good choice Kink.com does great stuff and the girls they bring in are top notch some of the best. i like kinks product
Dan
[Link]
BoogieNights Deactivated User
102 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 1 2007 : 5:35AM
A union would actually be GREAT for consumers. The industry is awash with so much low grade garbage for one reason alone - the average porn flick is relatively cheap to produce but yields a relatively high profit margin. If the talent organized, then their salaries would go up. In response, producers might be tempted to raise the sale price of DVDs. But, any increase in prices would obviously drive down sales and might even reduce profits even further. Alternatively, industry supply would be curtailed (since the low level crap would now be too expensive to produce). Overall demand for porn would remain the same, so sales of the remaining higher quality porn flicks would go up. We'd have less choice, but better quality. We'd likely have prettier, healthier, and happier performers. I think it's a great idea.
[Link]
BoogieNights Deactivated User
102 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 2 2007 : 4:04AM
This was an interesting topic, definitely worthy of a bump.
If margins were high, we would see even more companies. Even without a union it would also be harder to keep money out of the hands of the performers. Nor would there have been all that talk of glut - margins are dependant on product being consumed.
Consumers have always had the option of getting quality. There are some directors out there that always put out great suff. Yet they also buy and rent from the rest too, suggesting quality was not the first concern.
Much of what a union's health insurance policy would provide to porn performers is already covered by the Adult Industry Medical foundation run by Sharon Mitchell & chaired by Ernest Greene (Nina Hartley's husband).
Ernest spearheaded a unionization attempt in the 1990s, as did Ona Zee (not sure if it was the same attempt). Obviously, both did not succeed.
On the other hand, if we look at the broad category of sex workers globally, there are numerous success stories. In India, the largest union of predominantly women workers is the sex workers' union, which is going strong and occasionally rates a mention in the New York Times. There is a successful prostitutes union in Holland. There are websites connected to these unions, and there are other less spectacular examples of sex workers organizing overseas.
In the US, the Lusty Lady in San Francisco organized a union in the 1990s. A documentary was made of this called "Live! Nude! Girls" by Julia Query. In the earlier part of this decade, management sold the Lusty Lady to its workers, who now run it as a worker's collective. It is still functioning, making enough $$ for its workers to live on. During their strike, management tried to replace the sex workers there with scabs, but it didn't work, because virtually all the regular patrons supported the strikers.
Supposing there are 1200 porn performers at any given moment in the San Fernando Valley. If 1000 of them form a union, and have the will power to "stick it out", then there's no way management could replace 1000 performers all at once. Striking performers with fan clubs can inform their fans to boycott certain company's product if it features scabs.
But let's put aside suppositions: there is a scattering of porn stars / starlets who are clearly sympathetic to union efforts, but the question is, is there enough? And do they have the iron will to stay strong together in times of adversity? If they do, then a lasting union will happen. But only IF...
It is wrong, however, to single out the possibility of a porn union for cheap shots concerning its viability. Only 12.5% of workers in this country are unionized, according to the AFL-CIO. That means it's very hard almost anywhere in the USA to organize a union.
Sure, but they aren't the 87.5% of the workers that aren't unionized. Plus many companies film outside of California to avoid all the union related costs. White collar workers have profesional associations but not unions for a reason. So you can name groups that like their unions, but the mere fact that the majority are not in unions does not mean that unions are hard to organize as you claim. You cite only that number as evidence. You don't point out real obstacles. Another plausible interpretation is that the majority simply don't want to. Certainly if you hint at possible accidents, I will not go to a union. If you want your hand in my pocket, I want to break it. Unions have no transparency. The votes often appear fixed, the heads no longer are actual workers. The management of the unions often put dues into things that aren't in the interest of their membership.
And I did point out how porn stars could be replaced.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Mar 3 2007 : 7:39AM
There are as there always have been real obstacles to union organizing. You might recall John D. Rockefeller shooting his own workers. The sad history of modern labor in the US begins with Ronald Reagan breaking up the air controllers union back in 1981. Since then there has been a constant stream of anti-union legislation and the executive branch has interpreted Taft-Hartly and other labor laws very broadly with the effect of robbing unions of their most effective weapon--the ability to strike. In addition to the political there are some macro-economic obstacles as well,(btw..Croy hinted at them in an earlier comments) but that is for another post.
Also polls of un-unionized workers consistently show that most would like to see their shop floors organized See Michael Moore's 'The Big One,' for an example of what happened with the attempt to start a union and Borders bookstores back in the 1990s.
