I've been thinking about this ever since Bella appeared on Prime Lime live at the pay alot of these girls are getting to appear in these flicks. Especially when these producers of these flicks defend themselves buying telling everyone who will listen that it's practically mainstream. What with All the motel and hotel chains showing it and the giant expos in vegas every year. And the quoted figures of 10 billion dollars gross every year you think that they could pay these girls and that's what most are more than $1500 a scene.
A porn-star strike would be about as successful as new coke and not nearly as much fun.
I'm not saying that the girls are over-paid or that you don't have a point, but the fact is even at 300 bucks a scene there will be plenty of girls willing to show up and fuck on camera. When you were 18, could you have made 1500 bucks a week?
I am actually working on a piece about a proposed porn-performer union that could be interesting.
In the meantime, if any porn girls want to go on strike, I would be happy to offer them part time work here in my private office :-)
God, I hate to see this, but porn stars really have limited avenues they can explore to bring about wide scale change in their working conditions. It's not right, but to my knowledge of the topic it seems to be the case.
If they struck, what guarantee is there that a whole bunch of new girls wouldn't just take their place? The real questin would be whether fans would support them and boycott the replacement girls. And I honestly don't see that ever happening. To acknowledge their plight and support their efforts would mean admitting to a love for porn, which is something a whole wide array of people probably would rather die than do.
I went on strike last year and it all ended horribly with a really shit deal. Still, sitting outside the station, throwing logs on the brazier and chatting and drinking all night was actually quite enjoyable and the sense of all being in it together (albeit a sinking ship) is something not easily forgotten.
I reckon if I was organising a union for porno girlies the very first thing I'd do is to try and get some of the guys on board (remember comrade, unity is strength etc). Trouble is, half of these porn guys are producers/directors as well nowadays so this is far easier said than done. Shame because the withdrawal of the guys would not be so easy to replace(well, ok , we'd all have a go, but I mean replace with someone who can actually make a half decent job of it).
Realistically though, some sort of union for porn stars would be a good thing. Unions aren't just about strikes and industrial action; unions provide advice and represent their members interests when they get fucked over or injured. I think one of the real problems would be that so many of the girls stay in the business for a relatively short time and so would feel less inclined to join and pay their union subs than if they expected a longer career in the industry.
Unions are overhyped, people make the same in a particular feild, regardless of work ethic. Plus, as much as I really don't want to say it, there's gotta be thousands of girls looking for some quick cash, evidence is in all these first timer videos that are out. They are disposable, because there will always be a younger, and nastier starlet looking for the cash, however minimal it may be.
- - - B -I -G -m -i -k -e , over & out! - - -
[Link]
major sharp Deactivated User
246 Posts 2/04
Posted - Apr 5 2004 : 8:00PM
I'd like to see some response any response from the talent in this industry with what they think.
I'm not particularly invested in the discussion at hand, but I will say this:Especially when it comes to the arts, (meaning the arts outside of the rich world of superstars and TV glamour) this is a sadly mistaken assumption. I'm not saying this is true of all of them and I'm certainly not saying that unionization is a perfect solution in a free market economy, but some unions serve an extremely valuable purpose, and to call them overhyped is generalizing.
Without my wife's union, she would not be paid near as much. She would not have any health insurance, and she would be worked far more than she is now (which most of the time is already 10-14 hour days).
Whether they could be established in porn is something of a very large question, but I have no doubt they could serve a very useful purpose.
But this is the part where porn producers traditionally become very defensive... and since I'm on the outside looking in and don't know shit from shinola, this is also the part where I bow out of the discussion. :)
Edited by - MLyons on 4/5/2004 8:15:01 PM
[Link]
major sharp Deactivated User
246 Posts 2/04
Posted - Apr 5 2004 : 8:27PM
Is it true that amee donovan did get sick from making a movie I think it was Hpv and she had to use all the money she made in the industry for treatment?
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Apr 5 2004 : 9:12PM
As a former performer and a current employee of a studio, I see it from both sides. And from both sides, I don't see a union working.
I will admit that I am biased as I am not fond of unions in this day and age. My feeling is that if you don't like your job or your job conditions, find one that suits you better. There are enough laws from the government that protect employees in general that a person can find a job suitable to themselves if they try hard enough.
The general consensus in the porn business is that a union wouldn't work because even IF the studios and/or the actors got together and agreed on something, there are way too may independent companies that would step in and still do things without the new union rules. As is all too evident in many online communities, fans will go to long lengths to buy what they want. It was once discussed in the porn community that all studios should HAVE to use condoms in all scenes, whether self-regulated or goverment-regulated. It didn't take long for everyone to remember the amateur companies that wouldn't abide to this and the consumers who would seek to buy the tapes without condoms. If the union would be concerned about health insurance (again, a subject I am biased on, since I believe in self-insuring oneself and not being dependent on your job for anything BUT a salary that you can choose to spend however you'd like - savings, house, whatever)... , there would be independent companies who would pay girls more money to work for them without the benefit of health insurance or workmen's comp.
All in all, it's been discussed in the adult business community for many, many years, and we always come to the same conclusion - unionization would be worthless.
This is an interesting business topic and could be one that will be debated for years. Yes, the studios make money on films long after they are released while performers only get paid for their scenes. There must be a way, and the studios will hunt us down for this suggestion, to look at a hybred of mainstream media and professional sports where there is the benefit of being paid upfront, but also some sort of long term residual per sale or viewing of a movie into the future or a pension plan of sorts. What about health insurance in a very tricky industry. Guys seem to last in the business for ever, that is why there are so few. But with so many young girls entering for such a short time, they do have limited "shelf-life" and try to make the most money they can during this time. Again, there should be some forward thinking revenue sharing over time. Thoughts...
