Kate Plus Eight is reportedly set to premiere this summer and the children may also be involved in the filming of Twist of Kate. This brings up two separate issues which come under the auspices of two different departments in the Commonwealth of PA. Since there has been some confusion about the differences between these two as shown in some of my blog comments, I'm going to take a moment and clarify them here.
The first issue is that the law states that permits need to be secured for all children under the age of 16 working in the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania. This comes under the auspices of the Department of Labor and Industry. In the case of the Gosselins and future filming, the child labor permits that will allow the children to continue filming have reportedly been secured, so those legal requirements have been met.
The second issue is making sure that all adults in Pennsylvania whose work brings them into contact with the children have been cleared for child abuse and criminal backgrounds. This comes under the auspices of the Department of Welfare, not the Dept of Labor. It is imperative that only those whose background checks have been confirmed and then updated regularly (because they do expire) be allowed to work with any children in Pennsylvania, the Gosselin children included. It is unclear whether or not those clearances have been secured, and I will continue checking with Rep Murt and keep you updated on this issue.
PA requires that only 15% of the total earnings is required to be set aside for children who are working in the entertainment industry. Therefore if the Gosselin family gets $75,000 per episode, Kate could get 85% or $63,750, and the kids could get a minimum of 15% or $11,250.* If that 15% is divided up between eight children, each child would earn only $1406 per episode. After taxes and social security $1400 is about $1000, and that doesn't include other expenses like health insurance. Is that really fair, considering the invasion of privacy and the emotional consequences of doing a reality show?
This is assuming that Kate keeps her 85% and gives the kids their minimum of 15%. Some parents, especially in California where child labor laws have become more enlightened and adult caregivers have learned from their past mistakes (thanks to the good work of A Minor Consideration) set aside more than the minimum 15% required. That way when the kids grow up they have a nice nest egg for college so they can make a living as an adult when the acting career goes down the tubes (which it usually does when the kids grow up and aren't so cute or special anymore.) What kind of financial future do you think Jon and Kate have planned for their children? Do you think, based on their lifestyles, values and priorities as evidenced by their past behaviors, they have put away the required 15%, a higher percentage, or no percentage at all?
* I am assuming 15% for the kids as an entity. Clearly the law was not set up for families with eight kids. Two or three kids could each get 15%, but it just doesn't work with eight. Clarifications or corrections are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
WG, thanks for the clarification.
Do you know what the legal requirements are specifically.
"In the case of the Gosselins and future filming, the child labor permits that will allow the children to continue filming have reportedly been secured, so those legal requirements have been met."
I am still dumbfounded that 8 individual children are being treated as a single entity in the recompense situation. They are EIGHT separate people! Why should they have to share their hard-earned money just because they were born on the same day? This seems to add a governmental stamp of approval on the perception of these children as posessions.
I was under the impression that if the kids are filmed, they may be filmed in different locales (freebie summer vacations). So, would that particular state's law apply? Will we be seeing more NC vacations?
Kate and TLC need to get a grip---those kids are not anything special and they are not cute babies any more! I haven't seen any one of them show any particular talent. But, wait for it.....she'll try again to market those kids....I can see a line of pre-teen clothes, etc.
And I wonder if we'll ever find out what Jon is getting for allowing his kid$ to be filmed again. What a lazy bum.
Hi Susan, I'm assuming they're treated as one, because how could each child get 15%? It works with a couple of kids, but not eight. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you for the Clarifications, and the example of the money issue. Unfortunately, I am afraid these kids will be filmed for years to come.
I know when they settled the previous complaint, the 15% was for all 8. And the parents can take out for education and health care!! The kids probably OWE money by now.
I fail to understand why that would be 15% split eight ways. There are eight individuals here. Just because they are all part of the same family, why must they share their portion but Kate isn't required by law to divide hers as well?
I think in a state like California, each child would have their own contract and therefore, their own individual paycheck, from which a certain amount (whatever it is in California) must be set aside in a trust. So just because these kids are in PA, their share is 15% shared 8 ways?
Criminal. That's the only word for it. TLC should be required to issue a paycheck in each child's name and that way there's a percentage for each child set aside. You'd think a parent would fight for that...fight for their kids to be paid handsomely for what privacy they have to sacrifice.
Here's a redundant question: Could Kate really be that selfish that she negotiated a better deal for herself than her own children?
