They're not employees... or are they?
stripclubspy
Michigan
I've heard a number of reviewers, bloggers, discussion posters, etc. on this site refer to the dancers as "employees". In my experience, however, the dancers are always independent contractors who actually have to PAY to work in the club, either a large flat rate (~$80), a mixed flat and percentage of dances, or just a percentage of dances. Just curious, are there any clubs where this is NOT true???
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
44 comments
At my fav club, the dancers pay a portion each dance they do (up to a maximum number) to the house. They clock in and out using a timeclock. At the end of the week, they get a fairly small paycheck based on the number of hours they work. That check has social security and perhaps federal and state income tax withheld also. The gross amount of the check appears to have no relationship to how many dances she did during that pay period. I suspect the dancer must file a tax return and include the rest of her earnings as "tips" in order to be in compliance with the law
This practice does seem to vary from club-to-club, and my assumption is that many clubs probably are doing it wrong, because they haven't been shown how to do it right by their tax adviser or as the result of a tax audit. The settlement provisions of a compliance matter might include changing the way dancers are treated at that club for employment purposes.
I am speaking from the position of having been a CPA/auditor 25 years ago, and an employer in an unrelated field today. While my comments are reasonably accurate, perhaps some of our lawyers (or tax accountants) could shed additional light on this topic.
So you have some knowledge about the law? I doubt the test is whether a dancer pays to work. It is probably a 5 or 7 point test that is applied----just guessing. Haven't read the filth as to how an employee differs from and independant contractor. I'd bet (and could be wrong) that whether they pay to work isn't even considered relevant under the law.
I've always thought the court created sexual harrassment laws should be applied to strippers.
"9. Performing services on the premises of the employer? An independent contractor usually does work that can be completed on or off the premises
10. Required to perform services in an order or sequence set by the employer? An independent contractor is normally free to perform services in any manner that produces desired results.
11. Required to submit regular or written reports to the employer? An employee provides regular written or oral reports.
16. An employee usually is furnished with any tools and materials needed although in some jobs it is customary to use your own hand tools.
20. An independent contractor does make services available to the general public by advertising, holding a business license and/or via telephone directory listings." And/or craigslist?
Yes, shadowcat, I know you don't like reading and that is a real shame not only for you, but for others as well. You want the courts to strike down the law or ignore it? You still think the "ruling is totally fucked up"? Please explain---you get extra credit for verbosity----trust me I can read thousands and thousands and thousands of pages; part of owning a tiny bookstore in my case.
Seems like a tough ass law to circumvent if you're a business. Please don't misunderstand in a free country I'd be a opposed to this law, but given the current game the solution is more laws with the government mandating pretty much everything.
The Massachuetts law is apparently tougher and simpler than the IRS law with the burden being on the employer.
"As before the 2004 amendments, the MICL creates a presumption that 'an individual performing any service' is an *employee* [emphasis supplied]. To overcome this presumption, the party receiving services must now establish:
(1) that the worker is free from its control and direction in performing the service, both under a contract and in fact;
(2) that the service provided by the worker is outside the employer’s usual course of business; and
(3) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession or business of the same type."
http://www.mbbp.com/resources/employment…
Good list. I especially like #16: "customary to use your own hand tools".
Here is a link to a court decision that attempts to explain why a dancer would be an employee instead of an independent contractor: www.llrlaw.com/pdfs/king_arthur_decision…
Here is a link outlining exceptions within the law: www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/149-148b.htm
Sweet as failing to comply can result in criminal . . . remedies. :) Give these criminals who failed to properly classify an individual as an employee, 20 years to life in government prison. Everywhere you look there is a crime wave going on----we need more prisons.
Now, I'm not saying I like any of this, just reporting the facts as they are. Most dancers would rather pay the house fees and tip-outs and remain "off the books" as independent contractors. The case in Massachusetts actually has some club owners considering paying the dancers a server's wage and putting them on the books. Once a dancer is on the books the club can keep a portion of any of her private dance fees and owners are most likely going to do this in order to recoup the additional payroll expenses involved in having employees rather than contractors.
If it ain't broke don't fix it...too bad it may be too late in Mass.
Well, the law may be "all fucked up," but decidely necessary to balance the scales. The clubs get to charge jacked up fees to dancers because there isn't a free market. At Angels a dancer might get charged $125 to work a short shift----free market ends that nonsense real quick, but ain't going to happen so the law needs to step in and dictate everything.