The long and short of it is that labor faces strong, active and vigilant opposition at every turn. The contract star system is itself a strategy to prevent unionization. It creates a class of elite porn stars whose material interests differ from that of their less notable co stars.
And just because there's no union does not mean that porners accept the status qou. Resistance takes many forms from the previously mentioned holdout to the endemic problems with no shows. It's not always effective and sometimes it can be self-defeating (tattoos, eating disorders)but these are actions taken by people who are trying to gain more control over their own lives and workplaces even if they end up dead.
Sheldon mentioned Ernst Greene's attempt to start a pornstar union. I'd like to hear Nina Hartley's account of what happened with it, if she is still monitoring ADT.
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 3/3/2007 7:44:10 AM
They don't need to accept status quo, but it doesn't mean an attempt has a reasonable chance of success. You can't prevent new people from entering the buisness and there are busses to LA every day. Everyday somebody realizes that they aren't going to be a big Hollywood star. There are porn stars overseas. We also learned from the last HIV shut down that there is plenty of stuff in the cans to be edited.
I don't know that the contract star exists to prevent unions. For one thing, the numbers are too few to exert influence. I think they exist to help with branding.
As I said, educated workers tend not to want unions - it isn't seen as being in their individual interests. Few places have gone closed shop without many workers objecting too.
As far as the talent goes - you are 100% correct! I tell them basically the same thing all the time.
When I get a new girl I tell them: You know, you are currently making more money than the average doctor.
I also tell them: You can save up the money you make for the next few years to invest in your futureORyou can blow it all and end up at 40 years of age working at Denny's and wondering what happened with your life.
However, in the end, it's up to them.
With respect to a union - you can't organize those that want (or need) to be disorganized. For the most part the type of people that get into porn (at least as talent) are the types who want to do what they want to do - and do it when they want to do it.
My point is that they are individualists and are, generally speaking, people who are adverse to regimentation.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Mar 4 2007 : 1:44PM
Keyword 'currently.' otherwise it's a pretty bogus comparison:
average porn career: 6 mo.-3 yrs. pay 2,000-250,000 per annum. No benefits.
average career for a MD: 30 years +, starting sal. 100,000+(depending on specialty)per annum. Full benefits, partnerships, board appoinments, stock portfolios, 401 K's etc...
Fool me once,...
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 3/4/2007 2:16:42 PM
That is exactly my point - that the girls should use the money they are making CURRENTLY as a stepping stone for their future rather that just blowing it.
I was not suggesting/insinuating that they would get a 30 year career as talent in front of the camera!
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 4 2007 : 3:15PM
I'm a union member. The "sad history of modern labor" dates back well before the PATCO incident. And Reagan was right to fire the air traffic controllers. There is no right to strike against the public safety. (Jesus Motherfucking Christ I just defended Ronald Reagan. Guess there's a first time for everything.)As for No-Shows, they are not a form of "resistance." They're caused by drugs, partying until 3:45 in the morning and just plain old irresponsible behaviour, which causes girls to be fired and/or blackballed. Because, as Croy said, they're all replacable. Don't romanticize bad behaviour.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Mar 4 2007 : 5:43PM
'Public Safety' according to whom, Ronald Reagan? Unfortunately, that joke of a rationalization was on us and labor has been paying for it ever since. First time tragedy...Second time farce.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 4 2007 : 9:54PM
Regardless of their intentions, the fact remains that by striking, they endangered the public safety. Reagan had no choice in the matter. And for the record, I'm a liberal Democrat. And a Union Member. And I would have done the same thing.
True enough, it addresses how much they want to join. Given the bad reputation as a group that porn stars have with showing up - on time or at all - just getting enough at a meeting seems unlikely.
Not in the least. All they endangered were corporate profits. If there is no traffic control, then all flights to controlled airports should be grounded.
Let me get this straight. The skill of these people is so vitally important that the entire country depends on them to keep it's economy alive.
Therefore, they should be treated as slaves, never permitted to withdraw their labor, denied the market rate of pay for their work, and put under so much stress that half of them suicide before age 35.
You Capitalists really need to learn to think through the consequences of your ideas.
You'd have been better off using this argument to start with, instead of as a fallback when your original one got blown up in your face.
Even so, I'm not sure I'm buying it. We do have railroads and highways, after all, and back then using air freight wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now. Sure, people would have complained, and schedules and deliveries would have been thrown off, but would it have resulted in chaos or just inconvenience?
