Simple questions but a lot of things to consider. When I started dancing it was with the thought that it would last a year. Well guess what still here. So the question should the adult industry step up its game means should we be paid more, benefits? All of the clubs that I have worked for do not pay dancers. I know there have been lawsuits and we (dancers) are often winning. Is it time for the clubs to pay dancers. There are still clubs that fine for not going fully nude. So not only are dancers not getting paid but they are getting fined for what I assume to be not living up to the contract. Also since I have been dancing I have never had medical insurance. Now some people will say that you can buy it with "all the money you make" but not all of use make as much as people think. I think that the clubs need to step up and treat dancers better. We rely on the customers only and that is great but the clubs are making the money. Drinks, dances, admission it all adds up and we don't see that money with the exception of our portion of dance money. So what is everyones thoughts should the clubs step up and treat dancers better or no?
poledancer: I think we're all pretty unanimous is believing: fuck management, of course we'd like the girls treated better.
That said -- and this might be my own lack of understanding -- I don't know that the lawsuits and subsequent employee status have worked out for the girls... at all. In fact, if anything, my impression is the reverse: things are always a little worse (sometimes MUCH worse) off afterwards. Clubs that allow dancers to pick either employee or contractor status, have overwhelming contractor girls.
Any increase in pay to the dancers will ultimately come from the customers. If the clubs are forced to treat dancers as employees rather than independent contractors, any additional cost will be passed on to the customer. Just like taxes.
For the more cash in hand for the dancers, I think they are better off as independent contractors. Lets face it. Most dancers don't claim any income from dancing while others have to in order to qualify for home loans, etc but even they don't claim all they make.
You don't hear dancers at clubs complaining about being treated as independent contractors while they are working there. They like it that way. It is after they are no longer working there that they see this as an easy way to pick up some cash and the attorneys are more than happy to take their cut.
If dancers want to earn more money they have to beat the competition. How far they are willing to go to do that is an independent choice. And of course you can always quit and do some thing else.
The girls are happiest with the clubs that don't try to treat them like employees. Telling them when to work, fines for not showing up, being late or violating other club rules. The club owners need to realize that they need to keep their dancers happy by being very lenient with rules and fees.
Dancers never file income tax, or under report most of it. Most dancers are on welfare too. It is a cash business. If you want "employee" status, you would earn $10-$20 per hour after taxes.
If I owned a club, I would never hire dancers as employees. A full time employee (or even part time) would be required to show up on time, on schedule. They would have to work full shifts and be reliable. Plus I would want them to not flit from club to club on a whim. I would be much more open to their less regimented lifestyle as independent contractors.
How much an hour should I pay a dancer? Do I pay them like a waitress....$8 an hour and they keep tips? I'm not paying a girl $20 an hour just to show up because that's all they'll do.
Being an independent contractor sucks; I know because I was one for a while! But in the dancing profession it works out better that way all around.
-->"You don't hear dancers at clubs complaining about being treated as independent contractors while they are working there. They like it that way. It is after they are no longer working there that they see this as an easy way to pick up some cash and the attorneys are more than happy to take their cut."
The girls pretty much openly admit that, IMO. These lawsuits are an exit strategy -- reap the benefits of contractor status, then hit the club with a lawsuit to get a windfall when they retire, then leave the current dancers to deal with the inevitably-worse conditions. That said, management would make it a little more difficult for this cycle to repeat, if they'd follow employment law instead of blatantly ignoring it in so many cases.
I could see how it would be weird to show up on time and have set days etc but clubs still fine dancers for those things. Plus tip outs to bartenders and DJ. I actually like the contractor style but my only thing that I would like to see is insurance.
I do think the dancers should get a bigger cut than at a lot of places. I've heard like 60/40 with club doing 40. And like you said the club gets admissions and food/drinks. You do have Obama care you can get with your earnings and others are right too you all claim little or no taxes. Plus there's what we all know of extras or meeting your regulars OTC for extra income too. Some will pay just for company not just sexual acts. All in all your not that bad off as it is.
It's a hard debate. In some cases I feel no pity for some dancers who are making more than any customer in the club. Yes they have a limited time window when they can make such earnings but it's their responsibility to use their earnings wisely. Further their education, invest in real estate, instead of blowing it all on shoes and handbags.
On the other hand, I know several dancers that struggle to live a basic life, those are mostly the ones in rural and middle America that could benefit from a steady wage and some form of benefits.
As rockstar pointed out, dancers have several benefits that all other jobs do not. I cannot simply jump back and forth from company to company each week, and I cannot drink and do drugs while at work. Most other people have those same issues as me. Most dancers can make what ever schedule they want as well. I would be willing to take a HUGE paycut if I could set me own work schedule.
I think a lot of a dancers success relies on her own shoulders and not the clubs or management. If most want a steady pay or certain benefits they must be careful for what they wish for as to me, it looks like such changes could harm the dancer in the long run.
I briefly thought about this the other day after talking with a stripper who mentioned one of her bills was due and another who has 4 roommates.
I can't imagine how paying a dancer hourly would work. Possible? Yes, but I believe it would require strict rules/guidelines as far as what/when/where/how the dancer could be. Given the nature of the strip club as is, this would probably be ill received from dancers and viewed as micromanagement.
I'd provide health insurance, with at least two types of plans and a wellness type plan. Plans would allow just the worker, worker and kids, worker and spouse and kids, or worker and spouse. To continue to qualify for the benefit they'd be subject to random drug testing and would have to remain drug free. On a side note, I only hear from the dancers that they are late. I usually think nothing of it except as "that must be nice" or just part of their hustle. But their attendance/timeliness would indirectly affect them continuing to receive the benefit as they'd have to remain employed to do so.
Poledancer, I don't want this to come off as a stereotype to dancers, but it's pretty much how I've seen if offered to me as an employee aka human just as the dancers are.
If strippers want better treatment from the industry then they'll (a majority) have to step up and accept a strict contract or become employees and follow rules like most of us do. I don't think that's going to happen partly because your average stripper simply won't or can't AND because the trade off really isn't worth it.
I'll also add that I think most (not all, but most) of strippers that aren't making a reasonable amount of money either shouldn't be in the industry OR work too little.
When my mom was a dancer she made plenty of money in take home cash from dances / tips, while making $17/hr on payroll at one of the 8 mile clubs. But this was late 80s to mid 90s, and the clubs had way higher standards for dancers than they do now. This was back when women danced on top of little boxes/pedestals in front of the men. A true strip tease.
Now that dancers pay the clubs, the quality has dropped. Dancers are generally considered independent contractors, not employees. This leaves less of a paper trail to the IRA than being an employee would.
Several clubs have been sued in the last few years for treating their dancers as independent contractors when they are in fact employees. The most notable is Spearmint Rhino in Vegas. Not much has changed since then, though. Dancers are still charged a fee at the end of the night but it's called a "locker fee." They get paid (probably minimum wage) but other than that, they make their money the same way they used to; dances, champagne room, tips, and besides what fees they pay at the end of the night, they take home their money as usual. If they work fill time they get insurance and other benefits.
I personally don't mind being an independent contractor as it leaves less of trail and I am still under my dad's insurance, so I'm a dependent for Blue Cross Blue Shield's federal government worker policy, which is good insurance.
As far as how individual clubs treat their girls, I wouldn't work at one that did not treat their girls well. I will not be disrespected in my work place when I am paying the club to grace them with my presence.
my thought, find what you want to do and play by the rules. if you don't like the rules find something else. do what you have to do to get the work you wish. could be education, a license, whatever. you need to fit the job market, not the other way around.
From what I have been hearing and reading, a lot of dancers do not want employee status. Why? Because it give clubs greater control over what they do, how they do it and when. It also makes the girls much less mobile. It also forces clubs to find ways to siphon off more money from the stronger dancers in order to pay the weaker ones. After all, you don't really believe that club owners are going to absorb the extra expenses, do you?
