Strippers now treated as employees. Sort of.

Another practical impact of this is that the IRS will have a much better record of what strippers earn. This would seem to provide yet another argument for why a stripper should earn as much money as possible OTC.

It's possible that her new employment designation resulted from a complaint or lawsuit like this one.

http://m.providencejournal.com/article/2…

Ishmael

I know a few placea give girls a choice between being contractors and minimum wage employees. No one ever takes the employee choice.

That sort of compensation agreement isn't that uncommon for commission based positions or even gratuity based jobs. I'm fairly sure its functionally the same for waitresses. At least in FL, we've got two minimum wages, with & without tips. Waitresses declare their tip income for each pay period, in the event their salary + tips are less than the "without tips" minimum wage, the employer is obligated to cover the difference to ensure the employee is making at least minimum wage. For a lot of sales jobs, similar arrangements are made. A salesmen might get 3% of gross sales with a 1000/wk guarantee. If they sell 20k of widgets for the week that's only 600, so they get an "extra" 400 to make the 1k min. If they sell 50k, they get 1500.

What often happens with waitresses is the employer just declares tips for all the staff that are in a range that is considered "normal" but is just barely over the limit for minimum wage. Such arrangements minimize tax obligations for both parties, and limit the motivation you mentioned since few strippers are going to report their full income.


We're starting to see some changes around here due to those lawsuits/complaints. For example, Tootsies is having customers pay the dancers their $20 and pay the club their $5 separately. There's also at least two clubs with basically the exact pay structure you mentioned. They're promised $100/day, if they can make more they keep it but if they do zero dances they still get $100.

Yes, I have seen in. Several clubs have reverted back to employee status for their dancers as a result of lawsuits.

In fact, the famous Spearmint Rhino did this recently. The tip out they pay at the end of the night is now called a "locker fee," much like a hairdresser would pay to rent out a chair/booth.

The real difference would be that "full time" dancers should get benefits, sick leave, healthcare etc, like an employee would. And, they would get W2's instead of 1099's if they're employees.

Was referring to Spearmint Rhino in Vegas.

Js69 I'm with ds rite now Netflix and chilling. How you feel?

The clubs have to do something because they are clearly violating wage & hours laws and keep losing in court. I think this would work, but the clubs would have to track the cash that dancers receive from lap dances and other activities. In most Detroit clubs at this time the club does not know or care how much a dancer makes in tips.

Bottom line...

If records are kept and dancers no longer get under the table cash payment, then the feds get more taxes. Ergo, the feds will be all for it!

^^^What an idiot.

I think that there are more clubs restructuring their agreements and practices in order to keep dancers within the IC definition than there are switching to the employee/employer model.

The reason for this is simple: Once you give someone "employee" status, they obtain all of the legal protections that go with it. Think age discrimination and sexual harassment concerns. Mark my words when I say that those clubs that go the employee route are eventually going to be dealing with this shit as well in the form of yet more lawsuits.

I know girls that file tax reports on their income ( under stated of course), so they can get social security credits. They get so many write offs, they never pay anything

Probably improve talent quality but make extras harder to get. I doubt the ladies will like the added structure and rules. They have their sisters to thank for this.

As has been explained in a previous post without the terminology, the dancers are getting a Draw. ( http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/hrqa/… ) If they are willing to get the draw every night they work, they can expect to be put on the schedule less. And as the article notes, they may even owe the company the draw they have received.

This is a good thing for dancers, as 100 bucks is hardly a draw for work. So only the lazy and such won't make the draw in earnings and can be let go.

But it also allows the club to deal with them as an employee, not a contractor.

The problem with making strippers into employees is that the employer will get little benefit from this system. They will become liable for the actions of their employees and at some point it may even get the club owners criminally prosecuted, as there is a control issue with regard to employees, that does not exist with independent contractors. If the shift compensation is treated as a draw against commission there may be another issue as to how is commission defined, what is the base rate, and how is it confirmed. that might lead to a minimum wage violations depending on what state the club is in. Over all I don't think that the way strip club venues compensate workers will really change very much in the foreseeable future, of course court rulings on employee and wage issues may force some modifications I only see them as updates not major changes.

