Tag: APHSS

Returning to Work ? Somethings You Should Know…

September 3, 2012, Labor Day, ironically, is the day that the FSC/APHSS has determined to be the best day to return adult performers to a regular production schedule, a mere 10 days after receiving a prophylactic antibiotic shot to hopefully cure the syphilis outbreak in the industry. Now that the moratorium on production has been lifted, be safe and here’s some facts that you should know before you head off to set;

  • There are 9 performers in adult confirmed positive for syphilis as of today;
  • Syphilis may take up to 90 days to detect through testing with the average range being 21 days;
  • Once you test positive for syphilis you may always test positive for syphilis;
  • If you are receiving your test results through APHSS you may not know that you are working with another performer that previously tested positive for syphilis – the APHSS database only tells you whether someone is “cleared” to work;
  • There is a disagreement between APHSS and TTS as to the proper test to use to detect syphilis;
  • APHSS states that their required and mandatory re-test can detect syphilis at 14 days while TTS states two tests are necessary to detect it this quickly.
  • Only 300 performers opted to take the antibiotic shot;
  • Despite the moratorium on production, there were some production companies and agents that continued to book scenes;
  • Some performers continued to escort during the moratorium;
  • Condoms may not protect you from catching or spreading syphilis;
  • Treatment for syphilis may make birth control pills ineffective;
  • Often those with syphilis do not show any symptoms of the disease;
  • In the primary and secondary stages syphilis is very contagious;
  • If a performer’s off camera sex partner(s) were not treated it is possible to reinfect those that were treated;
  • An antibiotic shot is not a vaccine and a performer can be reinfected quite easily;
  • If you catch syphilis, receive treatment and then get reinfected it will require 1 shot a week for 3 weeks to cure it;
  • Having an open syphilis sore makes it 2 to 5 times more likely that you can transmit/contract HIV during sex.

If there are any facts I have let off this list please feel free to add a comment to this article and I will add them to the list.

0

Emails, Databases and Doctors – Are We Doing it Right ?

This article is a continuation of my examination of the testing facilities utilized by the adult industry to check for the presence of sexually transmitted diseases. There is a little known but albeit interesting law in California that should be of special interests to those in the adult industry for two reasons. First, California Health and Safety Code section 123148 requires that a “health care professional” who orders a laboratory test for sexually transmitted diseases “shall” provide those results to the patient. Further, test results for HIV antibodies cannot be provided to the patient by the healthcare professional by the Internet or other electronic means. The statute reads in relevant part;

123148.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health
care professional at whose request a test is performed shall provide
or arrange for the provision of the results of a clinical laboratory
test to the patient who is the subject of the test if so requested by
the patient, in oral or written form. The results shall be conveyed
in plain language and in oral or written form, except the results may
be conveyed in electronic form if requested by the patient and if
deemed most appropriate by the health care professional who requested
the test...
(f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), none of the
following clinical laboratory test results and any other related
results shall be conveyed to a patient by Internet posting or other
electronic means:
   (1) HIV antibody test.
   (2) Presence of antigens indicating a hepatitis infection.
   (3) Abusing the use of drugs.
   (4) Test results related to routinely processed tissues, including
skin biopsies, Pap smear tests, products of conception, and bone
marrow aspirations for morphological evaluation, if they reveal a
malignancy.

 

These two paragraphs have serious implications as to how the industry currently handles testing as well as how that information is shared with a performer. The first paragraph requires that only a physician or other “health care professional” order the testing for the sexually transmitted disease panel since only the physician or other “health care professional” can share the tests results with the patient. Also, if those test results include an HIV antibody test those results cannot be shared via the Internet on a database, by email or even through a phone call. You read that correctly. Test results cannot even be shared with a patient via a phone call. At this point you may be saying that I must be crazy – all doctors share those results by phone. Except that there is a current bill in the California Legislature to correct that problem with the original law. It is referred to as Assembly Bill 2253 and so far it appears to have bipartisan support in the Legislature but as yet to become law. ( See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2253&sess=1112&house=A )

Here is a summary of the bill from MapLight California (See http://maplight.org/california/bill/2011-ab-2253/1069303/history )

Existing law authorizes the results of a clinical laboratory test performed at the request of a health care professional to be conveyed to the patient in electronic form if requested by the patient and if deemed most appropriate by the health care professional, except that existing law prohibits the conveyance by Internet posting or other electronic means of test results relating to HIV antibodies, the presence of hepatitis antigens, and the abuse of drugs, and specified test results that reveal a malignancy.