It'd be interesting to read a legal beagal's interpretation of the law as not treating strippers as employees----if halfway decent in reasoning it'd be educational---- and a bargain for the client paying $600 or more per hour. Fighting the filth of law takes $$$.
OK, shadowcat, time for you to show how you'd attempt to reason with a judge when your client is facing the teeth of such a law. Uh, your Honor the law is stupid . . . just might cut it. :) A little secret----judges can and do ignore the law.
Dancers have to show valid ID and would have to provide an address and real world contact information for employers in order to get hired. Also, if you are an employee you have to be able to prove citizenship. In the club that was involved in the lawsuit almost every Brazilian dancer had to leave last month because non of them are US citizens.
As I said previously, most dancers don't want anything to change. What it boils down to is that a few disgruntled dancers thought they could make things better but didn't really bother to think things through. Even dancers who do pay taxes generally under report their income so no, they don't really want to be on the books.
It isn't what the girls or clubs want most likely. At Angels the dancers would probably love the setup----but, they are exceptional.
The law says jump and the appropriate response is how high? Besides the original plaintiffs may have received a pretty penny for bringing suit and the lawyers probably got a super nice take as well. The clubs, customers, and non-complaining dancers mean jack to the law. It is a game for lawyers and social engineers.
As far as reporting wages, employers are required to verify ID of all employees by 2 approved forms if ID, and report to their state new hires (at least for most states that I know of). ID does not need to be verified for ind contractors.
All of the examples of dancers standing up against club-established work rules to establish their "rights" seem to occur on what some call the "left coast" (east coast or west coast) where social policies and governmental structures are more friendly to such demands for worker rights, whatever yoou want to call them. But move away from that area and you find very little of that.
Officially, there aren't that many I don't think...there may be some out in CA where they were marginally successful at organizing strippers into unions.
"yoda, you know that ruling is totally fucked up.All dancers pay the house something to work there."
No, they really don't *have to* do this in the first place, which was one of the key points of that lawsuit, moron.
"It was also found that charging a dancer to work was unlawful. The suit was in fact started because a dancer was outraged at the high house fee and LD income sharing that her club was forcing on her."
This is exactly the point...it's unfair to try & classify people as "independent contractors" (purely for the tax dodge) and then impose a whole set of rules, fees, and fines on people that technically don't even work for you. You have to have a valid, legal contract with someone in order for them to be a true independent contractor.
"Most dancers would rather pay the house fees and tip-outs and remain 'off the books' as independent contractors."
I wouldn't be so quick to judge how "most dancers" would react to the potential of being treated with more respect & fairness if they were real employees of a club. Who knows...
"It was just my opinion"
...and an ignorant one at that, but what else is new eh?
"How would employers know where to mail W-2's?"
You really think that they don't know where their dancers live?? Please...
"And then the girls would have to pay taxes. Do they really want that?"
Maybe or maybe not. Like a lot of people have cited on this board before...there are serious trade-offs to working under the table vs. above board. You can only dodge your responsibilities as a citizen of the USA for so long IMHO.
"Also, if you are an employee you have to be able to prove citizenship."
Not necessarily, you can be here from a another country (either permanently or temporarily) and still be able to work here legally if you get the proper documents. Again, this all relates to how one wants to live their life...above board or in the shadows. One of my relatives & his family worked here for many years before they became totally "legal" citizens.
"Even dancers who do pay taxes generally under report their income so no, they don't really want to be on the books."
Under-reporting and not reporting are two different things entirely.
"Technically, any employer can not force hours on an independent contractor"
...but many clubs routinely do...that again is part of the point of potentially changing the system. One cannot have it both ways.
"But they do operate as indep[endent contractors in the sense that management takes no responsibility for them as employees in most cases."
Exactly, management gets to have it both ways, and they shouldn't be allowed to do that IMO.
"For example, they may be independent contractors, but are usualy required to work a minimuim number of days per week. In many clubs, management dictates what shift a dancer works. And if a dancer shows up late too many times at many clubs, they will be 'fired.'"
All of this activity simply proves that the clubs are intentionally mischaracterizing their emplyees as "independent contractors".
"All of the examples of dancers standing up against club-established work rules to establish their 'rights' seem to occur on what some call the 'left coast' (east coast or west coast) where social policies and governmental structures are more friendly to such demands for worker rights, whatever yoou want to call them. But move away from that area and you find very little of that."
Hey, sure there are politics involved in how certain states treat employees...all the "right-to-work" (or "right-to-fire" more accurately) states vs. the "free collective bargaining" states.
