4 ms·

Seems like a reach to me. They're providing a ton of utility. They are mitigating the a few key liabilities IMO: 1. The legal liability of a studio/prod not pr

Seems like a reach to me. They're providing a ton of utility. They are mitigating the a few key liabilities IMO: 1. The legal liability of a studio/prod not providing ample protections for employees. I'm unsure if there is precedent here, but it seems to fall under the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act. 2. They are doing supply-chain/operations security work. If every extra on set caught COVID filming would cease, and money would be wasted. If talent catches COVID -- same, but if talent catches COVID and ends up hospitalized or worse you've got not only a delayed movie, but potentially NO movie.

yuppie_scum 5y ago
Agreed. They aren’t driving everyone crazy, they’re driving one blogger on sub stack crazy
- CaptainBanger 5y ago
- adamrezich 5y ago
  did you read the article? unless the author is outright lying about his private correspondence with people who work on TV shows as a result of his tweet, he is certainly not the only one who is bothered by this stuff
  - WFHRenaissance 5y ago
    Hmmmm... I read the article, and MT seems to think COVID guidelines are "hyper-paranoid". I think it's just a tradeoff at the end of the day. These projects are often very expensive, and they are systems that rely on the health of a few key components. Even a few sick days for talent has a price for production. Film sets are crowded affairs. I think it makes sense to be a little draconian in this setting. Anyways... doesn't matter what anyone here thinks LOL -- plenty of bodies willing to work in the film industry. This sort of stuff will start to disappear when either: 1. COVID becomes a less harmful and less contagious virus. 2. Studios and production execs stop caring about wasted money or failed projects. But even then, the specter of a liability lawsuit will probably keep these staff employed for the duration of the decade.
steveylang 5y ago
Right, to say they have no purpose at all is rather disingenuous, or belies a rather extreme view towards COVID. And as far as the virtue-signaling goes, there is plenty of that from all sides. The one good point I thought he made was the creation of the ‘COVIDeaucracy’, which like any established bureauacracy can bias towards self-preservation vs. its original purpose.
- WFHRenaissance 5y ago
  Fair point RE bureaucratization. Similar perverse incentives exist for pretty much any organization touching COVID right now. Vaccine manufacturers, PPE manufacturers, hazard/risk consultancies, cleanup crews, et cetera. I'm not sure what will happen. I'm assuming that eventually COVID will become a relatively infectious but also relatively harmless virus (based on mostly conjecture from virologists online making some sort of evolutionary argument that I honestly have not appraised). We don't have seasonal flu inspectors, yet it can claim lives or at least weeks of someone's life at any time each year, and if we had sentries/surveillance to lower flu cases... well I could see that people a potentially popular option for these staff as well. I do think that COVID will probably end up looking a lot like "9/11 for health" in the next couple decades. As long as large projects/businesses have the $ to spend on making themselves more resilient to the risk of infectious disease I could see these teams justifying their existence. Ultimately, I think until the liability for the employer is eliminated or diminished we'll continue to see these teams do their work on set. I'm waiting for the first SCOTUS case RE COVID damages/compensation/liability. Maybe COVID waivers will be included in onboarding documents for new-hires in 2022? IDK! LOL
WFHRenaissance 5y ago
From OSHA's website: https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/standards https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/standards They do indeed mention the GDC of the OSH Act.

yuppie_scum 5y ago

Agreed. They aren’t driving everyone crazy, they’re driving one blogger on sub stack crazy

CaptainBanger 5y ago
adamrezich 5y ago
did you read the article? unless the author is outright lying about his private correspondence with people who work on TV shows as a result of his tweet, he is certainly not the only one who is bothered by this stuff
- WFHRenaissance 5y ago
  Hmmmm... I read the article, and MT seems to think COVID guidelines are "hyper-paranoid". I think it's just a tradeoff at the end of the day. These projects are often very expensive, and they are systems that rely on the health of a few key components. Even a few sick days for talent has a price for production. Film sets are crowded affairs. I think it makes sense to be a little draconian in this setting. Anyways... doesn't matter what anyone here thinks LOL -- plenty of bodies willing to work in the film industry. This sort of stuff will start to disappear when either: 1. COVID becomes a less harmful and less contagious virus. 2. Studios and production execs stop caring about wasted money or failed projects. But even then, the specter of a liability lawsuit will probably keep these staff employed for the duration of the decade.

steveylang 5y ago

Right, to say they have no purpose at all is rather disingenuous, or belies a rather extreme view towards COVID. And as far as the virtue-signaling goes, there is plenty of that from all sides. The one good point I thought he made was the creation of the ‘COVIDeaucracy’, which like any established bureauacracy can bias towards self-preservation vs. its original purpose.

WFHRenaissance 5y ago
Fair point RE bureaucratization. Similar perverse incentives exist for pretty much any organization touching COVID right now. Vaccine manufacturers, PPE manufacturers, hazard/risk consultancies, cleanup crews, et cetera. I'm not sure what will happen. I'm assuming that eventually COVID will become a relatively infectious but also relatively harmless virus (based on mostly conjecture from virologists online making some sort of evolutionary argument that I honestly have not appraised). We don't have seasonal flu inspectors, yet it can claim lives or at least weeks of someone's life at any time each year, and if we had sentries/surveillance to lower flu cases... well I could see that people a potentially popular option for these staff as well. I do think that COVID will probably end up looking a lot like "9/11 for health" in the next couple decades. As long as large projects/businesses have the $ to spend on making themselves more resilient to the risk of infectious disease I could see these teams justifying their existence. Ultimately, I think until the liability for the employer is eliminated or diminished we'll continue to see these teams do their work on set. I'm waiting for the first SCOTUS case RE COVID damages/compensation/liability. Maybe COVID waivers will be included in onboarding documents for new-hires in 2022? IDK! LOL

WFHRenaissance 5y ago

From OSHA's website: https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/standards https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/standards They do indeed mention the GDC of the OSH Act.