This bill would revise these provisions to refer to the disclosure of test results, would provide that the telephone is not a form of electronic communication, and would authorize the disclosure by Internet posting or other electronic means of clinical laboratory test results related to HIV antibodies, the presence of hepatitis antigens, and the abuse of drugs, and specified test results that reveal a malignancy if requested by the patient, the means of conveyance is deemed appropriate by the health care professional, and a health care professional has already discussed the results with the patient.

Obviously, if a bill is needed to make it legal for a doctor to tell you whether you have or don’t have HIV on the phone, it is still very much illegal to provide that information to you via email, a database or anything sent to your phone. Currently, it appears that only a “health care professional” can tell you in person what the results of your HIV test is. Some veteran performers may remember when testing started in the industry they had to wait for the results in the testing center in Venice, California. This was even prior to the establishment of the Adult Industry Medical clinic.

If you are now being “sent” your test results by the doctor or the lab that is not allowed under California Health and Safety Code section 123148 (See http://www.mbc.ca.gov/consumer/complaint_info_questions_practice.html#18 ). Further, even with the patient’s agreement the prohibition against sharing test results electronically is NOT allowed. A performer cannot even waive this provision of California law.

So who is a “health care professional” and does a performer actually need to be examined prior to having a test ordered or can a performer simply walk into a clinic and request a test. This is where the laws surrounding HIV testing are not quite clear. And the laws are different in regards to public free testing sponsored by a county or state health department as compared to private medical testing. It is not clear whether a full examination is required. However, it does appear that a performer themselves cannot order a test from a laboratory. That order must be placed by a health care professional.

Based on everything I have read it appears that only a “licensed health care professional” licensed under California’s Professions and Business codes can order an STD test from the lab. Obviously it would be lawful for a physician licensed in the state of California to order such a test. However, what about Nurse Practitioners, Physician’s Assistants and other medical personnel you might encounter in a testing facility ? Nurse Practitioners and Physician’s Assistants are licensed by the state of California so it seems that they can order STD testing. Can front desk clerks and other non-licensed staff order STD tests – the answer is probably not.

At this point in time it appears that the way tests results are ordered and provided to performers within the adult industry may not be in line with current California law. If Assembly Bill 2253 finally passes and is signed into law by the Governor of California we will be one step closer to being compliant with that change in the current law.

If you would like to learn more about laws pertaining to HIV and the testing for such in California please download this guide from the state of California -> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=25&cad=rja&ved=0CGQQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdph.ca.gov%2Fprograms%2Faids%2FDocuments%2FRPT2007-06-14-2849-2006AIDSLAWS.pdf&ei=LN48UMDIK8iz8AHtvYGoCw&usg=AFQjCNH63w71vDufrICv3mYyvdYKVm34Kw&sig2=ZGP8YZWMEBLk-WT1cM9ebw

 

 

 

0

Is There a Hole in APHSS ?

The syphilis outbreak in the adult industry has brought to the forefront a highly contested debate as to testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Currently there is a debate as to whether there should be one testing facility or multiple facilities. There is also a debate as to what the proper protocols should be for informing performers and their sex partners of a possible outbreak. There is yet another debate as to whether what exactly should a performer know about his/her costar on set in regards to their medical history.

Background…

The main players in this debate are the testing facilities under the umbrella known as the Adult Production Health & Safety Service (APHSS https://aphss.org/ ). APHSS is the brainchild of the Free Speech Coalition (FSC http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ ) and several major content production studios that openly support the FSC, most notably Manwin, Evil Angel, Kink.com, Girlfriend Films, Gamma Entertainment and Vivid Entertainment. One of those APHSS testing facilities is Cutting Edge Testing, which is owned and operated by Dr. Miao, and is one of the main testing facilities in Los Angeles for the industry. (CET http://cuttingedgetesting.com/ ).