I agree with Susan's comments. While I haven't yet read the relevant statutes, I think that Khate G. is benefiting from a loophole. Or, it can be said that the law is written in a way that fails to recognize situations where a family involved in a tv or film production has more than one child.
It makes no sense that if someone does a tv show and has one kid in their family, they set aside the required 15% of the total payment, say $11,250 in this case where Khate reportedly is paid $75,000 per episode. So if someone has one child, that child benefits from the law's provisions and has $11,250 put away for them. If there are two children, they must split the $11,250 and end up with $5625 each, three children split it three ways, and so on and so on. It makes NO sense, because the larger the number of children, the smaller EACH CHILD'S amount ends up being, when the larger amount of children should be reducing the PARENT'S portion!
This is clearly a fundamental flaw in the statute. If one child is to be protected with 15% being set aside, the intent of the legislators could not have been that 5% be set aside per child if a family of three children is involved in a production, and in the Gosselin case, each child ends up with less than 2%.
I would love to hear Rep. Murt's thoughts on this flaw in the statutory provisions and any recommendations to remedy this situation. In the case of reality tv, I think it would be more fair to require the producers to directly compensate each family member involved (and obviously, require a minor's compensation would go into a trust).
The fairest way to do this might be to require that in reality tv productions involving children, the family NOT be paid as a whole, but that contracts provide for the total compensation to be DIVIDED EQUALLY amongst all the family members involved in the production. Then, for the minor, their ENTIRE payment would go into a trust account for each one of them. So in this case, if TLC wants to pay Khate $75,000 per episode, it should be $75,000 divided by 9 (Khate plus 8) and each person receives $8,333. Khate can do what she chooses with her $8,333, but each child must have a trust account where their entire $8,333 per episode goes.
That seems like the only fair way to do this. Unfortunately, the law is not always fair.
Oh, I see that while I was typing my long comment, Jen K pretty much posted the same thing (about having to split the 15% eight ways, and how each child should have their own contract).
Small Town,
Has anyone commented yet that you have the same style as PennyMommy. You should read up on her some time. I know you have my attention.
small town or pennymomma?
Trolls please slither away to your swamp.
Pennymomm was a fraud.
Werny Gal is not.
Get over yourself.
I bet you bought into pennymomm too.
This will be a long post, but it certainly explains a lot of things for me, and I hope for others. I got the information from the PA Department of Child Welfare website.
PA law defines child abuse as any of the following when committed upon a child under 18 years of age by a perpetrator:
1.Any RECENT act (within 2 years of date of report)or failure to act which causes non-accidental SERIOUS physical injury;
2.Any act or failure to act which causes NON ACCIDENTAL ,SERIOUS mental injury or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation;
3.Any recent act or failure to act, or series of failures to act,which creates an IMMINENT risk of SERIOUS physical injury, sexual abuse or sexual exploitation;
4.SERIOUS Physical neglect which ENDANGERS A CHILD'S LIFE or DEVELOPMENT, or impairs a child's functioning.
The caps are mine. All of the examples I have given previously of what would be abusive behaviour in my jurisdiction are not abusive in PA. The concerns that bloggers have had about child abuse on this blog and others , while valid concerns, are not child abuse in PA. PA law is concerned with IMMINENT, SERIOUS risk and does not look at cumulative behaviours. The Mental Injury must be NON ACCIDENTAL, i.e. planned or purposeful.The statute of limitations on reporting does not take into account long-term effects of certain kinds of abuse.
Would someone more familiar with PA law confirm this for me, or show me where I'm getting it wrong?
IMO,TLC and J&K can't be made accountable for their behaviour under this act.
I am also curious as to whether there are any other protections being put into place for the children such as length of work day, breaks, tutoring, supervision, etc? Does TLC carry worker's comp in case someone gets hurt on a shoot? Do they have to comply with regular workplace rules? It seems to me everyone is so concerned about money being paid when that is probably the least important issue faced by these kids working.
I have a suggestion for the Kate defender - - click away.
WE are not stopping. WE are not going to believe the PR crap and WE don't care how hard you try to discredit blog owners.
WE WANT THE TRUTH. You want the lies and fairytales, that's fine for you and your family but don't come on OUR blogs to lecture us on what WE want to read. Get a life, Shawn. You've "schooled" nobody.