From a customer perspective, I believe that converting dancers to employee status would change strip clubs as we know them - in a bad way. How can you possibly enforce sexual harassment laws in a strip club without drastically altering how many of them operate? The Lusty Lady tried to do it by putting girls behind glass and we know how that went - the club died. It would just be a matter of time until former dancers, like the ones that are now suing their former clubs for back pay, started suing for sexual harassment, age discrimination, etc., which in turn will force clubs to take steps that will make clubs suck more for us - and probably kill a lot of clubs in the process.
Most clubs that have been sued have settled and then restructured their contracts and practices to continue to designate dancers as ICs because the alternative is much of what I outlined above and probably other issues that I haven't considered.
So if you want insurance then go buy it. If you want a better club, you are free to move on a moment's notice (which is a freedom that you should cherish). If you want to earn more, improve your looks and hustle more - your earnings are yours to control. But whatever you do, don't try to sell us on the notion that dancers converting to employee status is good for anyone but the weakest and oldest dancers in any given club.
no I agree with the insurance bit. But why drug testing? Not saying that its a bad idea but if your a engineer or even if you work at a grocery story if the benefits are provided. those people don't get tested. As far as paying goes they already have some control over how dances go. Whether it be direct or indirectly they control at least some portion of how dances go. Most clubs at least the decent ones don't make a girl do private or VIP dances but at the same time if you wanna make money you have to, This isn't really the clubs fought because we need to appeal to the customer and that's by revealing more and doing the private and VIP dances. My thoughts are that the club makes a lot of money off of us that we don't see.
Among the side issues here is, management has a lot of tools to play with, to protect their revenue. At first glance, it sounds great: the dancers are employees, so 1. they get a minimal salary, 2. can't be forced to pay stage fees, 3. get healthcare and other benefits, 4. get employee type protections, all while hopefully keeping their main revenue stream, their tips. But a real-life example of a local club: after the lawsuit that changed dancer status from contractor to employee, the club jacked up the size of their cut from dances (so dancers are significantly subsidizing their own benefits), the club can still fire any girl at will since the girls have trouble meeting employee standards, and the club also jacked up prices so that customers are also subsidizing the dancer benefits.
The result: FAR fewer customers, and the dancers have abandoned the club in droves -- the club is literally a shadow of its former self. Where have all the girls gone? To clubs where they are strictly contractors, and make far far more money overall. In the end, the results are exactly as I described above: the retired girls who brought the lawsuit got a huge windfall, business got so bad as a result of the lawsuit that many girls left to become contractors elsewhere, and the ones who stayed are far worse off.
Clubs don't treat dancers well. But what can you expect from strip club owners? These guys are about as altruistic as pimps or lawyers.
Health insurance is a problem for a lot of people. I had good health insurance from my employer, and I continue to have insurance for life as a retirement benefit. America needs to provide health care for all citizens like other advanced countries do, but that won't happen any time soon because our politicians would rather fight than solve problems.
@poledancer
I agree the clubs make money the dancers don't get any portion of. I dont think the dancers should recieve money from the door cover or drinks/food, or membership, calendars, special events like UFC. VIP cover...yes each dancer should receive a percentage based on each individual customer they go to VIP with. On an overall level, each dancer influences their own hustle, so it wouldnt be fair for everyone to get x amount of what the club is receiving. If the club starts to lose too much on what it's doing to operate I see things like VIP, drinks, cover going up and therefore possibly declining the customer base.
No drug testing for insurance I wouldn't offer it that way since a hourly wage would more than likely not be implemented. My thoughts on that are coming from what I know as a requirement for me in my field to gain/remain employed.
I think PD makes a good point - but I think the dancers are better off as they are. The last thing most dancers want is a schedule - and a time card to punch daily.
Here's my suggestion - fwiw - have a contractor club - where dancers pay monthly dues - so the club can negotiate benefits for the dancers. Then you have larger numbers of dancers to negotiate benefits - such as insurance or retirement plans. You can retain your status - and you don't need to be on the clock.
I don't think anyone wants to push an hourly employment situation on a dancer. I think you could form a club (in a way - similar to a union) to get benefits.
Management doesn't like unions - but they could be beneficial.
Edit....for the VIP percentage to possibly work, the cover for it would have to decrease, beacuse now the customer is paying x times based on how many dancers he takes to VIP.
No one would EVER go to a club that had a drug testing policy because you would only have grannies dancing there! OMG...dancers without drugs like like Pink Floyd without pot.
.
PD83 --> "So the question should the adult industry step up its game means should we be paid more, benefits? --> end quote PD83
^Yes but do the customers have the extra money to give? A few do. Many don't. Should the club go back and pay the dancers a base wage, like the clubs "used to" until the '90s? Maybe. Then the dancers would get guaranteed minimum pay. Say $9/hr or $16/hr. Then you keep tips and dance fees on top of that That seems fair. PD83, what do you think?
The question is, where does the club get the money for your dancer base wage? The customer, in the form of extra cover charges and drink charges, I suppose.
PD83 --> "All of the clubs that I have worked for do not pay dancers. ...Is it time for the clubs to pay dancers." --> end quote PD83
^Maybe. Clubs *used* to pay some dancers a base wage, before the '90s. Then you got to keep stage tips on top of it.
The difference was back then, there were fewer adult entertainment options. Video pornography was expensive and not as widespread. We had porno mags. Web camming didn't exist, but we did have peep shows. Prostitution had supply problems, then (AIDS/HIV). So strip clubs and porno mags were a main source of adult entertainment.
Today, your completion is everywhere. You compete against pornhub.com and the Bang Bros network. Much of that is free. That's a problem for dancers. It's a real problem. How can a customer justify high cover charges and high drink charges when he can just stay home, watch free porn, and beat off? It's a serious question. I like strip clubs, so I'd like to help solve it with you.
PD83 --> "There are still clubs that fine for not going fully nude. So not only are dancers not getting paid but they are getting fined for what I assume to be not living up to the contract." --> end quote PD83
^This is because customers are complaining. In the past, customers had fewer choices for adult entertainment. Often, in the old days, a dancer would even start to strip on stage, until her predetermined amount of money had been thrown on stage by customers. $10 and $20 were common. Hell, sometimes she might only take off a piece of clothing after another $10 had been tipped. It was a true striptease.
If you choices to see a nude woman are: (1) get a girlfriend (2) buy a $8 porno mag (3) buy a $40 grainy VHS video tape or (4) tip at a strip club --> a lot of men took the strip club option. The dancers had a captive audience and many banked from doing very little work, at least very little compared with today.
Today, since customers have a wide variety of adult options, the customer why might have tipped $10 or $20 in 1985 so that "Bambi" *might* take off her top, now expects and demands "Bambi's daughter" to not over take off her top without a tip, that customer expects her to be fully nude, and maybe, just maybe, that customer will tip her $2 *if* that dancer flirts enough with him. Demanding much?
The power today is mostly in the customers' hands. The clubs know that customers have lot of options, and if the customers complain that dancers aren't getting fully nude for free? Guess what? Dancers are going to get fined.
Now, I don't agree with that state of affairs. But today ... that's where we are. So that's what the dancers and customers have to deal with.
PD83 --> "Also since I have been dancing I have never had medical insurance. Now some people will say that you can buy it with "all the money you make" but not all of use make as much as people think." --> end quote PD83
I agree and you have my sympathy. This is a real problem due mainly to out of control medical costs. We *ALL* have this problem. How to we contain those costs? Pass the onto the club owner? Maybe.. Pass them onto the customer? Maybe.. I truely think the answer -- to contain medical costs for dancers can be assured coverage -- is to move to socialized medicine, where costs are controlled. I don't see it realistically happening. The result is people will go without healthcare. that's free market. Sorry. I wish there was another way besides socialize medicine. I don't see one.