On the other side of the equation is Talent Testing Services (TTS http://www.talenttestingservice.com/ ), a testing laboratory not a medical clinic, which appears to be supported by LATATA ( http://latata.org/ ). The Licensed Adult Talent Agency Trade Association is comprised of several of the licensed and bonded adult talent agents within the United States. Further, TTS is not part of the APHSS system and it appears does not wish to be. TTS is not a medical facility it is a laboratory that performs testing for sexually transmitted diseases.

APHSS’s inception is rather recent, only occurring after Adult Industry Medical (AIM) closed and filed for bankruptcy within the last year. TTS has been in operation for several years.

As for adult performers, they seem to be split as to which testing facility they prefer. Some prefer CET and the APHSS system while others prefer TTS.

Medical History within the APHSS Database…

Without getting into extreme detail as to either service or all that either service offers, since that would require pages of analysis, I would like to confine my discussion to one potential problem with the APHSS database I have been made aware of by seasoned veteran performers.

Since I prefaced this article with the words “hotly debated” let me state this for my readers. I do not have a financial interest in either testing facility. I do not have a preference as to either testing facility. I am not a performer nor a producer and therefore do not have a “dog in this hunt” so to speak. I am neutral as to both facilities so please do not attack me believing this article is merely an attack on APHSS. It is not. It is merely meant to inform and educate based on a potential issue I see with the way medical history is handled in the APHSS system. My goal is that this issue can be resolved and the database improved for the health, safety and knowledge of the talent.

After a discussion on Twitter with Fabian Thylmann it became apparent to this writer that there is a potential hole in the APHSS database as to the past medical history of performers. I have come to this understanding after the conversation with Fabian Thylmann as well as personally attending the APHSS presentation in July conducted by the FSC and Dr. Maio. I will limit my discussion to just one issue. That issue is how past medical history is handled by APHSS.

From my understanding the performers in the APHSS database will be either “cleared” or “not cleared” to work under the APHSS database and call in system. Which means that only the most recent test results will be available to be reported and only in the way proscribed. Which, for legal purposes, is a good idea with the issue of medical privacy being important to so many. As a lawyer, I like the APHSS database. It leaves little room for violation of medical privacy.

However, from my discussions with some veteran performers it appears that there are a contingent of them that would like to know more about their on-screen partner’s medical history, including whether they have tested for syphilis in the past. While normally I would disagree with that position as for chlamydia and gonorrhea I do see that information as being important for syphilis. Syphilis is an infection that can be easily cured but may always result in some level of a positive finding on a sexual transmitted disease test result, depending on the test used. (Please see http://www2a.cdc.gov/stdtraining/self-study/syphilis/syphilis10.asp ). Therefore, I can certainly see a performer’s right to make an informed decision. While medically it may be impossible to transmit the disease once a performer as undergone treatment some performers feel as though that they would like to know that information prior to performing in a scene with previously positive performer. A balance between privacy and informed decisions must be made.

From what I was told by Fabian Thylmann of Manwin, a performer who has tested positive for syphilis will be cleared for work within the APHSS database once they have been examined and cleared by an APHSS physician. Therefore, while we do not know at this time who besides Mr. Marcus may have it,  based on Fabian Thylmann’s statement it is possible that at some future point a performer that had syphilis and received treatment will be actively performing again. With this potential hole in the APHSS system anyone working with that performer would not even know about the past positive history for syphilis.

While this might not present much stress for some performers it may for others. I discussed this issue with a male performer that indicated that he did not believe that working with a performer who had previously tested positive for syphilis but is now cured posed much of a risk. However, he did indicate that information would be desirable in order to make an informed decision. Performers should be able to assess risk and balance such concerns themselves.

I had suggested to Fabian Thylmann of Manwin that the APHSS database be changed so that it would instead read “cleared for work” however with a notation. That notation in the database could be an indication that the other performer may have tested positive for syphilis within the last 30, 60, 90 or 180 days depending on long ago the past the positive test occurred. That may allow a performer to make a more informed decision as to who their screen partners will be.

