Doubt he had a contract. Depends on his status/position. Most likely, free lance or at will employment. Legally, more likely would be union grievance/matter.Originally Posted by Tiggerlgh;3793932;
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reality TV shows are traditionally non-union, including "The Bachelor." It is one of the reasons the Writer's Guild wanted to add reality show "writers" to their contract last year. It didn't happen, though, because the producers wouldn't stand for it.
I believe I know enough from another forum about sdl's inside sources at ABC-TV to say "wow!" For sdl to independently confirm Reality Steve's source(s) suggests to me that perhaps we could apply the famous FORT sleuthing techniques to get to the bottom of this apparent fraud.
Perhaps there would be some value in the several fellow attorney's I've met through FORT in developing a thread dedicated to the legalities involved in this matter. Defamation, slander, and termination (employment) law are all very complex topics.
Who's footing the bill. Hourly rates are sky high these days.
Seems like the news reports are very inconsistent as to whether this person had a "producer" title. If you run down that short list in the credits, eliminate people I know are in long term relationships or the wrong gender, it would be a tiny list of possibilities. I have assumed without any specific factual basis that the crew member had a different non-producer role. I have refrained from sleuthng out guesses because I totally agree the guy's job and profession are on the line, and it would be a crappy thing to publish info on the world wide web speculating by name about who it might be.
All I know is something is fishy. . .it was portrayed as an "affair" sexual indeed was referenced, they even got Jake to believe that by the wording. . .but yet Chris's word were SOOO carefully chosen. Inappropriate. . . going beyond a line. . .even to Rozlyn. It was all just sleezy!!!! That is exaclty how Fleis wanted it to look. :nono
I agree with you, I believe Chris was repeating what he was told. I think TPTB wanted Chris to have the eliment of surprise so that he would be totally stunned...which is why he wasn't contacted earlier.
The way it was handled definitly added to the show's drama.
Sure he was protecting his words alright with guidance from TPTB, but he has worked there forever and is buddy buddy with the crew. I think he knew more than that. . . what BUGS me is that he went along with the gag to make it look, even to Jake, that it was an affair . . .although he was careful not to say that.
About CH's blog: Yeah, right. . .
I've become such a skeptic. If you (Chris or his assistants) do read these comments, here goes:
I was a believer in this show when I started to watch it. I hear from others who watched the earlier ones, it was so much better then.
Does Chris even write his own blog?
If so many of the girls ran to producers with what was going on, why were they all crying? If one or two knew, I imagine some or most of the girls in that room knew and had talked about it. Therefore, the "shock" value and the tears would not be there.
Why did Jake so quickly ask if he could have his rose back? That seems like an unusual thing to think about when you've just been "shocked" by everything that was happening and you're disappointed at losing someone who was one of your top contenders.
A staff member for years who is part of a tight-knit "family" makes a romantic mistake with a contestant and is booted off the show? Not reprimanded or given a second chance? I wonder if that staff member wanted to leave the show anyway?
Even I could tell the "conversation" wasn't flowing smoothly. Editing definitely came into play.
I may be off base with some or all of this, but I'll never be convinced the whole thing was "real"!
Well, Chris Harrison most certainly did not deny the implication that it was sexual intercourse. In fact, on behalf of the company he very much made that implication when he said, " It was an inappropriate behavior that got physical." He later said, "With what you saw last night and with what I just told you there should now be no doubt or questions whatsoever as to what really happened during Rozlyn’s short time on the show."
He said it was a physical behavior, and we should have no doubt what really happened. IMO, anybody with one eye and half good sense knows what he is implying. He just didn't come out and say it because he is afraid of the legal implications. Where do I get this? He said in one of his earlier articles that he had to speak with the company's lawyers about the words to use.
See Bloomers, I don't deduce from the term "physical", that is meant to imply "intercourse". Physical to me could be hugs, kissing, holding hands, etc., all of which would be inappropriate inasmuch as all of the women are supposed to talk, walk, think, dream everything Jake.
Seriously, if she was flirtatious and somewhat physical with a staffer, they shouldn't let her go further in the process if they are being fair to their bachelor and living up to their end of their contract with him.
What is fairly bold is firing the staffer in this economy. Finding out who that staffer is will be easy, just look at the credits from one episode to the next. Now it may have been they weren't all that pleased with the staffer to begin with and this was the icing on the cake ... but still a bold step to announce an impropriety. Reputation is huge in this industry for future employment.
Posting Permissions