PD83 -->"We rely on the customers only and that is great but the clubs are making the money. Drinks, dances, admission it all adds up and we don't see that money with the exception of our portion of dance money. --> end quote PD83
I don't think the clubs are currently (post 2001) making enough money from cover charges and drink charges any more. Or at least, this is what the clubs are saying. So these days the clubs are taking money from dancers (fee, splits, tip outs, etc). Cost of business keeps rising for clubs. That's an issue for sure.
I agree with you. The club should charge enough fees to the customers so that dancers can keep their tips and dance fees. I think that is fair.
PD83 --> "So what is everyones thoughts should the clubs step up and treat dancers better or no?" --> end quote PD83
^Yes. I think we need to re-think the fee structures. Cover charge / dancer house fees. Drink fees. Dance money splits. How do we increase the pie for everyone?
--
shadowcat --> "The club owners need to realize that they need to keep their dancers happy by being very lenient with rules and fees. " --> end quote shadowcat
^Yes.
--
I do think that dancers should be able to keep ALL of their dance fees. I see house fees and dance fees as double-dips. The clubs should charge one or the other but I think charging BOTH is a bit much.
I understand why clubs charge both. The cost of doing business has increased since 2001 but the customer base (both 90%) hasn't seen wage increases during that time. Yet all operating expenses for the club have been increasing since then: taxes, utilities, rent, insurance, marketing/advertising, compliance, etc. If the clubs can't get more money out of most customers, since most customers also have rising rents, utilities, fuel, transportation costs, etc, too. So increasingly the clubs are taking the dollars $$ from the only place left -- the dancers.
To me, the obvious why for the club (itself) to get more money from customers would be to increase the fees that club charges to customers: (1) cover charge / door charge, (2) drink chanrges / drink minimums. But what is an acceptable increase for a cover charge? Lots of places charge under $20, and customers complain if it's much more than that. I lot of places charge as little as $5 or waive it completely. Ditto for parking. What if, to help cover the increasing costs, the clubs charge a $60 or even as $100 cover charge? That would help, because, even the customers who come in and NEVER drink more than 1-2 beers and NEVER buy dances or only buy 1-2 dances and stage tip very little, would be, if the cover charge was $60-100, comtrubuting more instead of leeching a free show. But is that the correct approach?
Or, in economics, how do we grow the pie for everyone?
What is a fair dance price? Is $40 for 1 song too much? Then discounted to 3/$100. If that fair? Or 5/$150 or 15 minutes for $150. Is that fair? How long should a song be? 5 minutes? 4 minutes? 2.5 minutes? And with these dances, how much should the dancer keep? I think she should keep "all of it." But does the club agree? Or is a 80/20 split for dancer/club fair? Or 60/40? And what house fee should the club charge the dancer? What's fair?
With clubs taking so much money from dancers, the dancers are starting to feel "pimped" out by the clubs, especially when they start to see >50% of their revenue taken up in house fees, house mom fees, dance splits, room charges, tip out, etc.
And some point the dancers may just say "fuck it" and become indepenent escorts. We're half way there already with the club just being a front for OTC p4p for many strip club goers.
All in all, I think the Strip club market is functioning fairly well, despite its shortcomings. CaraLynn87 posted some nice thoughts and much of what she wrote is the "American way." I think she's onto something there. Competition and drive is good. That's what grows the pie for everyone.
If club working conditions get too bad and dancers find themselves underpaid, they can always go to Backpage and do all of the marketing, security, and entertainment on their own and take home almost 100% of the revenue they create. Otherwise it's the clubs that do the ancillary business that complaining strippers don't want to do .
Nina --> "But this was late 80s to mid 90s, and the clubs had way higher standards for dancers than they do now." --> end quote Nina
I agree with rickdugan and Nina. I think the strip clubs had better hiring standards back then (late '80s through mid '90s). The emphasis today is on hiring any dancer willing to pay a house fee. I would like to get back to the halcyon "old days." The problem is I don't know how we do that. My ATF was 35 or 36 back in 1995 and she was drop dead gorgeous for a MILF. You don't see dancers like that too much any more. Or least not in the same numbers.
rickdugan --> "The Lusty Lady tried to do it by putting girls behind glass and we know how that went - the club died. It would just be a matter of time until former dancers, like the ones that are now suing their former clubs for back pay, started suing for sexual harassment, age discrimination, etc., " --> end quote rickdugan
The emphasis today is on LDs (often with high contact) and VIP/CR (often with ultra high contact). LDs and VIPs are a nightmare for sexual harassment. The only real way to stop that is to separate dancers from the customers (dancing on a crate/box, dancing on a stage, or behind a glass wall). Except what customer is going to pay big bucks for that today? Today's customer expects the dancer to grind on his cock and provide even higher levels of contact. I worry about sexual harassment for dancers as full time employees in that scenario.
To Dominic
The clubs had higher standards in the past, but there are a lot more clubs open now, many are marginal and if they were forced to implement the conditions desired by many of the posters they would close, then the number of clubs would get smaller and the standards would go up,(the vicious circle) but I would bet that many of the complainers here, would be out of a job and unable to qualify to work for another club. Especially if they had to adhere to standards that most American workers are required to abide by.
Compare it to sports franchises that need to compete for talent the larger the number of teams in the league the more diluted the pool of talent becomes therefore the standards become more relaxed and with lower qualifications the pool of talent starts to expand again.
Until an entrepreneur opens a club using a different formula and demonstrates an ability to make a bona fide profit this is the system that is going to be utilized for better or worse.
"but I would bet that many of the complainers here, would be out of a job and unable to qualify to work for another club. Especially if they had to adhere to standards that most American workers are required to abide by."
Another blanket statement. Who are the complainers here? The rest of your statement (ie meeting hiring standards) seem to be directed at dancers. There aren't even that many dancers on this board, let alone dancers who are "complainers" (???), so it's weird that you seem to think there are a lot of them.
I also know that a couple of the dancers who post here have degrees, and either have or have had vanilla jobs at some point. I've had vanilla jobs with strict schedules, internships, and full-time school. As far as aesthetically meeting the standards of "back in the day," I am pretty much just a lighter version of my mom with a smaller ass and she never had any problem getting hired at the clubs, even the one with strict black girl quotas (1-2 per shift).
Just to follow up - there are many jobs in the mainstream that require drug testing. It's a more common practice in corporate America than some might realize. If you get an offer of employment - in many cases its contingent on passing a drug test.
There are other intrusions that others put up with - and it goes with the territory. It isn't fun - but we deal with it. Benefits get cut every year - or they change the plans so it's incredibly expensive to keep certain healthcare.
Listen Nina you are just looking for an argument where none exists if you work as a dancer in this day and time most, if not all accept Independent Contractor status because that is the prevailing method that most of these clubs run if you want to fight go take some more of whatever it is you take, and troll someone else, I am tired of your whiny, striper web trash talking bullshit persona.
Nothing in my post to Dominic requires your reply.
I am ending this fight with you in advance, say whatever you like I will not respond to you again so go fuck your sippy cup self
The FBI recently stopped drug testing people in their IT hacking department because the really top people all tested positive. They were faced with stopping the tests or only hiring the 2nd tier of talent. I think it's the same with dancers.
If I were a club owner I would offer a punctuality/attendance bonus. Show up X straight days on time and you get a cash bonus, a gift card or week of no house fees.
I don't consider it an envasion of someone's personal life to require a drug test. I think for what I've had them for its just a requirement. So if the stripper wanted health insurance and that was a requirement, then that's what it would have to be.