Definition
Person or firm that operates a business within the premises belonging to another (the grantor) under a concession, usually as the only seller of certain goods or services.
–noun a person, group, or company to whom a concession has been granted, esp. to operate a subsidiary business or service: a popcorn concessionaire at a baseball park.
A good example of this would be a salon where the different stylists, manicurists, etc. rent out space so that they can conduct their business inside another larger business area (the salon). Sure, there are common areas that they share, but it's not like a stripper that doesn't have a *designated space* for just her that she can conduct business in. Also, concessionaires need to sign legal documents that designate the terms of their lease...strippers don't have any of that protection in most cases.
Nice try though... ;)
Here are just a few examples of how, IMO, dancers get screwed by strip club managers. At one of my former favorite strip clubs in northern NY state:
-dancers had to sign onto a list of behaviors that could get them fined (along with the stated fine amounts on that same document) in order to continue working there...it was a purely take it or leave it operation.
-dancers earned an increasing percentage of their $25/2 song LD cost the more LDs that they did...up to a maximum of 15 or so LDs in a nite, after which they could keep the entire $25/2 song LD cost (this was called "maxing out").
-frequently after a number of the dancers would "max out", the club would threaten to close early (since they really weren't making much money beyond the cover charge - which some workers frequently pocketed anyways - & the infrequent non-alcoholic drink charges) unless the dancers agreed to give even *more* of their LD costs to the club, which was a violation of the clubs own *unwritten*, of course, rules.
-finable violations would frequently only be enforced around the holidays, when the customer traffic would slow down but the managers still wanted to take home money to spend for the holidays.
-dancers from out of town were frequently forced or coerced into sleeping with a manager for a ride to their hotel (dancers were forbidden from getting rides from customers) at the end of the nite.
At another former favorite club of mine in Quebec, the upfront dancer tipout fee to the club was raised dramatically, when the club started losing money due to a lack of customers, at the same time that the club's hours were cut back dramatically.
I'm sure we all could go on & on on this topic...
I'd never describe strippers as independent contractors, but I think there are many different types of clubs out there which operate under different setups. It's not as simple as saying all strippers are employees or all strippers are concessionaires, etc. It can be different club to club.
Those "responsibilities" could include paying taxes or evading taxes, joining the U.S. military or regarding it is as trivial, obeying the law or not obeying the law, serving on a jury or avoiding jury service, voting or not voting, etc. I think the main "responsibility" of a citizen of the USA is to feel shame and disgust over the U.S. policy of endless wars. Another person may feel the "responsibility" of a citizen of the USA is to wave a flag.
BTW, even if President Obama decides to continue the U.S. policy of endless war, he is the greatest given what he has to work with and what a mess awaited him upon taking office. All President Obama needs to do, imo, to reach Supreme Being status is to produce the long form or his birth certificate----not the BS short form meant for the ignorant or easily led or uncaring supporter.
"I've heard a number of reviewers, bloggers, discussion posters, etc. on this site refer to the dancers as "employees". In my experience, however, the dancers are always independent contractors who actually have to PAY to work in the club"
Yes, all the dancer that I know have to PAY to be allowed to work in a club. Said dancers are also, imo, much more like wage slaves/employees than independent contractors. The independent contractor angle is mere convenience to circumnavigate the the laws.
I never said that they did.
"There is no legal lease paperwork required to meet such a definition"
Of course there is...just ask any *real concessionaire*, like those many stations that are selling things in the middle of many mall shopping centers.
"It's not as simple as saying all strippers are employees or all strippers are concessionaires, etc. It can be different club to club."
Again, I don't think anyone here is saying that every strip club operates the exact same way...there are many different ways for clubs to rip off dancers for sure.
Hey, I've been to MANY strip clubs in Quebec that were basically brothels by another name, and it's pretty obvious to me that this "concessionaire" argument is just another way to try & justify a tax dodge.
"and still believe there can be implied agreement with the strippers for the shared private areas they provided extras."
"Implied agreements" are basically verbal agreements that have no teeth, period.
I used an independent contractor to deliver from my restaurant. Much of what is said on here is incorrect in Florida. I was checked many times by officials from the state. Now, according to the intelligence, or lack thereof, of some on this board, the officials were wrong on the law. You know the type that thinks they are always correct.
...which is not surprising at all...given that FL is one of those "right-to-work" states.
The interpretation of the law can also be a very different thing.
As you can see above, I was again proven correct.
"As you can see above, I was again proven correct."
Oh, the irony of it all...lol...