With all due respect for the good effort, this will not work. You know the record of industry support for FSC, and the sad fact that FSC has always financially depended upon a limited number of senior and committed members to operate. There's no reason to think that yet another "independent" organization will be effectively, or more importantly, independently funded. Also, the model is wrong. If there is a need for an association to protect the health and welfare of performers, there are two existing models for this, and reinventing the wheel is both unnecessary and ill-advised. Those models are called "unions" and "insurance". Are you ready to sign a contract with a union of performers? Or a directors' guild? Or a union of production personnel? Until you are, you're wasting time discussing alleged alternatives. (By the way, if you want my advice, DON'T sign a union contract.) As for insurance, Greg Zeboray, among many others, can testify to the resistance of the producers to group health insurance for performers. Because of the huge potential liability issues, they've done their level best to block it every step of the way. And it's just like testing - unless everyone complies everywhere, compliance is a joke and the risks remain exactly the same.

Jack Point
Former CFO and Business Editor, AVN

HRAs are a way for companies to fund an account with pre-tax dollars on behalf of an employee. These funds can be used to pay insurance premiums and other healthcare related costs.

I believe that a few produciton companies use Professional Employment Organizations for payroll and human resources administration. I think a PEO should be formed specifically to service the adult entertainment industry. (The PEO could also manage the HSAs for the employees.)

Of course this all wouldn't work in today's 'outside contractor' environment for most of the talent in the industry.

Take that $5k per company investment and get a PEO started. Get most of the talent pool signed up, give them some decent benefits and make the government happy with some weekly payroll deductions.

[Link]

It was pointed out in another thread that many performers make 15K per month, which is more than adaquete for good health coverage. Perhaps it would benefit them more to undergo some kind of accounting or financial planning class.

[Link]

Besides, DUHHHH, the performers are NOT employees, so they don't qualify for these tax-qualified benefits!

If you would like to go broke VERY quickly, I invite you to invest in a PEO dedicated to the adult industry.

BTW, I'm also a professional benefits consultant, aside from being an adult industry expert, so I know what I'm talking about in this connection, too.

JP

P.S. Why would the government care if this happens? The government cares if uninsured people get AIDS. They don't care in principle whether adult performers or anyone else has insurance. And what does payroll deduction have to do with it? It doesn't go to the government, it goes to the insurer.

[Link]

Also, I did mention that my ideas didn't work in the independent subcontractor scenario. I realize that they are not employees. Do I think they should be employees? Yes, some of them.

I admit to not being a professional benefits consultant. However with my puny brain have learned that HSAs appear to be much more beneficial to the self employed than the union worker.

I don't understand why a PEO run by the adult industry for the adult industry is such a horrible thing. Would I invest in it? Hell no. In my mind it's not designed to be run for-profit. But if adult company owners are going to contribute $5k (as an example) to an organization "whose primary purpose is the health and welfare of performers" I think the PEO model could work.

[Link]

When man invented fire, he didn’t say, 'hey, let’s cook', he said, 'great, now we can see naked bottoms in the dark.' - Coupling

[Link]

When man invented fire, he didn’t say, 'hey, let’s cook', he said, 'great, now we can see naked bottoms in the dark.' - Coupling

[Link]

It would be better for the actresses, when they are booked for a scene, that they get in writing (via email or fax) exactly what will be expected of them during the scene, listing what acts they will be performing. So no more confusion about what the scene is going to be, or no director starting up with, "I want you to do something more, now that you're on the set, or you don't get paid." Plus, the actress can't back out and say, "I didn't know you wanted that," when it was spelled out in writing beforehand.

This is similar to what freelance writers do when they produce an article for a magazine. They agree in writing with an editor what the article will be about, how long it will be, and when it is due. Writers in this case aren't employees at all, but are similar to the 'independent contractor' status that porn performers have.

I can tell you as a viewer, I'm tired of watching scenes where after the camera starts rolling, the director or actor starts with the pressure to get the actress to try anal, or a DP, or DAP, and so on. Off the top of my head, I can think of 9 scenes like this, where the negotiations were actually taking place during the filming of the scene. I've seen European directors do this, and American ones, apparently it is a widespread practice. I've even gotton an email from an actress about a famous director who works in Budapest, that this is his usual practice, to pressure actresses to do more than what they signed up for, and to wait to do this until after a scene has already started.

How this would be enforced, I'm not certain. I suppose it depends on how trustworthy the producers and directors can bring themselves to be.

[Link]

We're not talking about people who belong to the Sierra Club, are we? Putting this seal on the DVD cover won't mean much to consumers.

