Worker protection in CA porn industry.

[Ranb]

I was reading this link at CNN http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/porn.fine.ap/index.html .

The article in part says "She said state law requires employers to protect workers who are exposed to blood or bodily fluids on the job. "Any bodily fluid is considered infectious," she said. "That means barrier equipment must be used."

I know CA law protects people like doctors and nurses, but does it also extend to the entertainment industry? Does this only apply to the makers of porn, or can it apply to any film which has a kissing scene made in California?

I tried looking at the CA Division of Occupational Health and Safety website and at the penal codes, but an hour of clicking and searching revealed nothing that seemed to apply. Anyone know more about CA law? Thanks.

Ranb

[Dorian Gray]

The porn industry might not want to go here. Too much scrutiny may lead to the requirement of gloves and other equipment when dealing with ANY bodily fluids in ANY industry, effectively ending the porn industry except for the latex freaks.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
The porn industry might not want to go here. Too much scrutiny may lead to the requirement of gloves and other equipment when dealing with ANY bodily fluids in ANY industry, effectively ending the porn industry except for the latex freaks.

I can't wait for the first lawsuit where the worker sues his employer because he was exposed to his own spit at work. OMG--I've got some of my saliva in my mouth! Call the Health Department, and my lawyer!

[American]

I heard that if a job requires certain acts, then they don't have to accomodate every individual.

It's like they don't have to hire ugly people to do modelling, or a black actor to play the part of an asian, even though that would be discriminating if the job were something like driving a truck or working in an office.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by American
I heard that if a job requires certain acts, then they don't have to accomodate every individual.

It's like they don't have to hire ugly people to do modelling, or a black actor to play the part of an asian, even though that would be discriminating if the job were something like driving a truck or working in an office.

Victoria's Secret will not hire saleswomen if they're "too ugly or fat". Surprised they haven't been sued on that. I think Abercrombie had the same policy, but has been sued for it.

As far as porn goes, I bet it'll work out so that they allow the riskier sex, but wind up having to pay the performers more. There is no matter of life or death or principle that will not be used as grounds for a pay hike.

[American]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think Abercrombie had the same policy, but has been sued for it.

There talk of a suit for them being "too white", in which the main argument was that they supposedly let white workers choose their hours and black workers got stuck with bad shifts. I don't know how that ended up. (If that was the case, then they should sue FUBU, and even Guess? brands for being too black. I don't know when Guess? turned hood, but they definitely did, in my opinion.)

As far as porn goes, I bet it'll work out so that they allow the riskier sex, but wind up having to pay the performers more. There is no matter of life or death or principle that will not be used as grounds for a pay hike.

I don't see how this can be enforced either way. Amateur porn makes up a huge share of the market-- what if a couple decides to sell home videos?


These are the issues the candidates should be talking about, not war and taxes.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by American
These are the issues the candidates should be talking about, not war and taxes.

It would make for some interesting sound bites:

Bush: "We went in because we believed Saddam had hidden weapons of mass destruction there."

Kerry: "I was in there for four months, and got medals for it."

[Tmy]

Originally posted by American
There talk of a suit for them being "too white", in which the main argument was that they supposedly let white workers choose their hours and black workers got stuck with bad shifts. I don't know how that ended up. (If that was the case, then they should sue FUBU, and even Guess? brands for being too black. I don't know when Guess? turned hood, but they definitely did, in my opinion.)
.

The A&F suit wasnt about WHO wears the clothes. It was about how A&F treated employees. Employment discrimination covers the usual race, religion, creed, ect. classifications. But just cause you fit character X doesnt mean X is a protected class. You can discriminate based on ugly looks, weight, Yankee fans, peope with pink hair, tatoos ect,,, Not every class is a protected class under the law.

[American]

Originally posted by Tmy
You can discriminate based on ugly looks, weight, Yankee fans, peope with pink hair, tatoos ect,,, Not every class is a protected class under the law.

True, but if you can convince the law-type-people that "ugly looks" really meant sex, then that's sexual harassment.

But look what Hooters does... so you're mostly right.


You have to understand the way I think-- there's no difference between a non-pretty woman and a man. So if you discriminate against either one, it's sex discrimination.

I'm pretty sure the law is written that way, I think if you read deep enough it defines the terms "ugly chick" and "stud", etc.