I guess you could think of it like some of the life insurance plans you hear about. If you smoke you pay a higher premium as opposed to a person who doesn't smoke.
twentyfive --> "The clubs had higher standards in the past, but there are a lot more clubs open now, many are marginal and if they were forced to implement the conditions desired by many of the posters they would close" --> end quote twentyfive
twentyfive, this makes sense. The dancers are under pressue from a lot more competition now. I agree. I mentioned the other adult industries but I neglected to mention other clubs, too, as a source of competition and dillution. I believe you are correct. Thanks for adding this.
twentyfive --> " Especially if they had to adhere to standards that most American workers are required to abide by." --> end quote twentyfive
Fifteen years ago I followed the requests/favors of some friends to get dancers some vanilla work at my company. Many of the dancers failed the simple task(s) of (1) coming to work daily on time (2) not calling off work properly (3) or failing to come in at all for either interviews or for the job period, once hired. I was flabbergasted. How can you NOT come to work on time? Really? But you are right.
@JohnBuford: I think the clubs do that (somewhat) with a sliding house fee scale that increases in $$ as the shift goes on.
RE: drug screening
It's often an insurance / workman's comp / safety / compliance reason.
Nina --> "Actually at many of my vanilla jobs I had to sign something agreeing to do random drug tests. None of the places I worked at actually did any." --> end quote Nina.
At my company, we do this (I believe) so we can legally "random" drug test an employee after the employee is in an accident at work.
You are correct about engineers, except for the ones who are P.E. certified/licensed, or ones who work with heavy machinery. If you job has a chance of causing someone death, we, and the other employees, and the public need to know and be assured that you are sober. It's only fair.
To play devils' advocate: if I were a greedy health insurer, extending coverage to dancers, I'd want to make sure that the dancers aren't going to blow out my costs. I'd want drug screening and/or end amnesty if you check into rehab at the start of coverage. The wellness programs work in a similar fashion. Normally participants in a wellness program have higher health and lower costs, overall, as a company of participants. So, I as the greedy insurer, would want to see most of the dancers participate in that, too.
Dominic I thought your post was well reasoned, I should also tell you that you made several very valid observations that I agree with especially your closing,
" I think the Strip club market is functioning fairly well, despite its shortcomings. CaraLynn87 posted some nice thoughts and much of what she wrote is the "American way." I think she's onto something there. Competition and drive is good. That's what grows the pie for everyone"
To John Buford
A punctuality bonus is a good idea, but in practice the same strippers are going to be in on time all of the time and the ones who are constantly late, may make a slight effort but at the end of the day it will have a marginal effect on employee punctuality and just cost the employer more money, the reason I know this is I have been involved in businesses that have tried this and as a motivator it doesn't work on the intended employees.
I run a business where drug screening is the norm and an accepted practice, unfortunately it is not followed up on in many industries, and even the industries where it is a standard practice, there are always some companies that do not follow best practice guidelines.
Twentyfive, I was not trying to start an argument. You said something about many of the "complainers" on this board, and I'm wondering who you're referring to, because it's not like we have a plethora of dancers on this board who complain all the time.
As far as your sippy cup comments, the only convenient coincidence those statements have is that I tend to spill drinks on myself even when I'm sober so I often make jokes that I do need a sippy cup. Other than that, statements like that have no relevance at all. I am an adult as you are an adult. I live by myself, pay my own bills, take care of my own responsibilities, and work for everything I have just like any other responsible adult.
I don't really agree with the being paid something regularly by the club cause that would be hard on them, but I feel clubs that have house fees need to ditch that (these clubs make a crap tun of money they don't need to be making the dancer pay to work there!) Also I don't think a dancer should be fined for not removing a section or any clothing if she doesn't want to, they should just fire her if they have a problem with it.
Nina, I'm not sure who the "complainer" comments where directed to either. I thought maybe it was directed to me (From another thread) it might have had sippy cup comments, references to complainers, and posters under 35 (which maybe include me, if I'm assumed to be part of Gen butt hurt). I don't know either. Maybe I'm thinking of the Anger Management thread (link: https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=4…) or maybe it's some other thread. Regardless I should probably drop it. I'm acting like a have a guilty conscience.
I like that this thread actually has something to do with strip clubs. I shouldn't derail that. :)
Phoenix133 --> "I don't think a dancer should be fined for not removing a section or any clothing if she doesn't want to, they should just fire her if they have a problem with it." --> end quote Phoenix133
^I agree. I don't think it is fair for the dancer to get fined either. This is often the result of a dancer / customer "stand off" and it starts with the customers not tipping yet feeling entitled to a "free show" simply because the sign out front read "topless" or "nude" and feeling entitled to that just because the $5 admission charge was paid (none of which the dancer sees). If fact, she probably paid a "higher" admission charge just for the pleasure of dancing (with earning potential, still) but the "stand off" starts because the customers aren't tipping.
The complainers in that example are often the tail end of the Baby Boomer and the early Gen Xers, who should know how stripping is supposed to work.
* Customer tips, first
* The lady may take her clothes off. If she doesn't, try tipping more, and perhaps remind her or nudge her.
In no where should club management fine her on behalf of the customers and no where in there should customers (cowards!) complain to management in order to get her to comply. That borders on coercion in my book.
@NinaBambina “I am an adult as you are an adult. I live by myself, pay my own bills, take care of my own responsibilities, and work for everything I have just like any other responsible adult.”
^^^ It appears the meaning of "adult" applies to everyone else but....
The mentality of how everything done is OK as long as I don't get caught, and then if I do get caught I will just bat my eyes and manipulate myself away from the situation. Those looks do fade, and then the jilted and jaded personality shows, and without commitment to real life relationships it becomes hard to change into the transition of keeping it real. I compare it to how many strippers say they are only going to dance for a short period of time, basically lying to themselves, before you know it 10 years have passed and there is a huge gap in the resume.
As a rule, I think that the average strip club could do a lot to treat its dancers better. Does that translate into making them employees and offering benefits? I'm unsure, but tend to believe that would negatively impact the customers and dancers, ultimately.
I'll also put it out there that the average dancer would benefit greatly from some basic courses on money management.
"@NinaBambina “I am an adult as you are an adult. I live by myself, pay my own bills, take care of my own responsibilities, and work for everything I have just like any other responsible adult.”
@NinaBambina “…and I am still under my dad's insurance, so I'm a dependent for Blue Cross Blue Shield's federal government worker policy…”
lol"
DrPhil, idk when I kicked you in the grief bone but get it together. Every thread where someone else is in disagreement with me you jump in and your little piece as if it matters. I have great insurance, you mad? You do know that a person is allowed to be a dependent on their parents' insurance until they turn 26, then they can stay on the policy until the plan year ends on December 31. So I can pretty much stay on my dad's insurance until I'm almost 27. I still pay my own co-pays, and whatever my great insurance might not cover. Are you really that mad about my health insurance?
"^^^ It appears the meaning of "adult" applies to everyone else but...."
Everyone else but who, Meat72? Go ahead.
Again, you can stay on as a dependent until age 26. Wtf. I still am responsible for all my medical bills. It is not my fault that my dad has a habit of thinking ahead and making sure his 5 children at least have basic things like decent health insurance, which ours is very good since he is technically a government employee.
thank you for once again saving me the time of going to a strip club to hear stripper shit when i can get my daily dose right here from you for free.
NO ONE gives a shit about you not paying for your own medical insurance. the fact that you completely miss the irrationality of your “i’m an adult” but still a “dependent” hissy-fit speaks volumes of your prospects for a successful career in law. not.
talk about stripper shit, “miss i iz gonna be a lawyer”, you’re already 5 years behind the power curve “miss i iz smart”, and how come you haven’t even taken your LSAT yet with just 22 units to go, and why the fuck are you not finishing those 22 units this semester to try to at least catch up a little bit instead of spending HOURS every damn day spouting stripper shit on MULTIPLE strip club sites?
and just in case it went over your head, there is no need to answer (though you will anyway) because those were a rhetorical questions. btw, you might want to try taking a course in rhetoric at your pay the fee get a B institution not that it would do you any good
better yet, memorize this: “would you like fries with that?”