This hole in the database may also become more important in the future if testing is going to expand past the basic HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and now syphilis panel. If the industry adds herpes, hepatitis and human papillomavirus to the regular testing panel how is the APHSS database set up to handle those types of results. Are all performers that test positive for herpes going to be “cleared to work” without a notation that they carry the virus ? As with syphilis is an APHSS doctor going to examine them for the presence of an outbreak before clearing the performer to work ? How often will this exam be necessary ?

Will there be a notation in the APHSS database for those performers that have had a hepatitis B vaccination ? Will a performer know if they are working with someone else who has been vaccinated ?

Since this database is being touted as the database for the entire industry, lets not forget the gay side of production as well. There are gay production companies that allow HIV positive performers to work with other HIV positive performers as well as HIV negative performers ( See http://www.insidesocal.com/outinthe562/2010/11/hiv-positive-gay-porn-actor-signs-exclusive-contract.html ). Some of those studios even match performers with different strains of HIV together. How would this particular situation be handled by the APHSS database and call in system ? Would an HIV positive performer working for a gay production studio “not be cleared for work” or would they. Would a notation be required on that performer’s database file ? Or is APHSS simply not going to allow gay performers and production companies into their database ? That cannot be possible since APHSS has under it’s umbrella of testing facilities a clinic located in San Francisco. There are also straight porn production companies such as Naughty America that are now also producing gay content ( See http://queermenow.net/blog/naughty-america-presents-3-new-gay-porn-sites/ )

Needless to say, the syphilis outbreak has caused numerous questions to be asked in regards to the current state of testing and performer health and safety as well as the mandatory use of condoms now required by state law and Los Angeles city ordinance. Without doubt this issue will continue to be debated, lines will be drawn and sides will be taken. Let us not forget those in the middle of the fire, the performers who risk their health every time they step on set to perform.

Knowledge is power. If you believe I am mistaken in the way medical history will be handled by the APHSS database I invite you to post a comment. Any inaccuracies will be corrected.

0

Syphilis and You – Part I

I usually try to remove my personal thoughts and prejudices from this blog and desire it to be more legal and factual in nature. However, in light of what is happening not only in the United States but also Europe in regards to syphilis I do not believe that I can. Too many of my friends, not just clients, are caught up in what could end up ruining their lives, businesses and careers.

I had a conversation two nights ago with a client and friend that perhaps I was too difficult on since I held a bright-line approach with him as to when he should return to performing as well as producing. It is always much easier to play quarterback from the sidelines then it is from the actual game. And I am not IN this actual game. I do not sacrifice my body on camera nor do I have to worry about my hired talent on set contracting syphilis or any STD for that matter. I am not a producer nor talent.

He was gracious in explaining the everyday situations he finds himself in a much diminished industry trying to do what he feels is the “right thing” while being able to pay his bills. I certainly cannot fault him for such. It is a difficult decision that producers and talent have to make as to when to resume shooting.

It appeared, at least to most, that the most turbulent part of the storm had blown over when the FSC ( http://www.freespeechcoalition.com ) had made the announcement that Manwin and several other producers would provide a prophylactic antibiotic shot to talent for free so they could return to work 10 days after receiving the injection. Hundreds of performers lined up to get the miracle drug called penicillin. Then two days later Rocco Siffredi dropped a bombshell interview on XBiz Magazine, wherein, he claimed that 89-100 performers through-out Europe now have syphilis and the number may be rising. ( http://www.xbiz.com/news/153188 ) He also went on to state that Europe is now under a 60 day moratorium and production has ceased. Cases have been reported in Budapest, Prague and St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg may have had the earliest reported cases starting in as early as May 2012. (Note: This information was provided by Fabian Thylmann of Manwin) His comments left most of the US industry wondering how and why this happened.

It appears for all intents and purposes that the European performers were also receiving antibiotics as well. Therefore, how could 16 cases explode into 100 cases in a short 2-3 weeks. I do not know if anyone has the answer to that particular question nor do we in the US know that there is a confirmed count of 100 cases in Europe. I have no reason to doubt Siffredi, but his comments cannot be viewed in a vacuum. He might be incorrect. However, he seemed to blame performers that also escort as a reason for the increase in cases, at least outside the industry. He also discussed that fact that some talent in Europe also altered their tests to allow them to continue to work as Mr. Marcus did here in Los Angeles. However, he did not seem to have an answer as to how the number of cases had risen in Europe so dramatically in a few short weeks.

