Jon and Kate Plus 8, Official Thread--Part 7

[DMRick]

For them not being compensated and not having permits, as well as an overly restrictive contract? (the permits are his fault too)

I don't think he was aware of any laws (again, his fault) until recently,if you mean why didn't he sue earlier.

But if it's in his contract that he and/or Kate should get the needed permits, he must have known about them, unless he didn't read the contract.
He would have had no reason to sue earlier..this suit is a counter to TLC suing him for breach of contract. I think him including the info about TLC not getting the permits will come back to haunt him.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Yes, I understand that. I was posting to another
about how there was much more to consider than 'just' the salary. Of course these items were bonuses. Bonuses they got because TLC put them on the air. Their book certainly would not have sold as much and J & K would not have been considered for all the speeches, if no one know them.

Gotcha.

I was just commenting that other revenue streams are irrelevant if they are not listed in the contract.

 

[OhMari]

maybe it is. I don't know. $2000 for 10 people, plus the use of the house for many hours of work each week? After taxes, that doesn't seem like a lot.

Ryan Scheckler received $2,000 an episode and his brothers and mom received $500 when they did the reality show on MTV. Ryan's brother Shane refused to be part of the show, because he said they were not paid enough. MTV made fun of him and said, that was a lot of money for teenagers. MTV exploited his family too, with low wages. I don't watch to much regular tv sitcoms, but many shows were dropped this week, and some of those actors and actresses were making $250,000 a show. Years ago, I read the networks were going with Reality Type shows, because it costs a whole lot less, than paying those large salaries to actual actors and actresses.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Years ago, I read the networks were going with Reality Type shows, because it costs a whole lot less, than paying those large salaries to actual actors and actresses.

It's true b/c they aren't SAG, they aren't actors, they aren't actress--they are filmed in their environment.

It also should be noted that the shows aren't cancelled due to the salaries--they aren't making money b/c noone watches the show. The actors could be paid $10 and the shows would still get cancelled.

Reality shows also cost less b/c overall they are cheaper to produce in general and not just b/c you don't have to pay actors equity wages.

 

[OhMari]

It's true b/c they aren't SAG, they aren't actors, they aren't actress--they are filmed in their environment.

It also should be noted that the shows aren't cancelled due to the salaries--they aren't making money b/c noone watches the show. The actors could be paid $10 and the shows would still get cancelled.

Reality shows also cost less b/c overall they are cheaper to produce in general and not just b/c you don't have to pay actors equity wages.

Really. Hmm.
Last nite had to be the first time I watched regular tv in a while. I watched New Christine/Old Christine-and the show after it Gary UnMarried. I'm not prude, but I don't think either show should be on that early, yikers. New Christine wasn't bad, but it still had sexual content and Gary UnMarried-I would have rated it as R and even X rated. I'm sure these actresses and actors are making a ton of money.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Really. Hmm.
Last nite had to be the first time I watched regular tv in a while. I watched New Christine/Old Christine-and the show after it Gary UnMarried. I'm not prude, but I don't think either show should be on that early, yikers. New Christine wasn't bad, but it still had sexual content and Gary UnMarried-I would have rated it as R and even X rated. I'm sure these actresses and actors are making a ton of money.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't watch them, but they have been renewed b/c they have viewers. The actors are payed handsomly, b/c they draw an audience. They'd get paid zero if noone was watching and they got cancelled.

The shows that got canceled--aka FIRED everyone--did that b/c they stank and couldn't pull viewers. The salary of the actor is not why. Like I said, if a show wasn't pulling viewers, it wouldn't matter what the actor was getting paid, be it base SAG rates, or 6 figures. They're getting canned if noone is watching them.

That was my point.

Not sure how you thought i was saying that actors don't get paid well.

A show can suck in anyone's opinion but still draw ratings for a network. FTR, I watch neither show.

 

[walden]

I didn't read Jon's suit yet, but he is not suing on behalf of the kids? For them not being compensated and not having permits, as well as an overly restrictive contract? (the permits are his fault too)

I don't think he was aware of any laws (again, his fault) until recently,if you mean why didn't he sue earlier.

I wonder why the Labor Dept has kept so quiet. Is their info public?

I just skimmed it. Where is RedRoseSix these days? I really miss her because she had a great eye for the legal stuff!

No, he is not suing on behalf of the kids so far as I can see. He is saying that TLC is preventing him from supporting them with the injunction against him. Not that I think he's much of a TV personality or will find it easy to get work on TV. He should go back to IT, IMO!

The first argument is that the original contract was signed without adequate legal representation, is unduly restrictive, did not include compensation for the kids . . . yada yada . . . and therefore cannot be enforced. All subsequent deals (whether or not J & K had an attorney there) were amendments to that original flawed agreement and are therefore also unenforceable. The amendment part is is actually consistent with TLC's Edward Sabin Affadavit. The court will decide whether that is a valid argument.

