View Comments (3)

• That is just stupid. Why should Manwin pay for the tests when other companies would be using the same talent? Manwin should only pay for the monthly 2 tests in exchange for the work exclusivity of the talent during that time. With some many different sites/brands that wouldn't be difficult to capitalize.

• For producers to pay for testing the most equitable way to achieve that would be a pooled system of producer contributions based on the number or performers hired per shoot day. The contributions could then go into a fund that covered all performer testing costs.

  The problem I see here is that Mr. Fattorosi has ceded Cal-OSHA's position that all performers are employees and not independent contractors. Of course a regulatory agency such as OSHA takes that view -- how many agencies decline the opportunity to regulate? -- but no government entity is empowered to decree any class of workers "employees" as a group. OSHA has taken it upon itself to do so (on a case by case basis -- for what are, in principle, very sound reasons), and most producers lack the time, resources and will to fight them on this extremely unrealistic construction of adult industry hiring practices. Producers who have challenged OSHA have lost in OSHA's appeals process or made settlements, this is true, but it does not change the facts that: Cal-OSHA cannot make such a determination regarding producers or performers as respective classes, and that it is possible to be considered an employer or employee for certain purposes under the law, but not for others.

  In addition, if anything has become clear in the AHF-driven persecution of the adult industry, it's that Cal-OSHA is far from omnipotent: the agency has lost EVERY SINGLE legal action they have take against the industry, including its claim that the AIM clinic constituted an "employer" within the meaning of the law. They can be defeated, and the industry and the ACLU have done an excellent job thus far.

  It is illegal in California to discriminate in the hiring of an employee on the basis of someone's HIV status. This means that if an HIV+ performer, or one who refuses to reveal his/her HIV status, shows up on set and is willing to use a condom, the producer cannot fire him/her. And if another performer refuses to work with him/her, that demurring performer would have to be replaced. This is, in a word, madness.

  If performers as a class are employees then performer testing is dead. Deader than the papal penis. Which is precisely why the condom peddlers of AHF want to see OSHA's view win out.

• I hear Fabian was involved with Isla Nublar and may have had something to do with Isla Sorna.