DoctorPhil - you've been hating on me since I joined this site. You are a loser who is clearly very jealous of me, and also miserable.
How on earth do you know about my LSAT progress? I'm curious to know if you think we are so super close that I would message you about my LSAT progress. Are you delusional?
I'm 5 years behind the curve? That's absolutely hilarious. I didn't know people where supposed to start law school at age 19-20. Lol. Do some research.
There's nothing irrational about calling yourself an adult while still being "dependent" on your parents' health insurance when the law allows college students to stay on their parents' health insurance until (or past) age 26. I pay all my medical bills, co-pays, etc. I think you're just mad because I don't fit into the "daddy issues" bubble for you to poke fun at because my dad has made it possible for me to have great insurance through his job. All my other insurance (renters, car) is in MY name. I live in my own apartment and pay all my bills by myself, along with tuition. That is called being an adult, you miserable fool.
The fact that you go through great lengths to pounce in on any Nina-bashing that you can, shows that perhaps you are the childish one. It certainly shows more about your character than mine.
Something about me really creams your corn. I get that I'm awesome but you don't need to be jealous, that's unattractive boo.
So, I think we've worked our way around to agreeing that we wish clubs would treat strippers better, and agreeing that it's not clear by what mechanism that would happen (lawsuits always seem to result in conditions being worse for the girls, not better, and employee status is not a win either). What I'd particularly like is for the clubs to treat the girls better, without it costing the customers more $$$$ :)
For those of you guys who think, "If I owned a strip club, I would do X, Y, and Z", it's not really straightforward. When I see ideas thrown about by PLs -- or by strippers, for that matter - they are often laughingly, eye-rollingly bad, or at best merely bad. It's not easy to understand the challenges of running a strip club, if you haven't done it. I had an acquaintance who was part owner of a club for a while, and a managing owner at that, and the stories he told me were eye-opening. I don't know how many "why in the world to strip clubs do this or that stupid thing", he met with amazing stories of how the staff or strippers or even customers acted, that led to the policy maybe being not so stupid after all. Which is not to say I don't think strip club managers are bottom of the heap as far as management skills, just that just because YOU don't understand a policy, doesn't mean it isn't the best of a lot of bad ways to corral what are basically a bunch of adult babies.
I fantasize about owning a strip club, and how awesome I'd get along with the girls and how well I'd treat them, while all of us made tons of money together. I'm guessing if any of us owned & managed a strip club, though, we'd start understanding some of those horrible policies put in place at strip clubs, right quick
subraman --> "What I'd particularly like is for the clubs to treat the girls better, without it costing the customers more $$$$ :) ... Which is not to say I don't think strip club managers are bottom of the heap as far as management skills, just that just because YOU don't understand a policy, doesn't mean it isn't the best of a lot of bad ways to corral what are basically a bunch of adult babies. " --> end quote subraman
Well Mister Condescending jackass, explain the rationale behind the rule of the dancers getting fined for not taking off certain clothes. That's one of the few demands Poledancer asked for (and one that shouldn't cost customers money, since healthcare is a magic unicorn). So let's hear it, since you have a direct line to the president.
-->"explain the rationale behind the rule of the dancers getting fined for not taking off certain clothes. That's one of the few demands Poledancer asked for (and one that shouldn't cost customers money, since healthcare is a magic unicorn). So let's hear it, since you have a direct line to the president."
Alas, I used the word "HAD" an acquaintance, because I wanted to indicate past tense. This was back in the mid- to late-90s, before deja vu came in and took over all the clubs but 3. I haven't seen him in 10 years, but I'll ask him if I bump into him. Again, I'm not arguing that strip club managers don't make outrageous decisions, or that the dancers don't deserve to get treated better... Just that not all the policies are as random as it appears. I can certainly make guesses as to why there's a fine for not taking off certain clothes, but just guesses.
+ a dancer is sorta the equivalent of a self-employed person; kinda like their own little micro-business and as such there are pros and cons to the situation – can’t have one’s cake and eat it to – i.e. be an IC and everything good that comes w/ it and also all want all the good-stuff that comes w/ being an employee (can’t have it both ways)
+ AFAIK all if not almost-all self-employed people buy their own health-insurance – and even if one is an employee one still has to pay a portion – plus w/ Obama-Care most folks should be able to afford health-insurance these days
+ I think the current dancer/IC system just needs to be improved/optimized – going all the way to the other extreme of becoming full-time employees will be a case of the cure being worse than the disease
+ on-paper a lot of things look-great – e.g. on paper Communism and the “equality” it promises can look very attractive – but in practice it’s an object-failure – e.g. there don’t seem to be too many successful SCs around employing the dancer employee method
+ “there is no such thing as a free lunch” – not such thing as free or free-$$$; it has to come from somewhere/someone – implementing the “employee-dancer utopia” will most likely result in killing the good that lays the golden-egg and most likely result in everyone losing (clubs, dancers, PLs) – it is sorta the Keynesian vs supply-side economics dilemma where I feel supply-side, implemented correctly, is the best way to go
+ w.r.t. dancers not keeping enough – I think the idea of them keeping all their $$$ is implausible – i.e. if one has a business selling a service they can’t expect to keep 100% of their profits and not pay for a retail space in a shopping-center for example – i.e. a club provides facilities for dancers and everything that goes w/ that including sound system, VIP rooms, supporting staff; etc – it’s implausible to think that dancers should not chip-in sorta like a person paying for a retail space in a shopping-plaza
I by no means have a business-mind – but to me the best business it’s when it’s win-win for both sides.
Off the top of my head; and w/o really looking it at-it from all possible angles – I often wondered if a system could be implemented in which dancers would pay the club based on how much they earned – i.e. let’s say it was a slow-night or custies are just being cheap and dancers are having a hard-time selling-dances; in such a situation their fees would be reduced – and if dancers are doing well then they would pay higher-fees but up to a certain point to where she stills gets the bulk of her earnings and if she did bad she would not be in the hole – this would make it easier for dancers and sorta a win-win in that the club makes $$$ from dancers if the dancers do well and don’t (or make less from them) if the dancers don’t do well.
I assume there may be obvious reasons as to why this is not a good-method or un-implementable (e.g. being able to accurately keep track of the $$$ the dancers is making; etc); but it’s a thought.
The problem is that most businesses and corporations in my opinion pay their workers just enough to try to keep them working without leaving to go work somewhere else. For them it's all about the bottom line and keeping as much profit as possible. Corporate profits have increased dramatically over the years but when you factor in real inflation using a site like shadowstats instead of official numbers, wages have decreased over the years instead of keeping up with the real rate of inflation.
Every place I've worked at, I had to pass a drug test to be hired and random tests could be done or required if some boss suspected something. If anyone is involved in an accident even off the job due to someone else and you were not even driving, it's an automatic drug test. If I break any of their specified special safety rules, automatically fired. They can request I work. On projects with close deadlines requiring me to work long hours for no overtime pay. I hate this. I've worked several weeks and put in 60 to 70 hours lots of weeks for no extra pay. The pay I did get was anywhere from a 1 to 3% pay increase if you jump through hoops working long hours. Lately pay increases keep getting delayed. I do get paid vacation but they expect me to put in extra hours to still get all the work done. That would be like requiring a dancer to do 80 dances a day or 400 a week but giving her two days off that week if she can do the 400 in only 3 days instead of 5. If she can do that in 3 days 12 hours long, then she would get a satisfactory performance review with everything else good. Just an example. Also most employees can not drink or smoke on the job.