More interesting to me is that with this filing Jon is admitting that there was a breach of PA Child Labor Law and is willing to take the consequences -- usually fines. Work permits should have been pulled for the children by the Gosselin parents. The argument is that J & K were dumb bunnies, and TLC should have helped them file the application. Ignorance of the law is not usually a good defense.

Most people don't want to see these children worked and exploited any further, so the childrens best interests will be served..

The only way I could see any of that changing is if Kate is granted full custody of the children ("iffy" at this point) and she and/or TLC pursues the matter further.. At that point if Jon - as their father - with or without custody - still disagrees and claims it's harmful, the children could then be forced to be evaluated by child psychologists/psychiatrists so the courts could make a determination.. Is the parental desire to continue to earn money off of these children important enough to subject them to that? I would certainly hope not - but who knows..:sad2:

ITA, especially on the bolded. I think this could be a major issue in the divorce if Kate wanted to continue filming during her custody time, or wanted sole physical and personal custody and to continue filming. Yes, the children would probably have to have psychological evaluations if Jon fights her on either the custody or the filming, or both.

The last report I saw was that it was still an open case - an ongoing investigation - whatever that means..

As to the PA Dept of Labor, according to this filing it is still an open investigation. Speaking as a former state employee (not PA), I'm fairly clear that the investigation is confidential until they have a finding. This will be published in a summarized report given to the parties involved, but will also be public record.

Only guessing, but I think it is taking this long because the case is so high profile. Quite aside from legal interpretation of words like "documentary," they have had to wade through a lot of documentation, and interview a lot of people to find out how many hours the children were actually filmed and what the conditions were. Also, IMO, the Dept of Labor was completely asleep at the switch on the Gosselins for a couple of years. They waited until a complaint was filed (and publicised by Gloria Allred, although I don't know if she filed the complaint) before opening the investigation.

The Dept's task is made infinitely easier as Jon Gosselin now claims that the children were working and he and Kate were advised to get work permits. I'm not sure whether TLC could also be fined because they did not insist on having the permits in hand. Anyway, any finding by the Dept of Labor against the Gosselins and/or TLC could be appealed and this could drag on for ages.

 

[C.Ann]

The Dept's task is made infinitely easier as Jon Gosselin now claims that the children were working and he and Kate were advised to get work permits. I'm not sure whether TLC could also be fined because they did not insist on having the permits in hand. Anyway, any finding by the Dept of Labor against the Gosselins and/or TLC could be appealed and this could drag on for ages.

Most important question - while this is dragging on for ages, could TLC go ahead and resume filming of the children?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Interesting article about what it is really like to raise 8 kids. Of course this always sends the antenna up looking for signs that yet another private citizen is looking for 15 minutes. (They do have a link to a blog about how they found her, but I have not read it. Just glanced, looks like that an acquaintance who writes for cnn.com was inspired to do an article about her.)

Still an interesting read anyway:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/11/12/raising.big.family.reality/index.html

And she's truly doing it alone at the moment (with 5 still living at home) as her DH is in Afghanistan.

Enjoy!

 

[DMRick]

She didn't say anything that would make me think she was looking for her 15 minutes. Sounds like she has a nice family, each child a year or two apart. Sounds like she has done it a lot by herself, with her husband away so much (and yet he appears to make a good living). Glad she had the kids to keep her company. A nice story about a family with 8 kids.

Interesting article about what it is really like to raise 8 kids. Of course this always sends the antenna up looking for signs that yet another private citizen is looking for 15 minutes. (They do have a link to a blog about how they found her, but I have not read it. Just glanced, looks like that an acquaintance who writes for cnn.com was inspired to do an article about her.)

Still an interesting read anyway:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/11/12/raising.big.family.reality/index.html

And she's truly doing it alone at the moment (with 5 still living at home) as her DH is in Afghanistan.

Enjoy!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

She didn't say anything that would make me think she was looking for her 15 minutes. Sounds like she has a nice family, each child a year or two apart. Sounds like she has done it a lot by herself, with her husband away so much (and yet he appears to make a good living). Glad she had the kids to keep her company. A nice story about a family with 8 kids.

Oh, I wasn't saying she was. I just meant I always wonder.

 

[walden]

Most important question - while this is dragging on for ages, could TLC go ahead and resume filming of the children?

It is anyone's guess!

There are three or four things going on: The Dept of Labor investigation, the wording of the contract that none of us have seen, TLC suit against JKIG (a separate entity which has not responded yet) and Jon for breach of contract, and Jon's countersuit against TLC, and finally the divorce.

On the Dept of Labor: They did not demand TLC stop filming immediately the complaint was filed so I assume they either did not have the power during the investigation or decided not to stop it until they were done. If the Dept does find against the Gosselins it could demand fines, insist on work permits, and possibly deny the applications for work permits, thus stopping filming.