Naturally, Reaganites say chaos, yet we seem to survive blizzards shutting down air traffic over large areas of the nation today, when we're much more dependent on air traffic. The country didn't collapse when BushCo shut down the skies for days after September 11, 2001, either.
In other words, the examples we have to hand suggest that your argument blows the likely result way out of proportion.
I think that the bottom line is Reagan was pissed off at the idea of a bunch of traffic controllers trying to put the squeeze on him and making him look weak. Knocking them over not only got him a lot of goodwill from the party base, it made him seem tougher to the rest of the world. Of course, the controllers were really an easy target, just like Grenada was.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 5 2007 : 7:02PM
None of my arguments "blew up in my face," as you put it, Hardware:
Fact: The PATCO strike endangered public safety. No controllers means crashes and collisions. Period. This is such a no-brainer that I cannot fathom how some of you fail to grasp this, except through willful disregard of inconvenient facts that don't fit your theories. On this ground alone, Reagan had cause to fire them.
Fact: Grounding the airplanes would have tied the country in knots. Grounding the planes would have strangled national and international travel and a great deal of commerce. Rail was not a viable alternative. Both Amtrack and the Commercial Rail freight lines were in pitiful shape in 1981. Neither were equipped to absorb the overflow from a grounded air fleet. Moreover, rail is limited to where there is a rail depot (one of the reasons why there are more airports than rail depots.) And, obviously, rail cannot handle vital international travel and traffic.
Fact There are contingency plans in place for blizzards. And 9/11 was a National Security issue which trumped all other concerns. In either event, both cases are temporary. Strikes have been known to go on for weeks or months.
Fact: The strike was illegal. Since the time of Theodore Roosevelt, Federal law has prohibited strikes by Federal Employees. Each and every Federal employee is made aware of this fact at the beginning of his/her employment. The controllers knew that striking was illegal and willfully chose to do it anyway. Under the law, Reagan, as Chief of the Executive Branch for which they worked, had no choice but to fire them.
Fact: The Controllers were civil servants. When a person enters Civil Service, He/She freely chooses to make a commitment to put the public good before their own. That's the nature of the beast, and they choose it knowingly. If that's not their cup of tea, if they want to make more money or if they're only looking out for their own interest, they are free to choose from among the millions of private sector jobs that are out there. Either way, no-one puts a gun to their head. I'm a civil servant. I'm a union member. To me, the People come first. I'm prohibited from striking under New York State's Taylor Law and, quite frankly, if my union went to the picket lines I wouldn't go (and not just because a strike in this case would be a public safety issue.) I was furious at the Transit Workers Union (TWU) when they shut down the subways and busses by going on strike in December '05. Not because they're also bound by the Taylor Law. Not because I had to walk across Manhattan and over the Brooklyn Bridge to get to work. But because TWU, under it's hothead leader Roger Toussaint, deliberately and with malice aforethought set out to shut the entire city down at Christmas. For a week, New Yorkers, being New Yorkers, walked wherever they had to go, unfazed. Beaten, hat in hand and facing fines and imprisonment for contempt, Toussaint retuned to the bargaining table. What did it accomplish? A worse bargaining position than before? A Union crippled and bankrupt by fines? Workers docked double pay for every day they were out? Toussaint himself imprisoned for 15 days and facing heavy fines of his own? Toussaint's decision to strike left no one the winner and his own people the losers. Which is how it should be. If public service is to mean anything, the People must be put first. Violate the public trust, suffer the consequences.
Fact: Despite the tired socialist rhetoric in another post above, the PATCO controllers were not "slaves," nor was the Government their "Masters." Nobody forced them to be Air Traffic Controllers, and nobody would have stopped them if they decided to hang it up and pursue a higher paying career elsewhere. That we even need to debate this point in the 21st Century is proof that bad ideas die hard, like a sad old Confederate, rocking on the porch while dreaming that the South shall rise again. Socialists and other idealists are great for dreaming dreams, but they're lost when it comes to the practical art of governing.
Fact: The PATCO strike had absolutely nothing to do with Grenada and any attempt to link the two is as preposterous as Bush's attempt to link Iraq with 9/11. PATCO was a legitimate excersise in Governmental authority against a threat to public safety. Grenada was an unwarranted invasion whose sole purpose was to rebuild morale in a military debilitated and demoralized by Vietnam.