The problem with some strip clubs was that they hired too many dancers for a club without doing hardly any screening. Then when the girls don't even make minimum wage due to lack of customers and too many dancers, the strippers get upset. Most businesses say their employees are important but we all get treated to almost as little as possible especially compared to CEOs and top executives. We jump through hoops doing all kinds of work with less and less people and they call that progress.
60 comments
Latest
That said -- and this might be my own lack of understanding -- I don't know that the lawsuits and subsequent employee status have worked out for the girls... at all. In fact, if anything, my impression is the reverse: things are always a little worse (sometimes MUCH worse) off afterwards. Clubs that allow dancers to pick either employee or contractor status, have overwhelming contractor girls.
For the more cash in hand for the dancers, I think they are better off as independent contractors. Lets face it. Most dancers don't claim any income from dancing while others have to in order to qualify for home loans, etc but even they don't claim all they make.
You don't hear dancers at clubs complaining about being treated as independent contractors while they are working there. They like it that way. It is after they are no longer working there that they see this as an easy way to pick up some cash and the attorneys are more than happy to take their cut.
If dancers want to earn more money they have to beat the competition. How far they are willing to go to do that is an independent choice. And of course you can always quit and do some thing else.
The girls are happiest with the clubs that don't try to treat them like employees. Telling them when to work, fines for not showing up, being late or violating other club rules. The club owners need to realize that they need to keep their dancers happy by being very lenient with rules and fees.
How much an hour should I pay a dancer? Do I pay them like a waitress....$8 an hour and they keep tips? I'm not paying a girl $20 an hour just to show up because that's all they'll do.
Being an independent contractor sucks; I know because I was one for a while! But in the dancing profession it works out better that way all around.
The girls pretty much openly admit that, IMO. These lawsuits are an exit strategy -- reap the benefits of contractor status, then hit the club with a lawsuit to get a windfall when they retire, then leave the current dancers to deal with the inevitably-worse conditions. That said, management would make it a little more difficult for this cycle to repeat, if they'd follow employment law instead of blatantly ignoring it in so many cases.
On the other hand, I know several dancers that struggle to live a basic life, those are mostly the ones in rural and middle America that could benefit from a steady wage and some form of benefits.
As rockstar pointed out, dancers have several benefits that all other jobs do not. I cannot simply jump back and forth from company to company each week, and I cannot drink and do drugs while at work. Most other people have those same issues as me. Most dancers can make what ever schedule they want as well. I would be willing to take a HUGE paycut if I could set me own work schedule.
I think a lot of a dancers success relies on her own shoulders and not the clubs or management. If most want a steady pay or certain benefits they must be careful for what they wish for as to me, it looks like such changes could harm the dancer in the long run.
I can't imagine how paying a dancer hourly would work. Possible? Yes, but I believe it would require strict rules/guidelines as far as what/when/where/how the dancer could be. Given the nature of the strip club as is, this would probably be ill received from dancers and viewed as micromanagement.
I'd provide health insurance, with at least two types of plans and a wellness type plan. Plans would allow just the worker, worker and kids, worker and spouse and kids, or worker and spouse. To continue to qualify for the benefit they'd be subject to random drug testing and would have to remain drug free. On a side note, I only hear from the dancers that they are late. I usually think nothing of it except as "that must be nice" or just part of their hustle. But their attendance/timeliness would indirectly affect them continuing to receive the benefit as they'd have to remain employed to do so.
Poledancer, I don't want this to come off as a stereotype to dancers, but it's pretty much how I've seen if offered to me as an employee aka human just as the dancers are.
I'll also add that I think most (not all, but most) of strippers that aren't making a reasonable amount of money either shouldn't be in the industry OR work too little.
Now that dancers pay the clubs, the quality has dropped. Dancers are generally considered independent contractors, not employees. This leaves less of a paper trail to the IRA than being an employee would.
Several clubs have been sued in the last few years for treating their dancers as independent contractors when they are in fact employees. The most notable is Spearmint Rhino in Vegas. Not much has changed since then, though. Dancers are still charged a fee at the end of the night but it's called a "locker fee." They get paid (probably minimum wage) but other than that, they make their money the same way they used to; dances, champagne room, tips, and besides what fees they pay at the end of the night, they take home their money as usual. If they work fill time they get insurance and other benefits.
I personally don't mind being an independent contractor as it leaves less of trail and I am still under my dad's insurance, so I'm a dependent for Blue Cross Blue Shield's federal government worker policy, which is good insurance.
As far as how individual clubs treat their girls, I wouldn't work at one that did not treat their girls well. I will not be disrespected in my work place when I am paying the club to grace them with my presence.
From a customer perspective, I believe that converting dancers to employee status would change strip clubs as we know them - in a bad way. How can you possibly enforce sexual harassment laws in a strip club without drastically altering how many of them operate? The Lusty Lady tried to do it by putting girls behind glass and we know how that went - the club died. It would just be a matter of time until former dancers, like the ones that are now suing their former clubs for back pay, started suing for sexual harassment, age discrimination, etc., which in turn will force clubs to take steps that will make clubs suck more for us - and probably kill a lot of clubs in the process.
Most clubs that have been sued have settled and then restructured their contracts and practices to continue to designate dancers as ICs because the alternative is much of what I outlined above and probably other issues that I haven't considered.
So if you want insurance then go buy it. If you want a better club, you are free to move on a moment's notice (which is a freedom that you should cherish). If you want to earn more, improve your looks and hustle more - your earnings are yours to control. But whatever you do, don't try to sell us on the notion that dancers converting to employee status is good for anyone but the weakest and oldest dancers in any given club.
The result: FAR fewer customers, and the dancers have abandoned the club in droves -- the club is literally a shadow of its former self. Where have all the girls gone? To clubs where they are strictly contractors, and make far far more money overall. In the end, the results are exactly as I described above: the retired girls who brought the lawsuit got a huge windfall, business got so bad as a result of the lawsuit that many girls left to become contractors elsewhere, and the ones who stayed are far worse off.
Health insurance is a problem for a lot of people. I had good health insurance from my employer, and I continue to have insurance for life as a retirement benefit. America needs to provide health care for all citizens like other advanced countries do, but that won't happen any time soon because our politicians would rather fight than solve problems.
I agree the clubs make money the dancers don't get any portion of. I dont think the dancers should recieve money from the door cover or drinks/food, or membership, calendars, special events like UFC. VIP cover...yes each dancer should receive a percentage based on each individual customer they go to VIP with. On an overall level, each dancer influences their own hustle, so it wouldnt be fair for everyone to get x amount of what the club is receiving. If the club starts to lose too much on what it's doing to operate I see things like VIP, drinks, cover going up and therefore possibly declining the customer base.
No drug testing for insurance I wouldn't offer it that way since a hourly wage would more than likely not be implemented. My thoughts on that are coming from what I know as a requirement for me in my field to gain/remain employed.
Here's my suggestion - fwiw - have a contractor club - where dancers pay monthly dues - so the club can negotiate benefits for the dancers. Then you have larger numbers of dancers to negotiate benefits - such as insurance or retirement plans. You can retain your status - and you don't need to be on the clock.
I don't think anyone wants to push an hourly employment situation on a dancer. I think you could form a club (in a way - similar to a union) to get benefits.
Management doesn't like unions - but they could be beneficial.
PD83 --> "So the question should the adult industry step up its game means should we be paid more, benefits? --> end quote PD83
^Yes but do the customers have the extra money to give? A few do. Many don't. Should the club go back and pay the dancers a base wage, like the clubs "used to" until the '90s? Maybe. Then the dancers would get guaranteed minimum pay. Say $9/hr or $16/hr. Then you keep tips and dance fees on top of that That seems fair. PD83, what do you think?