*I made this title up, no such DVD exists.

[Link]

I think it is a good idea and I hope it can be done via Jenna Jameson's AIFA instead of the Free Speech Coalition.

The companies could pay a fixed amount per VHS/DVD.
The review sites should pay.
The companies that sell should pay.
AVN should pay.

Hopefully this will enable AIM to get a much better computer system with more accurate and immediate updates.

And, when asking for the best for all, the talent should also pay into the fund.

It will be a pain to implement and even more of a pain to administrate, but it is a great idea.

Thanks,
Den

[Link]

the review companies should pay,
the companies that sell (I presume this refers to wholesale distributors and retailers) should pay,
AVN should pay.

Despite the fact that the things we're talking about cost money and therefore someone has to pay, I honeslty do not see why these groups should. It's a long-established principle of commercial common law in this country that wholesalers and retailers are only liable for the products they sell to their buyers. They are not liable for any part of the manufacturing and production process. If a chemical company has a factory accident that injures workers and neighbors and damages property near the accident site, the wholesale distributors are not liable for any of those damages, nor would another manufacturere who uses the chemical as an ingredient be liable, nor would the local hardware store that sells the chemical, nor the consumer who buys it to put on his lawn. When you blithely decide, in your kingly opinion, who should pay for what, why do you get to decide that people THIS far downstream should pay, but no farther? Why shouldn't YOU pay? You may not profit, but you certainly benefit; if all that matters is having a piece of it, well, YOU do, why shouldn't we ask YOU to pony up? We don't, because capitalism only works if it is linked to settled legal principles. And the direction of liability is one of those.

As for the review companies and AVN having to pay - do you not realize that this business can only exist if the First Amendment is taken seriously? If it can be eroded ad hoc for whatever YOU think it's OK to ignore it for, what makes you think it can'tbe eroded for the purposes that John Ashcroft or Jerry Falwell would prefer? There is not and cannot be a price paid for a free press, and whether you like it or not, reviewers and AVN are part of a free press. End of story.

JP

[Link]

I don't mean to waste people's time disagreeing with someone who is basically agreeing with me, but astro doesn't have the right info or reasons here. Unions, strictly speaking, don't "manage" their own health plans; they don't "charge extremely heavily for it" at all - the employee's cost - if any - for what is typically a Rolls-Royce of health plans under large union contracts is far lower than the employee's cost for a similar plan to a non-union employee, even in the same company; unions CANNOT, by law, make money from managing a union health plan. The basic model is that an employer contracts with an insurer and a health-care provider - HMO, PPO, fee-for-service, or some combination of options - for health unsurance coverage for the employees. Legally, the employer is the trustee of the health insurance plan. In the case of unions, which can cover workers over hundreds of companies and thousands of locations, the details of the health-care plan is part of contract negotiations. The resulting health plan may be administered primarily by the union; it is usually administered by a combination of union and insurers' and companies' representatives. The trustee is usually a committee with representatives of the companies and of the union, unlike the single-employer plan, where the employer is the trustee. The cost of administration is strictly audited, and no one - not the union, not the employer, not the insurer - can make "huge money" from administering the plan. It isn't legal to do so. The vehicles that have been discussed, like MSA's, HRA's, HSA's - these are INDIVIDUAL tax-advantaged arrangements, like an IRA. You take an amount of your pretax salary and it is placed in a trust account, where interest or earnings are exempt from tax, too - and that money is earmarked specifically for medical expenses and can only be removed for that purpose. Since the investment options are limited compared to say, an IRA or a 401(k) account, not even the investment manager makes "big money" from this. As I said, in the whole goddam country, 260 million people plus, only a few hundred of these accounts exist - and ANYONE can have one. But we fantasize that pornstars who don't even have savings or investment accounts, retirement plans, investment portfolios, or enough brains to refuse to fuck a pus-dripping asshole are going to all open individual MSA's. You'll pardon me if I find it hard to take seriously. I'd love to hear Greg Zeboray's take on this. It only took him like FOUR YEARS to get enough cooperation to make decent health-care coverage available to pornstars willing to pay for it - ask him how hard it was, and ask him how many take advantage of his hard work.

[Link]

Yes, it would definitely discourage "cash" wages, and makes everything easier to track by the IRS, etc. But then again, the adult industry has constantly sought legitimacy by its mainstream peers. It's about time they start acting like it. They can't be rebels to the end and want legitimate recognition without cleaning up their shadowy business practices. Which means paying taxes, no hiring of illegal or undocumented workers, pooled benefits for the workers, and external accountability.

[Link]