Ms Christine & JC, the first couple of adult review.
Don't the contract actresses at the feature companies get health insurance, and some other benefits? I thought this was the case because under these circumstances they are employees, not independent contractors like actresses who don't have contracts.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Apr 5 2004 : 11:16PM
Some of the contract-girl companies do have health insurance. Again, I can only emphasize that it is up to an individual to examine their own situation and take care of themselves as seen fit. In porn for a girl, that would most likely mean putting away some of the money that she makes, paying for her own health insurance (a porn-age girl's health insurance is between $100-200 a month for a good policy), and generally taking care of their OWN business. All the help that a union could give would be lost on a person with no common sense in how they live their life.
I paid for my own health insurance when I was a performer, I put money away in the bank (which I stupidly lost to an ex-husband and an ex-fiance.)
I am pro-union but not in every case, this being one. I don't think a strike would work in the porn business due to the glut of willing sweatshop labor.
But I think there is a win/win proposition for producers and talent. For top non-contract independents (also if they are on a box cover), why not offer residuals. They can promote the product and would probably do appearances, for expenses, to help boost the sales given the extra incentive.
By the way, does anyone know if studios like Vivid and Wicked offer residuals for contract girls?
One thing about capitalism is that wages tend to settle to a level where enough people go into an industry - or it dies. Also, regardless of what a porn starlet gets paid for a scene, there is another payday. A stripper that has been in some movies can tour and/or get top billing. Not to disparage the honesty of others, but many in cash industries do not report all their income - that part becomes untaxed. Is that life for everybody? No, but it is a way to cash in for a decade or two. Not to mention the increased hits on a personal website. This works for all stars, even if they are not "A"-list. For others, working right outside of Las Vegas county is viable - and how much more can be charged if you were on a boxcover? Ultimately, in a capitalist country, if you don't like the pay, don't take the job.
Totally OT, but like Tricia said, it's easy enough to seek out an individual health insurance plan. I never understood the beef people have with employers not providing insurance... anyone with an iota of sense can get a decent individual plan for not much money at all.
I applaud Tricia's stance on this... I wish more people would see the benefit of choice and flexibility inherent in taking care of their own business rather than relying on others to do it for them. Having health insurance should be a primary concern along the lines of shelter and food for any working person.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Apr 6 2004 : 11:11AM
Depends on the state. I can't get a health insurance plan for less than $350 a month that doesn't have a $5000 deductible. I'm paying $150/month for the $5000 deductible plan. I'm 29 and healthy.
Even in CA, which has some of the most affordable health insurance, you're looking at Kaiser for reasonable rates. And having experienced Kaiser, it was inadequate for any serious problem.
Group rates do make things like health insurance cheaper. Of course a trade organization can be set up for those types of things. By trade organization I don't mean typical union with standard rates and all that jazz.
My mother is 52, in bad health, and just layed off from an 11 year job at a large bank(I know, waaa, but I have a point coming). All she can get right now is temporary work with no benefits, and it certainly isn't enough to pay private insurance premiums. I pay her insurance premium of over $300 each month. $300 is almost a third of her monthly income right now. If she didn't have me she would surely sink. I assure you she has more than an iota of sense , but the economy hit her hard. I won't make a shopping list of her intellectual accomplishments, but she isn't nonsensical.
I know we're talking generally about much younger people, but I think it's a bit too generalizing to say anyone with an iota of sense can get a decent individual plan for not much money at all.
I don't know about unions. I'm inclined to agree with Tricia and Croy regarding them. It's certainly a discussion that could stand to be had in any industry. But, it should be worked out by the market, and by the people involved.
From what I can tell from my vantage point way over here on the outside in Texas, it looks like starlets have a pretty decent opportunity to cash in on themselves if they give it a good go and develop a solid fan base. Web sites and feature appearances, dancing or otherwise. And my personal favorite, as mentioned above, there is good work to be had right outside of Las Vegas county.
Ok, granted there are exceptions under certain circumstances and I admit that maybe I was being to black and white with my statement, but I stand by my point. Surely anyone who's had a steady job for 11 years surely isn't living paycheck to paycheck and has planned for contingencies? Health insurance is a primary concern. Besides, isn't there programs designed to allow laid off workers to retain insurance by paying for their premiums out of pocket? I'm not judging, I'm just saying.
Maybe I'm just tired of seeing people who don't blink at paying $400 for an automobile or for clothes complain about a $300 health insurance premium. Again, I'm not casting stones at anyone or making a judgment, but c'mon... health insurance isn't that difficult to acquire.
If a person has been laid off, they are entitled to continue buying the same group medical insurance at the same rates under what are called COBRA regulations, though a person has to pay the full premium. These usually last for 18 months. Sometimes you have to ask your (former)employer about this, but a bank would certainly have knowledge of these rules.
Where I live (New Jersey), the state Blue Cross plan has individual policies available for their HMO for about $400 a month. However, New Jersey is a state that has a lot of consumer protections, so that is probably why it is available, and relatively affordable.
Even if an HMO isn't the greatest, it still beats having to pay full price for medical services. Several years ago, I received a threatening letter from a medical lab that did a strep throat culture for me, ordered by my in-network family doctor. Because of a paperwork mixup, they thought I didn't have insurance, so the laboratory billed me full price for $57. When I got the revised bill with the in-network prices, the total was for $14 (much closer to the true cost of doing the test by the lab). I was only liable for 10% of this, or $1.40. That's the difference having insurance makes, paying $57 or $1.40, for the exact same test.