Fact: I am not a Reaganite. Indeed, Ronald Reagan had more to do with me becoming a Democrat that almost any other individual. I cast my first vote ever for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 Presidential Primary. I have worked on, organized and/or managed campaigns for Democratic candidates on the Federal, State, City and Local levels. I campaigned in the New Hampshire snow for Al Gore in the 2000 Primary. I am the past Executive Director of the Young Democrats of Richmond County. And I don't need to defend my Blue-State Bona Fides to anyone. I do not defend Ronald Reagan the man, his policies or philosophies. I defend a lawful, prudent and justified excersise of the Executive Power.
So, Dude. Ain't nothing blowing up in my face. And Don't call me a Reaganite. That ticks me off.
If that's true, than that would explain why the union movement has been ineffective - because a critical mass of unionists think like you, refusing to stand in solidarity with your fellow workers in times of crisis - when it really counts.
However, we don't have the means to verify your bona fides. Your statements are along the lines of "I'm a Jew and I don't believe the Holocaust happened." The credibility and/or sanity of people who talk that way are routinely called into question.
The public safety card that you're playing has been played by management to guilt-trip employees in particular, and to hold them hostage in general. Some company you keep, "liberal Democrat."
Out of such "liberals" were neo-conservatives born.
BTW, Reagan DID have a choice in the matter - it's called engaging in collective bargaining and negotiating a dignified settlement. As a one-time president of the Screen Actors Guild, he had some experience in the matter. Duh!!
Raoul posted:No controllers means no air traffic, period. No pilot worth his/her license is going to fly a plane when there are no air traffic controllers. No flights = no collisions = no air safety issue. Now, what part of that don't you understand?Well, first you played the saftety card, and now you switched gears to the 'convenience' card. Someone else already alerted you to this tactic, which reeks of dishonesty.
I have no problem suffering some inconvenience if it's based on working people fighting for justice. The NYC transit strike hurt me too since I commute to Manhattan to work free-lance, but my anger was directed at the MTA managers who provoked the strike in the first place.
Strikes are not 100% successful. There is a risk factor here, certainly. That does not mean they are wrong, anymore than unsuccessful slave revolts mean slaves should stay put.
Yes, New York State's "Taylor Law" outlaws such strikes. But, as the non-socialist Charles Dickens once said of such matters, "the law is a ass."
And since when did posters here suddenly become such sticklers for the law? Most of us here are supposed to be for the abolition of obscenity laws that make the porn we enjoy watching illegal. So, do we support police for arresting a porn producer/director/performer merely for creating what we enjoy watching - after all, the porn people "knew" what they were doing was illegal.
So, if Reagan was morally justified, then the arresting officers in my 'hypothetical' case were right too, eh?
If I chose to call myself "Duke", I'd be very wary to wave that "Confederate" shirt around.
If the PATCO workers decided, instead of going on strike, to resign en masse for better careers, would not that have also made things very inconvenient in this country, if not "unsafe", according to your own logic? Think of all the time and money needed to re-train all the new hires!
Your denial is no more impressive than that of a Dworkinite who gets 'ticked' off by being called a prude.
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...
Edited by - Sheldon on 3/6/2007 10:05:26 AM
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Mar 6 2007 : 10:05AM
Sheldon what part of this paragraph are you having problems understanding?
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Mar 6 2007 : 10:16AM
Except that slaves didn't have OSHA inspections, minimum wage legislation, wage and hour laws, child labor laws, and various other legislative checks and balances.
Also figure in the economic effect of a PATCO strike. No air traffic controllers also means no means of income for pilots, flight attendants, airport restaurant and retail employees, mechanics, etc. Sorry if I'm not part of your "brotherhood" but I would be pretty pissed if I'm not getting a paycheck because a bunch of whiny jackoffs want to rewrite their terms of employeement after they have already signed on for the job.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Mar 6 2007 : 10:20AM
+1 FACT: Ronald Reagan by refusing to reach a settlement with PATCO through negotioation is the one who jeopardized public safety.
Here Hardware had it basically right, Reagan's record as president shows that he didn't give a flyin' f... about public safety. In this case, he was more interested in breaking organized labors back and looking tough while doing it. He created a moral panic and won the public relations war. If it had taken two or three crashed planes to get the job done, Reagan wouldn't have given it a second thought.
PS. Raoul Duke is a great login name and while we've been combatants in this thread, there's no need for it to degenerate into further fear and loathing. In fact, I invite you to click on my avatar link (shameless self promotion) and enjoy the musical selection that has been inspired by your contributions to this thread.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 6 2007 : 9:12PM
And why, praytell, would I make this up? To score points in a bullshit arguement in an internet Porn forum? Your statements are along the lines of a paranoid conspiricy theorist. As you say, "The credibility and/or sanity of people who talk that way are routinely called into question... Duh."
