt EVER

pornlaw · 08-28-2010, 12:21 AM

Dave -- actually CalOSHA is addressing the subcontractor issue and has determined (while there is no case law or decisions on point to support their decision that I know of) that the purchasing studio has enough control over the content and hence the work site that it should force condom use on the subcontractor and the actors so as to insure compliance. If they do not then they could (will) be liable.

I am still at a loss why the FSC isnt trying to challenge this law instead of trying to work with CalOSHA. From the meetings I have attended, it does not appear that CalOSHA wants to work with us.

08-25-2010, 12:02 PM	#2
ottopottomouse She is ugly, bad luck. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 13,177	And what's your opinion? __________________ ↑ see post ↑ 13101

08-25-2010, 06:28 PM	#4
NaughtyVisions Confirmed User Join Date: May 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 4,204	Whatever happened with the argument of independent contractors vs. employees? All of these articles recently refer to the actors/actresses as employees, but I remember an argument that they were IC's and OSHA couldn't mandate shit. __________________ Online strip gaming with sexy gamer girls Best thing I ever signed up for: Quality Razors, Cheap Price

08-27-2010, 09:14 AM	#11
Slutboat Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,388	AIM gives me the creeps, why can't they clean it up and remodel, make more like a real clinic...it has the feel of an adult book store when you go in there __________________ The Slut Boat soon will be making another run The Slut Boat promises something for everyone

08-28-2010, 12:21 AM	#15
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,803	Dave -- actually CalOSHA is addressing the subcontractor issue and has determined (while there is no case law or decisions on point to support their decision that I know of) that the purchasing studio has enough control over the content and hence the work site that it should force condom use on the subcontractor and the actors so as to insure compliance. If they do not then they could (will) be liable. I am still at a loss why the FSC isnt trying to challenge this law instead of trying to work with CalOSHA. From the meetings I have attended, it does not appear that CalOSHA wants to work with us. __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com

08-27-2010, 10:48 AM	#12
Complication Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Fountain Valley, CA Posts: 2	Shouldn't the verification of testing be something that the participants are responsible for? As in the participants need to agree to the various acts they will and will not do with specific other participants. Being able to show a current test would be one way for one participant to allow the other participant(s) to feel comfortable. Much like what happens (or should happen) between two people that are dating before they become intimate. Producers will find a way around the condom issue. Some will go to other states or countries. Some will reverse the arrangement so that the video is produced by the stars themselves and footage sold to the studios. It isn't illegal to have unprotected sex. It isn't illegal (yet?) to have that act filmed, hire a director to make you look good, and then sell the film rights. The difference is that you wouldn't be able to do this with everyone on the streets and non-condom porn would become a higher priced commodity. Just my $0.02

08-27-2010, 06:18 PM	#14
Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life (felis madjewicus) Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: In Mom & Dad's Basement Posts: 20,368	Dumbest cunt EVER