In the United States, an accurate count of the number of positive cases remains a mystery. It could be 2, 5 or even as high as 9 as reported by the Los Angeles County Health Department (LA County Health receives all reports of STDs within the county as required by law). Which of those cases are from within the industry and how many are outside of it. The simple answer is that no one knows for certain at this point.

Unfortunately, many performers within the Los Angeles industry continue to work despite the moratorium. I even heard that one male talent has said that the syphilis outbreak has been a “goldmine” for him since he was one of the few male performers still willing to work. I have also heard reports of agents continuing to book talent for scenes and even charging them “kill fees” for refusing to perform. Which obviously means there are at least a handful of companies that are still producing. As my friend and client indicated, people have to eat and pay bills. Many performers and producers do not have a cash reserve that will allow them to survive even a 10 day stoppage no less the 60 days that is now affecting our European counterparts. Further, producers for some large internet websites and tubesites do not have enough content in reserve to allow them to stop producing. Websites must be continually updated for the members so they continue to rebill.

This has left me wondering whether the US, and more specifically the Los Angeles, market is about to experience a dramatic rise in the number of cases or has this outbreak been contained by the prophylactic antibiotic shot provided to some performers for free. Some performers have opted not to take the shot and would rather wait 90 days for three clean syphilis tests to continue working. Either way, we are, without question, in a wait and see period. The latency for a positive finding on a syphilis test can indeed be as long as 90 days though it usually shows up on a test within 20-30 days. I am unaware of any tests that can show whether a performer is positive or negative for syphilis in as little as 10 days. (Note: Fabian Thylmann of Manwin provided that there is no test that can accurately detect syphilis at the 10 day mark however it is his opinion that if treated and caught early a performer should be allowed to return to work.)

So where does that leave the US talent pool as well as the producers ? At this point, in my opinion, lost and confused. I have received numerous calls in regards to when production should resume. No one seems to have a clear answer to this question since the answer would depend on your ability to handle risk. Obviously, the sooner you return to production the higher risk you might have of contracting and spreading syphilis. The longer you wait the more the risk diminishes – or does it ? Perhaps not, if some talent and producers continued to work during the moratorium. What it really comes down to is how many first generation cases did we start with and how many second generation cases were there, as well as how many of those cases were cured with the antibiotic shot. I do not think we will ever know since prior to giving the antibiotic shot, the FSC and APHSS did not specifically test the performer base for syphilis, they merely injected them. However numerous performers did in fact test prior to receiving the injection. Therefore, the industry may never know how exactly far this disease had spread. We, like the Europeans may have had 75+ cases. We may have none now thanks to the shot. We may still have several cases floating around the industry. We do not know. However, we will soon find out though.

The real question is what else can a performer and or producer do in the interim to pay the bills and survive a 10 day or longer shut down of production. That will be discussed in my next installment – Part II.

 

0

Syphilis and Forced Employer Vaccinations…

Today APHSS & the FSC begin a regiment of providing free antibiotic shots to porn performers in order to prevent the spread of syphilis. I have received numerous emails, texts, phone calls and DMs on Twitter from various members of the adult industry community as to the legality of an employer demanding that a worker receive a prophylactic antibiotic shot an as a condition of employment.

Basically, it is my understanding that certain production companies will not hire a particular performer unless they can show proof of receiving the antibiotic shot for syphilis through the APHSS system. I am unaware of any exception to this condition by APHSS or FSC that would allow a performer to seek out the consultation of their own physician as to the risks and benefits of receiving such treatment. Even though the prophylactic antibiotic shots begin today very little information has been disseminated to the performers other then if they receive the shot they can return to work in as little as 10 days. I have not seen much in the way of information being provided to the performers in regards to the risks of the antibiotic shot or the side effects of such. Nor have I seen much in the way of alternatives being proposed.