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 6 2007 : 9:46PM
Okay. I know it's difficult for you socialists to grasp something as complex and difficult as interrelated points, but try to keep up with me. No controllers = No flights. No flights = the shutdown of business and commerce, which = No money going into the pockets of, not just the pilots, flight attendants, airport restaurant and retail employees, mechanics that Perv mentioned, but thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of ordinary, everyday "brother workers," who I suspect would, as Perv said, "be pretty pissed if (they're) not getting a paycheck because a bunch of whiny jackoffs want to rewrite their terms of employement after they have already signed on for the job." It's not a "convenience" issue, it's an economic issue with broad implications for a large segment of the working public. To say nothing about the larger global economy, of which America is the cornerstone. Again, Sheldon, you Socialists really need to think through the consequences of your ideas.
Your accusation that I somehow need to plagerize an Idea from someone else is what "reeks of dishonesty" here, Sheldon. I wasn't "switching gears," and I don't need "Someone else (to) alert (me) to this tactic," and to suggest otherwise is a cheap personal attack on my integrity that speaks volumes about your own juvenile insecurities. Portnoy may be a cheesy Socialist (), but he argues his positions with honor. You should do the same.
Edit to add: Sheldon, by your vehemence and vitriol, not to mention the community college wannabe Marxism, I'm guessing that you're about 21, 22 years old, wearing a Che Guevara T-Shirt and living in your Mom's attic. When you get a little bit older, you're going to realize that things just aren't as black and white as you seem to think they are right now. Rabid dogmaticism isn't going to get you anywhere but the hospital, with a gastric ulcer, laying there frustrated, bitter and alone. Have passion, but don't let it consume you. You'll live longer, and better.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 6 2007 : 9:52PM
Sorry, Portnoy, but the record is clear. Reagan repeatedly warned the Union not to strike and to come back to the bargaining table. He repeatedly warned them that the strike was illegal and that they would be fired if they struck. Unfortunately, the PATCO chief was as much of a hothead as Roger Toussaint and ordered his members to strike in defiance of repeated warnings. And, like the TWU, the PATCO members paid the price for such arrogance.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Mar 6 2007 : 10:08PM
Oh, please. The PATCO braintrust simply had their heads so far up their asses that they couldn't recognize the fact that their strike would generate almost no popular support. There was no "moral panic;" there was no "public relations war;" there didn't need to be. Most people were solidly in agreement with Reagan's stance (even many who were generally nauseated by the "Reagan Revolution). The ATC's stupidly refused to go back to work; they were fired; and, overall, there was very little hue and cry about it. If the same thing were to happen today, I don't think there would be much difference, even given Bush's marked unpopularity.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 9:15AM
Oh contraire my friend, this is a lesson labor has already learned too well. It all comes down to a question of tactics. It is 2007 and the global economy depends on the transnational flows of: goods, information, labor and money. Therefore transportation systems are more important then ever to the accumulation of capital. Labor actions must attack the weak link in the chain in order to prevent the increasing concentration of capital and monopolization of power into the hands of the very few. Thus hazy, amorphous ‘the sky is falling’ moralizing about ‘public safety’ is beside the point. This is a war and that’s the one thing Roger Toussaint got right.
Cheesy? Doesn’t that imply sentimental or romantic? I don’t think it quite describes the militant perspective I just put forth. Like I said this about strategy, tactics and power: utopian--maybe, cheesy—no.
Postscript: see the NY Times yesterday. The US Senate is going to remove the provision from the Patriot Act that prevents airport screeners from organizing/striking. The predictable opposing argument ‘this will endanger public safety.’ It’s Chicken Little all over again.
PS. Thanks for visiting my lonely myspace page. Your clicks are very appreciated
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 3/7/2007 9:17:34 AM
Oh, I understood it. Did you read my post where I responded to this line of thinking by quoting Dickens "The law is a ass"?
Lots of porn people have made their films KNOWING it was illegal to do so. Most recently, Adam Glasser made a film with fisting knowing that it was illegal, for which he got into some legal trouble. He gambled that he could use that case to help undermine and change an unjust law.
Perhaps my memory is off, but I don't recall many posters here going all "anti-PATCO" on Seymore Butts when this much-discussed event occurred. Ooooh, we must obey the law...
Lesbian Students - review by Danielmayu33216
Posted - Mar 1 2007 : 5:31AM