The question is, where does the club get the money for your dancer base wage? The customer, in the form of extra cover charges and drink charges, I suppose.
PD83 --> "All of the clubs that I have worked for do not pay dancers. ...Is it time for the clubs to pay dancers." --> end quote PD83
^Maybe. Clubs *used* to pay some dancers a base wage, before the '90s. Then you got to keep stage tips on top of it.
The difference was back then, there were fewer adult entertainment options. Video pornography was expensive and not as widespread. We had porno mags. Web camming didn't exist, but we did have peep shows. Prostitution had supply problems, then (AIDS/HIV). So strip clubs and porno mags were a main source of adult entertainment.
Today, your completion is everywhere. You compete against pornhub.com and the Bang Bros network. Much of that is free. That's a problem for dancers. It's a real problem. How can a customer justify high cover charges and high drink charges when he can just stay home, watch free porn, and beat off? It's a serious question. I like strip clubs, so I'd like to help solve it with you.
PD83 --> "There are still clubs that fine for not going fully nude. So not only are dancers not getting paid but they are getting fined for what I assume to be not living up to the contract." --> end quote PD83
^This is because customers are complaining. In the past, customers had fewer choices for adult entertainment. Often, in the old days, a dancer would even start to strip on stage, until her predetermined amount of money had been thrown on stage by customers. $10 and $20 were common. Hell, sometimes she might only take off a piece of clothing after another $10 had been tipped. It was a true striptease.
If you choices to see a nude woman are: (1) get a girlfriend (2) buy a $8 porno mag (3) buy a $40 grainy VHS video tape or (4) tip at a strip club --> a lot of men took the strip club option. The dancers had a captive audience and many banked from doing very little work, at least very little compared with today.
Today, since customers have a wide variety of adult options, the customer why might have tipped $10 or $20 in 1985 so that "Bambi" *might* take off her top, now expects and demands "Bambi's daughter" to not over take off her top without a tip, that customer expects her to be fully nude, and maybe, just maybe, that customer will tip her $2 *if* that dancer flirts enough with him. Demanding much?
The power today is mostly in the customers' hands. The clubs know that customers have lot of options, and if the customers complain that dancers aren't getting fully nude for free? Guess what? Dancers are going to get fined.
Now, I don't agree with that state of affairs. But today ... that's where we are. So that's what the dancers and customers have to deal with.
PD83 --> "Also since I have been dancing I have never had medical insurance. Now some people will say that you can buy it with "all the money you make" but not all of use make as much as people think." --> end quote PD83
I agree and you have my sympathy. This is a real problem due mainly to out of control medical costs. We *ALL* have this problem. How to we contain those costs? Pass the onto the club owner? Maybe.. Pass them onto the customer? Maybe.. I truely think the answer -- to contain medical costs for dancers can be assured coverage -- is to move to socialized medicine, where costs are controlled. I don't see it realistically happening. The result is people will go without healthcare. that's free market. Sorry. I wish there was another way besides socialize medicine. I don't see one.
PD83 -->"We rely on the customers only and that is great but the clubs are making the money. Drinks, dances, admission it all adds up and we don't see that money with the exception of our portion of dance money. --> end quote PD83
I don't think the clubs are currently (post 2001) making enough money from cover charges and drink charges any more. Or at least, this is what the clubs are saying. So these days the clubs are taking money from dancers (fee, splits, tip outs, etc). Cost of business keeps rising for clubs. That's an issue for sure.
I agree with you. The club should charge enough fees to the customers so that dancers can keep their tips and dance fees. I think that is fair.
PD83 --> "So what is everyones thoughts should the clubs step up and treat dancers better or no?" --> end quote PD83
^Yes. I think we need to re-think the fee structures. Cover charge / dancer house fees. Drink fees. Dance money splits. How do we increase the pie for everyone?
--
shadowcat --> "The club owners need to realize that they need to keep their dancers happy by being very lenient with rules and fees. " --> end quote shadowcat
^Yes.
--
I do think that dancers should be able to keep ALL of their dance fees. I see house fees and dance fees as double-dips. The clubs should charge one or the other but I think charging BOTH is a bit much.
I understand why clubs charge both. The cost of doing business has increased since 2001 but the customer base (both 90%) hasn't seen wage increases during that time. Yet all operating expenses for the club have been increasing since then: taxes, utilities, rent, insurance, marketing/advertising, compliance, etc. If the clubs can't get more money out of most customers, since most customers also have rising rents, utilities, fuel, transportation costs, etc, too. So increasingly the clubs are taking the dollars $$ from the only place left -- the dancers.
To me, the obvious why for the club (itself) to get more money from customers would be to increase the fees that club charges to customers: (1) cover charge / door charge, (2) drink chanrges / drink minimums. But what is an acceptable increase for a cover charge? Lots of places charge under $20, and customers complain if it's much more than that. I lot of places charge as little as $5 or waive it completely. Ditto for parking. What if, to help cover the increasing costs, the clubs charge a $60 or even as $100 cover charge? That would help, because, even the customers who come in and NEVER drink more than 1-2 beers and NEVER buy dances or only buy 1-2 dances and stage tip very little, would be, if the cover charge was $60-100, comtrubuting more instead of leeching a free show. But is that the correct approach?
Or, in economics, how do we grow the pie for everyone?
What is a fair dance price? Is $40 for 1 song too much? Then discounted to 3/$100. If that fair? Or 5/$150 or 15 minutes for $150. Is that fair? How long should a song be? 5 minutes? 4 minutes? 2.5 minutes? And with these dances, how much should the dancer keep? I think she should keep "all of it." But does the club agree? Or is a 80/20 split for dancer/club fair? Or 60/40? And what house fee should the club charge the dancer? What's fair?
With clubs taking so much money from dancers, the dancers are starting to feel "pimped" out by the clubs, especially when they start to see >50% of their revenue taken up in house fees, house mom fees, dance splits, room charges, tip out, etc.
And some point the dancers may just say "fuck it" and become indepenent escorts. We're half way there already with the club just being a front for OTC p4p for many strip club goers.
All in all, I think the Strip club market is functioning fairly well, despite its shortcomings. CaraLynn87 posted some nice thoughts and much of what she wrote is the "American way." I think she's onto something there. Competition and drive is good. That's what grows the pie for everyone.
I agree with rickdugan and Nina. I think the strip clubs had better hiring standards back then (late '80s through mid '90s). The emphasis today is on hiring any dancer willing to pay a house fee. I would like to get back to the halcyon "old days." The problem is I don't know how we do that. My ATF was 35 or 36 back in 1995 and she was drop dead gorgeous for a MILF. You don't see dancers like that too much any more. Or least not in the same numbers.
rickdugan --> "The Lusty Lady tried to do it by putting girls behind glass and we know how that went - the club died. It would just be a matter of time until former dancers, like the ones that are now suing their former clubs for back pay, started suing for sexual harassment, age discrimination, etc., " --> end quote rickdugan
The emphasis today is on LDs (often with high contact) and VIP/CR (often with ultra high contact). LDs and VIPs are a nightmare for sexual harassment. The only real way to stop that is to separate dancers from the customers (dancing on a crate/box, dancing on a stage, or behind a glass wall). Except what customer is going to pay big bucks for that today? Today's customer expects the dancer to grind on his cock and provide even higher levels of contact. I worry about sexual harassment for dancers as full time employees in that scenario.
The clubs had higher standards in the past, but there are a lot more clubs open now, many are marginal and if they were forced to implement the conditions desired by many of the posters they would close, then the number of clubs would get smaller and the standards would go up,(the vicious circle) but I would bet that many of the complainers here, would be out of a job and unable to qualify to work for another club. Especially if they had to adhere to standards that most American workers are required to abide by.