I cannot and will not provide medical advice. What I can say is that, legally, every person has the right to chose their own medical treatment from their own physician and if necessary refuse such treatment.

In California it is a well established rule of law that a physician who performs any medical procedure without the patient’s consent commits a battery irrespective of the skill or care used. The consent of a patient must be “informed.” Under the doctrine of informed consent the patient must have the capacity to reason and make judgments, the decision must be made voluntarily and without coercion, and the patient must have a clear understanding of the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment alternatives or nontreatment, along with a full understanding of the nature of the disease and the prognosis. Accordingly, the right to refuse medical treatment is equally “basic and fundamental” and integral to the concept of informed consent.

I urge all performers to seek out a consultation from their own physician as to the need for antibiotics for treatment for a disease they may not have and may not have even been exposed to.

As to whether an employer may force inoculations/vaccinations as a condition of employment it may be permissible under California law, however, any performer having an adverse reaction to the inoculation/vaccination would have a civil lawsuit and a workers’ compensation claim against the entities and production companies requiring such inoculation/vaccination as a condition of employment. In Maher v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 33 Cal.3d 729 (1983), a nurse’s assistant was required by her employer to undergo a physical examination that included a test for tuberculosis. When she tested positive for the disease, she was required to undergo treatment for tuberculosis as a condition of continued employment. She developed a significant adverse reaction to the treatment. The California Supreme Court held that employer-required medical treatment for a nonoccupational disease arises out of the employment and is compensable. (Id. at p. 738; see also Roberts v. U.S.O. Camp Shows, Inc. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 884, 885 [205 P.2d 1116] (Incapacity caused by illness from vaccination or inoculation may properly be found to have arisen out of the employment where such treatment is submitted to pursuant to the direction or for the benefit of the employer.)

By demanding and directing the prophylactic antibiotic shot, those production companies requiring such open themselves up to a myriad of liability as to any death, incapacity or future treatment resulting from such decision. It is cautioned that the performers seek medical advice as to the treatment and production companies seek legal advice to the ramifications of demanding forced prophylactic antibiotic shot as a condition of employment.

0

Performer Testing… Is There a Hidden Agenda ?

I hate having to wear my tinfoil hat as one of my Twitter followers pointed out but sometimes it is necessary. Several days ago I posted an article about “Who Should Pay for Performer Testing.” Now I feel compelled to discuss what testing may or may not mean to those who actually control it.

Most industry members see testing as a profitable money making endeavor for whomever controls it. While others believe that those that control the test results can also control the release of information in case of a STI outbreak and might even be able to minimize potential legal liability. Some just see it as a “pissing contest” between several egos.

There is a third potential possibility as well. Many people are now starting to understand that information is worth money. Data mining is a big time business in this world. STI testing results are indeed worth money to the United States government as well as corporations developing new drugs for STIs.

If you follow me on Twitter you might have noticed that on August 9, 2012 I tweeted about how the National Institutes of Health offer grant money to study HIV screening and testing ( http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-11-118.html ) On Saturday, August 11, 2012, Talent Testing Service announced that they just formed a partnership with University of California, Los Angeles on a sexual health study ( http://business.avn.com/company-news/Talent-Testing-Service-Partners-with-UCLA-on-Sexual-Health-Study-485112.html ).

Performers wanting to receive a $40 gift card and free follow up STI medical care can participate in the study. Which essentially means that UCLA will have the right to their test results and medical care to use as part of their study – in essence a performer waives their right of privacy in so much that the information will could be sold. I am sure this information will be sanitized – meaning names will be removed since UCLA probably doesn’t care about a performer’s name or identifying information – rather UCLA cares about the empirical data – how often one tests, how often one catches an STI, the treatment received for such, how long the treatment lasted and how effective the results of the treatment were. That could be a data goldmine for a drug company trying to develop the next anti-biotic to fight any one of the many STIs on the planet.

How much can a group or organization receive for this type of information ? According to the link I posted to the National Institutes of Health’s grant overview information website, there is no limit. However if you want more than $500,000.00 you have to call the NIH directly. Apparently you cannot just email the application for a grant requests at that level.