The show is 'Kate + 8', formerly 'Jon & Kate + 8'. That implies there are 9-10 stars of the show. Why are 1-2 the only ones ensured a paycheck? You don't see that with sitcoms or dramas. Hey Grey's Anatomy stars - we'll pay Patrick Dempsey but the rest of ya'll will have to split 15% of what we pay him, k?
If you read the comments of people looking forward to the new show the majority are saying they 'can't wait to see the kids' which tells me the kids are the actual stars of the show.
So it truly astounds me they're not being fairly paid merely because they're children.
WernyGal: This is primarily for you, if you want to post or delete, completely your choice. Just a forewarning you are once again being "targeted" so to speak, by one of the FAN-atic sites. This web address was posted and various commenters are discussing what steps could/should be taken LEGALLY to "stop" your "hate" blog. Forgive the over-use of quotation marks, I find their trype annoying. And even more so, their continual criticism of any differing POV on the gosselin topic. But wanted you to be aware, I imagine you'll see an on-slaught of anonymous hit and run shots at your personal integrity. I enjoy your blog and would dislike seeing you dragged through the gosselin gauntlet!
WG,
As much as I dislike the interruption of the postings, I think it is time to have the comments moderated. Please.
Why is the TRUTH so difficult for for anyone to take? Does it go down badly? My goodness, it seems to me that you haven't posted anything of HATE, only they speak of HATE.
oohh....I don't think I would be too scared.
Oh boy, I go out shopping for a couple of hours and looky what happens. Comment moderation is ON. Thanks for the warning, DH. I don't know why people don't just hang at sites that fit their beliefs, but commenters need to be respectful here. Disagreeing is okey, flaming and insulting is not and those comments will not be allowed. Thank you.
Chrissy, I am also very concerned about the other protections you mentioned...I brought up the financial aspect only because that's the only thing I have as yet seen defined. I would hope your other points are covered more thoughtfully by PA law than the financial distribution is.
WernyGal, it's true that 15% per person cannot work with this large family, but I feel strongly there must be a more equitable distribution of income.
WG- This is how I understood it from the day of the hearings -- so each child will get 1.8%. I also read the PA statute that confirms that all 8 split the 15%.
NobodyLikes, would you please email me? Thanks.
Hey Werny Gal -- I'm new to your blog, and am enjoying your posts (and the inevitable drama that ensues).
As for your post about the PA Child Labor Laws -- are you certain that PA *requires* 15% of the child's earnings be set aside for the child? Other states with more stringent child labor laws DO require guardians to put into trust a minimum of 15% of a child's earnings. CA calls it a "Coogan Account;" other states just call them "trusts." I'm pretty certain, from personal experience, that PA has no such requirement. Perhaps the laws have changed recently, though -- I'd be curious to know your source on this.
I've also never understood TLC/Kate's claim that theirs is a "family job" (I actually heard Kate and Jon refer to the show as this at one of their beg-a-thons just over a year ago). How on earth do you give one paycheck to 10 people?? But, if they were making $75,000 per episode, and each member was actually given his/her fair share, then each child should have gotten $7,500 per episode.
If Kate and Jon WERE abiding by the strict standards of other state's child labor laws, they would only be required to put 15% of the kids' earnings into a trust account. Ethically, the whole amount should go in, but it's up to the guardians where the remaining 85% goes.
Given the ethics of these two grifters, it's pretty clear that any money not specifically nailed down to a mandated account for the kids was going to be used to serve the insatiable greed of Jon and Kate. I don't believe for a second that they saved any of the "kids'" money.
It's no small coincidence that a term of the recent "investigation" was that 15% of the earnings from JK+8 be put into trust for the kids. That' a joke. It's a token amount that doesn't come close to what the kids are actually owed. But, since it's based on the 'industy standard,' it gives the appearance that TLC and Kate are doing the right thing.
Disgusting. The whole lot of them.
I understand why many are calling for a trust account to be set up for these kids. We've already seen how the parents in this case really only care about their own well being.
What scares me, is the idea that you are suggesting a law which puts money out of parents reach until the children reach majority (18 or 21). I would be concerned, as a parent, that this might mean that in the meantime while my child is growing up, I would not be able to use this money to support them. What good is a windfall of money upon majority (I'm thinking this would be 21 in the States) when it's too late to pay for a good school, college education or extras that might help to extend children.
If I were the parent I'd want to be able to use some of that money to ensure my children had the best possible opportunities, rather than simply turning 21 and then going nuts buying a car, house spending the money.
I know in the case of J&K they have already proved that they are not able to put their children's best interests above their own and therefore the money needs to be put away from them. But what about other cases?