There is always a potential for finger pointing when you are making the house money dependent on what the stripper makes, like a percentage or some sort of sliding scale.

The reason they have booths and back rooms is that they are also toll gates, so you can then charge the dancer.

Always less problems with flat access fees for the dancers.

SJG

I don't understand any of this. I'm not a business major or a lawyer. All I know is, if it starts to hike my cost to dance with strippers, then they lose me as a customer.

Better for the customers if the strippers just have to pay flat rates, not dependent on what they make.

This way the low earners get extremely aggressive, and also there won't be any finger pointing between them and the boss. And you really don't want the house having knowledge or records of how much money the strippers make.

But, this can be seen as too harsh on the low earners, and also, as they get more aggressive they stop following any of the management's rules.

In the underground shows in SJ's Mexican Bars these issues surfaced. Being a wilder and woolier environment, with wilder girls, it was not handled like it was in the Sunnyvale clubs.

SJG

Lonewolf posted: "Probably improve talent quality but make extras harder to get."

I agree with the second part. This is especially true in places where sexual harassment protections start applying to dancers. Seriously now, after a few sexual harassment lawsuits, clubs that treat dancers like employees may have to start puting them behind glass ala the Lusty Lady and some of the European clubs.

However, I don't agree with the first part, especially once a variety of discrimination laws (age, disability, race) start being applied.

I think that treating dancers as employees will be a horrible thing for us and for the industry as a whole. Small wonder that most clubs are getting creative in trying to avoid it, even the ones who have settled lawsuits.

Lawsuits, about how the money works and employee status and social security payments, or about anything else, always come from the former dancers, the one's who have had a kid and are now too heavy to work anymore.

I alerted some of the people who run the SJ Coffee Shops about this sort of thing, and having girls parading around all day in stripper shoes, and what could happen after they leave.

SJG

All Along the Watchtower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DBewzgX…

To Rick I see it the same way you do it would be problematic on so many levels I don't believe it will happen.

Some kinds of businesses would never work well if they had to follow the standard employment laws. But then, as strippers make so much money, maybe no one cares.

SJG

It's better for dancers and customers for the girls to remain independent contractors. But the strip club owners need to treat them as independent contractors. They keep losing the lawsuits because they skirt the law.

What Jim and Artie Mitchell did was to set up their own employment agency, which served multiple strip clubs.

This way the girls worked for that agency, but for the clubs they were contractors.

But these law suits are going to continue:

1. Social Security, employee contribution and employer contribution?

2. Legality of contractor status, is it just skirting labor laws?

3. Disability coverage?

4. Is the money on the books, or is it possible for both sides to evade income tax?

5. Are the dancer payments to the house a flat rate, or are they are percentage. First way avoids finger pointing. But second way makes it easier on dancers. But first way produces some extremely aggressive dancers who will give you whatever you want. But this can also cause problems for house as such aggressive dancers don't follow any rules.

6. So you have the booths and back rooms which make it kind of like a percentage. Someone is always watching and keeping tally on the girls. This is why it is better to play with them in the front room.

Earliest suits like this that I know of were from late 90's in San Francisco. In a Hustler article they called it "Stripper Wars".

SJG

Who knows whether this will shake-out for better or worse – on the one-hand the costs more often than not get passed down to the customers – this may also drive smaller dive clubs out of biz if they have to pay dancers on staff; but then again it may force clubs to treat dancers more fairly which in the end should be good for all.

td,

Coming from you, I'll accept the compliment, assuming that you think you aren't. I certainly would never wish to be like you! Remember I've heard the truth about you from you know who, and it isn't sc!

Rant on, little boy!

"The real difference would be that "full time" dancers should get benefits, sick leave, healthcare etc, like an employee would. And, they would get W2's instead of 1099's if they're employees."

I wonder what the trade off would be... getting those benefits versus being able to not report all those VIP and lapdances most strippers do. Wonder which route would be better for the stripper?

Interesting thread