I am not saying that Talent Testing Services received the grant themselves, however it does appear that UCLA has indeed received grant money for the study of STIs. The performers present a very unique situation in the world when it comes to STI research. I am going to bet that no where else in the United States does a group of people test for and possibly contract STIs as much as performers do in porn. And now that the testing cycle is being pushed to every 14 days, the amount of information is only going to increase and therefore the potential gold mine of data will increase in value as well.

As I tweeted, “there is gold in them thar HIV tests !”

 

 

0

Who Should Pay for Performer Testing ?

On July 24, 2012, Manwin the owner of membership websites known as Brazzers and Mofos and tubesites such as YouPorn, PornHub, and Tube8 made an announcement that they would donate $50,000.00 per month to create a “Performer Subsidy Fund” to reimburse performers for the cost of testing in the adult industry (See story here).

This fund would be administered by the Free Speech Coalition through their APHSS program. Basically, Manwin stated that they would reimburse all performers the costs of their tests within a given month up to $50,000.00, whether those tests were for Manwin productions or not. Manwin also called for other production companies to join with them in their generosity and also donate to the fund. They further donated a total of $35,000.00 to FSC/APHSS to administer the fund. However, they did place a time limit on the program indicating that the program would only run through the end of 2012. At which point it would be re-evaluated to determine if it would be continued into 2013.

Many people within the industry pointed out that this was a very generous, albeit suspicious offer from Manwin. There is a general opinion within the industry that Manwin, through their tubesites, was a direct contributor to the economic downfall of porn production. Why now would they voluntarily come forward and support performers to reimburse testing costs ? Some people even opined that they believed this was Manwin’s attempt to take over medical testing procedures in the industry.

However I think the answer can be found in California Labor Code section 222.5 which reads in relevant part;

“No person shall withhold or deduct from the compensation of any employee, or require any prospective employee or applicant for employment to pay, any fee for, or cost of, any pre-employment medical or physical examination taken as a condition of employment, nor shall any person withhold or deduct from the compensation of any employee, or require any employee to pay any fee for, or costs of, medical or physical examinations required by any law or regulation of federal, state or local governments or agencies thereof.”

In short, employees in California cannot be made to pay for pre-employment medical testing, which is exactly what the STD testing is within the adult content production business – a pre-employment test. Without a clean test no production company will or should hire a performer to perform in an adult production.

I realize that many performers in adult do not and refuse to consider themselves employees. Rather they wish, for whatever reason, to be called independent contractors. I can assure anyone reading this article that performers, for purposes of worker safety laws, are indeed employees and not independent contractors. Perhaps for tax purposes they may be independent contractors. It is possible to be an employee for worker safety laws but yet be an independent contractor for tax purposes.

Further, on January 1, 2012 additional laws went into effect in California making the “willfull misclassification” of employees as independent contractors even more dangerous for employers. Labor Code Section 226.8 imposes significant penalties ranging from a minimum of $5,000 to $25,000 for “each violation.” The civil penalties for one misclassified individual could be tens of thousands of dollars depending on the interpretation of “each violation” and the penalty imposed. Obviously, if Manwin does not take remedial steps to comply with California law in regards to the classification of employees they may face significant penalties as well as potential lawsuits under California’s Private Attorney General Act, which allows individuals to file lawsuits to enforce California law.

It is this author’s opinion that Manwin is starting to realize that the performers are indeed employees and are taking steps to comply with California law. Obviously, they are trying to set a precedent with the reimbursement of testing costs, however they still fall short of actual compliance with Labor Code section 222.5. Since the “Performer Subsidy Fund” requires a performer to sign up for the program instead of Manwin paying for the pre-employment testing outright.

None-the-less, Manwin is taking a step in the right direction when it comes to the treatment of performers, however, it is only a half step. At some point all production companies will have to address not only peformers’ testing costs but also the issue of workers’ compensation for on-set injuries.

If you would like to read more on the issue of workers’ compensation and porn production here is a two part interview I did for XBiz Magazine in 2007 … Part I and Part II

In future posts I will be covering the issue of workers’ compensation insurance and its application to porn production sets further.

0

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