The Contract: possibly had some wording that allowed either parent to stop filming at will, as TLC did cease and desist when Jon filed an injunction. But we just don't know.

Breach of Contract: TLC did not mention continued filming when they filed the breach of contract against JKIG and Jon. But I think it is fair to assume that the intent was to put pressure on Jon to allow it to continue.

And the divorce: It comes down to custody and shared responsibility for the children. It could go any number of ways, and Jon could be fine with continued filming of the children once he is done with using them as bargaining chips.

Yes, that last was really cynical, but it is the way both Jon and Kate make me feel. I hate what they have done to their children, even before the divorce. And for those that are about to jump on me -- it is the amount of filming (over 100 episodes in 2-3 years!), what they chose to allow to be filmed, the fact that they did not pull work permits that would have set boundaries, and the lack of protection of the children financially under a Coogan Law type arrangement that really annoys me. Yes, children can work, but Child Labor Law is there to protect them. Decent parents do not ignore Child Labor LAw.

I think I need to go and look at NJ's Child Labor Laws. The Table of Twelve folk are making me nervous too, although they seem nicer than Jon and Kate ever were.

 

[DMRick]

If they only needed the work permits (if they needed them...that's what's been said with our armchair lawyering LOL) for the kids when they hit 7, the tups would not have needed them and I wonder if it depended on what kind and how much taping of the twins would have demanded the permits. I think we are all doing a lot of guessing, and I'm just waiting to see what comes out of the investigation and the lawsuits. We can surmise..but until there are rulings we just won't know.

 

[C.Ann]

Yes, that last was really cynical, but it is the way both Jon and Kate make me feel. I hate what they have done to their children, even before the divorce. And for those that are about to jump on me -- it is the amount of filming (over 100 episodes in 2-3 years!), what they chose to allow to be filmed, the fact that they did not pull work permits that would have set boundaries, and the lack of protection of the children financially under a Coogan Law type arrangement that really annoys me. Yes, children can work, but Child Labor Law is there to protect them. Decent parents do not ignore Child Labor LAw..

Welcome to my world.. I am SOOOOOO not interested in Jon & Kate - who they're dating; how they wear their hair; whether the credit card is denied at the gas pump; who had a tummy tuck; who needs a body guard and who doesn't; and a gazillion other things..

It's the KIDS.. That is who I care about - that is who I have always cared about.. What's in the best interest of the kids - something that even their own parents don't seem to give a flying fig about..

I hope at least "something" gets settled on Dec.14th - something that will benefit the kids - not Jon, not Kate, and not TLC..

 

[DVCisME]

That was there first season.

They have made substantially more money in the last 2 years.
(I believe $20K per episode was floating around. Of course that tidbit is missing from the counterclaim. Based on a 40 episode season, that is $800,000.)

I know they have made more. My point was that it was alot of money even at $2000/season because all five seasons were taped in basically 2 years. If that makes since. Of course they made more and had all the free stuff.

 

[madge]

Converting to that to an annual salary....

That's $104,000 a year taxable as any other family who makes that amount of money.

I don't know about you--but families can survive pretty well on that and it is a pretty respectable salary.

And while we have not seen legal evidence of a filming schedule. It has been reported that they filmed only 3-4 days per week (coincidentally mostly in the daytime).

$2000 an episode, divided by 10 people working is $200 each .. before taxes. That doesn't include the wear and tear on the home. And the reported hours they filmed has always been in question, but agree that the hours you list are what has been reported through the years. Even still, it doesn't seem like enough to quit "day jobs" for in the long term, which is what the Gosselins were after. I wonder if the first contract laid out terms to suggest that they'd earn substantially more or be compensated through product placements as the series continued.

 

[walden]

If they only needed the work permits (if they needed them...that's what's been said with our armchair lawyering LOL) for the kids when they hit 7, the tups would not have needed them and I wonder if it depended on what kind and how much taping of the twins would have demanded the permits. I think we are all doing a lot of guessing, and I'm just waiting to see what comes out of the investigation and the lawsuits. We can surmise..but until there are rulings we just won't know.

Absolutely. Except to say that the Dept of Labor is investigating as opposed to dismissing the complaint out of hand. I eagerly await the outcome. It is possible that TLC and the Gosselins quite cold-bloodly exploited the gaps (loopholes) in existing PA Child Labor Law. I might remind you that Legislation is almost always enacted retroactively. To establish a benchmark or to close loopholes in existing law. I think that the Gosselin case is a test case in PA. Perhaps nation-wide, if people feel strongly enough.

Welcome to my world.. I am SOOOOOO not interested in Jon & Kate - who they're dating; how they wear their hair; whether the credit card is denied at the gas pump; who had a tummy tuck; who needs a body guard and who doesn't; and a gazillion other things..

