Strippers now treated as employees. Sort of.
JohnSmith69
layin low but staying high
A stripper friend was telling me recently that she now gets paid an employee salary with taxes deducted and is no longer treated as an independent contractor. The details weren't 100% clear cause it's a new system, but she said that her wage is reduced by what she makes from dances. So if her salary for the day is $100, and she makes $150 from dances, she walks away with $150. But if she only makes $50 from dances she'd walk away with $100. The girls still have to tip out at the end of the night but I'm not sure how the tip out is treated in determining whether or not they made more or less than their salary for the night.
I'm no employment lawyer but I'm not sure that this hybrid system is legally permissible in which strippers are sort of treated like employees but keeping the old system where they usually just take what they make in dances while giving the club its cut. Obviously this is in response to all of the dancer lawsuits claiming that they are really employees. As best I could tell there is not much of a practical difference from the dancers perspective except that on an especially slow night they are at least guaranteed their modest salary even if they sell no dances.
Anybody else seen this? I assume this is the model that most clubs will eventually move to if courts allow it. I guess it could be a good thing if it allows the clubs to impose reasonable control over dancers conduct.
I'm no employment lawyer but I'm not sure that this hybrid system is legally permissible in which strippers are sort of treated like employees but keeping the old system where they usually just take what they make in dances while giving the club its cut. Obviously this is in response to all of the dancer lawsuits claiming that they are really employees. As best I could tell there is not much of a practical difference from the dancers perspective except that on an especially slow night they are at least guaranteed their modest salary even if they sell no dances.
Anybody else seen this? I assume this is the model that most clubs will eventually move to if courts allow it. I guess it could be a good thing if it allows the clubs to impose reasonable control over dancers conduct.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
28 comments
http://m.providencejournal.com/article/2…
Ishmael
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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
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
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.
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…
SJG
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
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!
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?