I hope this makes sense, and for the comments about majority, I'm from Australia where legal majority is reached at 18, you can drink, drive and vote from this point on.
Re: Compensation for the Gosselin Children
I read the PA Dept of Labor letter outlining their findings in regards to Jon & Kate Plus 8.
Whereas it is unclear to me whether or not past earnings were calculated or just future earnings will be considered for the Gosselin children, to read that only 15% is to be set aside for all eight children - *to share* - is in my humble opinion criminal!!!
More than 100 episodes were filmed, and there is absolutely no doubt that these children WORKED during this time. Add the fact that they will forever have this film footage follow them throughout their entire lives - to haunt them forever - and the DOL did the Gosselin children no favors. None!
The fact is if the “six pack” had not been “born into a job” on May 10, 2004, I would not even know about this family in Pennsylvania. So whatever amount was paid by TLC to the Gosselin family - estimated to be +/- $2,000,000 - IMHO it should have been divided by 10; or at the very minimum 50% of the earnings should go to the eight children and 50% to the parents.
At one point in 2009 Jon was talking about dividing what they made equally by 10. I don't think this is the case; it appears that Kate in particular likes the money too much to share it with her children, which is why she told Ellen the kids can go out and get a job when they want XYZ (I think she was referring to a ring at the time).
Anyway ... to hear that the PA DOL determined that the eight children should share just 15% of the gross amount paid to the parents is CRIMINAL!
Now, I believe the following is an accurate description of the current Coogan laws in CA at this time:
Whereas the 15% figure is consistent with CA labor law for Coogan Accounts, in PA these laws do not apply. FYI the 15% would be for each child performer and cannot be touched by anyone for anything until the minor is 18. Parents can legally take a percentage of their minor child’s wages (after the 15%) in their role as "manager", "agent", etc. BUT in no instance is the minor child required to be responsible for paying for his/her own food, shelter, clothing, and health benefits. Just because a child has a job does not remove the responsibility of the parent to provide for them.
BEST WISHES TO REP. MURT TO HELP SAVE THE GOSSELIN 8!
JMO.
Puddy -- your concerns are built into the "Coogan Account" type trusts. Guardians are required to deposit 15% of the child's earnings into the account, but can use the other 85% at their own discretion -- this can be toward education, etc. Unfortunately, parents like Jon and Kate -- and other fame-whores like them -- don't put their kids' well-being first.
Coogan accounts and other such state-mandated accounts are in place simply so that child performers can KEEP at least SOME of their hard-won earnings.
Clearly the Gosselins don't need to "dip" into the kids' earnings to cover the family expenses. Not only are they making money hand-over-fist, but this family has received an obscene amount of freebies from day one. Free clothes, food, juicy-juice, furniture, etc -- their basic needs have been covered for years.
Sadly, since PA doesn't have a "Coogan Account" law, the pitiful minimum of 15% wasn't even in savings for the kids until the recent investigation took place. So sad that it took such an intervention for Kate to begin to secure her kids' financial futures. Although, a mere 15% is NOT going to do it. Those kids need to have 100% of what they EARNED in their bank accounts. How dare those parents prostitute the kids, and then keep the money for themselves.
Don't forget that as it stands now, not only will the kids have to split the crappy 15% but that medical and education can be deducted from that amount. In other words, the kids will have to pay for their own education, medical bills, and insurance out of their share. Their private school alone will wipe them out.
15% the kids would make more working in a sweat shop in China.
This is pathetic. I really hope that people just do not watch. That is the only way to get this show with the kids off the air.
Exactly! In some ways I wish Kate would try to move the whole brood to California where the Child Labor Laws would FORCE them to set aside money. (which is why we don't see Octomom's brood - thank goodness for the California Labor Laws, Gloria Allred and Paul Petersen keeping her feet to the fire!)
I am still astonished that no judge has ordered an Guardian Ad Litem for these kids. It's ridiculous that the "trust fund" only started in March 2010 AFTER the main money has already been frittered away on homes, cars, tans, etc.
These poor kids, all we can do now is pray for them - since TLC and their parents do nothing but PREY on them.
My main reason I even stick with this (even though my spouse is tired of hearing about them!) is that National Child Labor Laws need to be enacted to protect all kids.
found this link on 15 minutes gosselin
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/juneweb-only/122-11.0.html?start=1
Post a Comment