It's the KIDS.. That is who I care about - that is who I have always cared about.. What's in the best interest of the kids - something that even their own parents don't seem to give a flying fig about..

I hope at least "something" gets settled on Dec.14th - something that will benefit the kids - not Jon, not Kate, and not TLC..

I am definitely in your world. It is all for the protection of the kids. I do add the proviso that I include some elements of spousal abuse in the situation. I speak out against that too.

I do get a bit hot and bothered over the number of posters who want to say that certain stuff is OK because there is no existing law against it. Yet. If there is not a law against it does that make it right? Or common sense? Or responsible parenting? Hmmm.

Common sense says: Children under a certain age should wear helmets when riding bikes on or off the road. Responsible parenting should make decent parents buy and require helmets for their bike-riding children.

Apparently we can't rely on common sense or responsible parenting to prevent injuries to children riding bikes without helmets. That makes some states (but apparently not PA) in response to voters annoyance and the filing of legislation by various concerned citizens to enact laws to attempt to enforce the wearing of helmets by children on bikes.

Take that analogy to responsible filming . . . and that is my point! I will not belabor it!

 

[C.Ann]

Absolutely. Except to say that the Dept of Labor is investigating as opposed to dismissing the complaint out of hand. I eagerly await the outcome. It is possible that TLC and the Gosselins quite cold-bloodly exploited the gaps (loopholes) in existing PA Child Labor Law. I might remind you that Legislation is almost always enacted retroactively. To establish a benchmark or to close loopholes in existing law. I think that the Gosselin case is a test case in PA. Perhaps nation-wide, if people feel strongly enough.




I am definitely in your world. It is all for the protection of the kids. I do add the proviso that I include some elements of spousal abuse in the situation. I speak out against that too.

I do get a bit hot and bothered over the number of posters who want to say that certain stuff is OK because there is no existing law against it. Yet. If there is not a law against it does that make it right? Or common sense? Or responsible parenting? Hmmm. Common sense says: Children under a certain age should wear helmets when riding bikes on or off the road. Responsible parenting should make decent parents buy and require helmets for their bike-riding children.

Apparently we can't rely on common sense or responsible parenting to prevent injuries to children riding bikes without helmets. That makes some states (but apparently not PA) in response to voters annoyance and the filing of legislation by various concerned citizens to enact laws to attempt to enforce the wearing of helmets by children on bikes.

Take that analogy to responsible filming . . . and that is my point! I will not belabor it!

 

[DMRick]

I do get a bit hot and bothered over the number of posters who want to say that certain stuff is OK because there is no existing law against it. Yet. If there is not a law against it does that make it right? Or common sense? Or responsible parenting? Hmmm.

I don't think anyone has said that here...at least about stuff that isn't OK. However, I do think several, myself included have said that if there is no existing law against something, you can't arrest someone for it.

I happen to believe that 11 is wayy to young to leave in charge of a newborn. Yet, in NYS, it is OK. As in, it's not against the law.

I happen to believe that not wearing a hemet is foolish, for adults and children. However, if it's not against the law, it is OK. In the eyes of the law.

I think getting hot and bothered over what you perceive someone means just isn't worth it on a board. If you do feel very strongly about something, then push the appropriate authorities to do something about it.

As for the kids. There is not one person here, who is not on the kids side. But this is just a board..one where everyone chats, where we have gotten to know one another. If we didn't chat about the cattie stuff, it would have gone to dust a long time ago. Don't confuse that with not caring about the kids. Also, we all have opinions..you and I included. So if we don't agree about what is harmful to the kids or even to Jon, it's good to remember that those are opinions (as opposed to the law). I realize that you just don't understand why we don't see it like you (and I of couse think you should see it my way LOL!), but everyone has their own experiences to go on and that shapes how we see things. It doesn't mean you are wrong..but then, it doesn't mean anyone else is either.
It's interesting hearing your opinon, we all get to think different opinions over..thanks

 

[C.Ann]

It's stuff like this that is making me need to take a break. I'm sure this happens with Kate too although I don't notice it as much (which is why in my mind I've nicknamed her "teflon Kate") but I'm getting really tired of the posters who day in/day out are searching for reasons to declare Jon a terrible human being. Yes, I get that you don't like him, but honestly some of the stuff that is posted here -- new posters and lurkers must come away with the impression that this guy needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. And I just hate to be in the position to have to defend him against things that he actually hasn't done yet (or may never do) -- I don't want to defend him, period. People believe what they want to believe, so I'm just tired of arguing about these kinds of things.

It's been great hanging out with you all -- I'll check in again if something big comes out, or I get over this feeling, or you get to Thread 8 -- whichever happens first.

I just skimmed it. Where is RedRoseSix these days? I really miss her because she had a great eye for the legal stuff!

The answer to your question regarding the missing poster is above..