Compare it to sports franchises that need to compete for talent the larger the number of teams in the league the more diluted the pool of talent becomes therefore the standards become more relaxed and with lower qualifications the pool of talent starts to expand again.
Until an entrepreneur opens a club using a different formula and demonstrates an ability to make a bona fide profit this is the system that is going to be utilized for better or worse.
Another blanket statement. Who are the complainers here? The rest of your statement (ie meeting hiring standards) seem to be directed at dancers. There aren't even that many dancers on this board, let alone dancers who are "complainers" (???), so it's weird that you seem to think there are a lot of them.
I also know that a couple of the dancers who post here have degrees, and either have or have had vanilla jobs at some point. I've had vanilla jobs with strict schedules, internships, and full-time school. As far as aesthetically meeting the standards of "back in the day," I am pretty much just a lighter version of my mom with a smaller ass and she never had any problem getting hired at the clubs, even the one with strict black girl quotas (1-2 per shift).
There are other intrusions that others put up with - and it goes with the territory. It isn't fun - but we deal with it. Benefits get cut every year - or they change the plans so it's incredibly expensive to keep certain healthcare.
Nothing in my post to Dominic requires your reply.
I am ending this fight with you in advance, say whatever you like I will not respond to you again so go fuck your sippy cup self
That's a damn good one.
I don't consider it an envasion of someone's personal life to require a drug test. I think for what I've had them for its just a requirement. So if the stripper wanted health insurance and that was a requirement, then that's what it would have to be.
I guess you could think of it like some of the life insurance plans you hear about. If you smoke you pay a higher premium as opposed to a person who doesn't smoke.
way, way OT: maybe we should stop letting the health insurance lobby write the laws governing the health care industry.
Sorry... couldn't resist that one.
twentyfive, this makes sense. The dancers are under pressue from a lot more competition now. I agree. I mentioned the other adult industries but I neglected to mention other clubs, too, as a source of competition and dillution. I believe you are correct. Thanks for adding this.
twentyfive --> " Especially if they had to adhere to standards that most American workers are required to abide by." --> end quote twentyfive
Fifteen years ago I followed the requests/favors of some friends to get dancers some vanilla work at my company. Many of the dancers failed the simple task(s) of (1) coming to work daily on time (2) not calling off work properly (3) or failing to come in at all for either interviews or for the job period, once hired. I was flabbergasted. How can you NOT come to work on time? Really? But you are right.
@JohnBuford: I think the clubs do that (somewhat) with a sliding house fee scale that increases in $$ as the shift goes on.
RE: drug screening
It's often an insurance / workman's comp / safety / compliance reason.
At my company, we do this (I believe) so we can legally "random" drug test an employee after the employee is in an accident at work.
You are correct about engineers, except for the ones who are P.E. certified/licensed, or ones who work with heavy machinery. If you job has a chance of causing someone death, we, and the other employees, and the public need to know and be assured that you are sober. It's only fair.
To play devils' advocate: if I were a greedy health insurer, extending coverage to dancers, I'd want to make sure that the dancers aren't going to blow out my costs. I'd want drug screening and/or end amnesty if you check into rehab at the start of coverage. The wellness programs work in a similar fashion. Normally participants in a wellness program have higher health and lower costs, overall, as a company of participants. So, I as the greedy insurer, would want to see most of the dancers participate in that, too.
" I think the Strip club market is functioning fairly well, despite its shortcomings. CaraLynn87 posted some nice thoughts and much of what she wrote is the "American way." I think she's onto something there. Competition and drive is good. That's what grows the pie for everyone"
To John Buford
A punctuality bonus is a good idea, but in practice the same strippers are going to be in on time all of the time and the ones who are constantly late, may make a slight effort but at the end of the day it will have a marginal effect on employee punctuality and just cost the employer more money, the reason I know this is I have been involved in businesses that have tried this and as a motivator it doesn't work on the intended employees.
I run a business where drug screening is the norm and an accepted practice, unfortunately it is not followed up on in many industries, and even the industries where it is a standard practice, there are always some companies that do not follow best practice guidelines.
As far as your sippy cup comments, the only convenient coincidence those statements have is that I tend to spill drinks on myself even when I'm sober so I often make jokes that I do need a sippy cup. Other than that, statements like that have no relevance at all. I am an adult as you are an adult. I live by myself, pay my own bills, take care of my own responsibilities, and work for everything I have just like any other responsible adult.
I like that this thread actually has something to do with strip clubs. I shouldn't derail that. :)
Phoenix133 --> "I don't think a dancer should be fined for not removing a section or any clothing if she doesn't want to, they should just fire her if they have a problem with it." --> end quote Phoenix133
^I agree. I don't think it is fair for the dancer to get fined either. This is often the result of a dancer / customer "stand off" and it starts with the customers not tipping yet feeling entitled to a "free show" simply because the sign out front read "topless" or "nude" and feeling entitled to that just because the $5 admission charge was paid (none of which the dancer sees). If fact, she probably paid a "higher" admission charge just for the pleasure of dancing (with earning potential, still) but the "stand off" starts because the customers aren't tipping.
The complainers in that example are often the tail end of the Baby Boomer and the early Gen Xers, who should know how stripping is supposed to work.
* Customer tips, first
* The lady may take her clothes off. If she doesn't, try tipping more, and perhaps remind her or nudge her.
In no where should club management fine her on behalf of the customers and no where in there should customers (cowards!) complain to management in order to get her to comply. That borders on coercion in my book.
I agree. Fire her. But don't fine her.
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=4…
@NinaBambina “…and I am still under my dad's insurance, so I'm a dependent for Blue Cross Blue Shield's federal government worker policy…”
lol
The mentality of how everything done is OK as long as I don't get caught, and then if I do get caught I will just bat my eyes and manipulate myself away from the situation. Those looks do fade, and then the jilted and jaded personality shows, and without commitment to real life relationships it becomes hard to change into the transition of keeping it real. I compare it to how many strippers say they are only going to dance for a short period of time, basically lying to themselves, before you know it 10 years have passed and there is a huge gap in the resume.
I'll also put it out there that the average dancer would benefit greatly from some basic courses on money management.
www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=41600#com…
@NinaBambina “…and I am still under my dad's insurance, so I'm a dependent for Blue Cross Blue Shield's federal government worker policy…”
lol"
DrPhil, idk when I kicked you in the grief bone but get it together. Every thread where someone else is in disagreement with me you jump in and your little piece as if it matters. I have great insurance, you mad? You do know that a person is allowed to be a dependent on their parents' insurance until they turn 26, then they can stay on the policy until the plan year ends on December 31. So I can pretty much stay on my dad's insurance until I'm almost 27. I still pay my own co-pays, and whatever my great insurance might not cover. Are you really that mad about my health insurance?
LOL
Everyone else but who, Meat72? Go ahead.
Again, you can stay on as a dependent until age 26. Wtf. I still am responsible for all my medical bills. It is not my fault that my dad has a habit of thinking ahead and making sure his 5 children at least have basic things like decent health insurance, which ours is very good since he is technically a government employee.
thank you for once again saving me the time of going to a strip club to hear stripper shit when i can get my daily dose right here from you for free.
NO ONE gives a shit about you not paying for your own medical insurance. the fact that you completely miss the irrationality of your “i’m an adult” but still a “dependent” hissy-fit speaks volumes of your prospects for a successful career in law. not.
talk about stripper shit, “miss i iz gonna be a lawyer”, you’re already 5 years behind the power curve “miss i iz smart”, and how come you haven’t even taken your LSAT yet with just 22 units to go, and why the fuck are you not finishing those 22 units this semester to try to at least catch up a little bit instead of spending HOURS every damn day spouting stripper shit on MULTIPLE strip club sites?
and just in case it went over your head, there is no need to answer (though you will anyway) because those were a rhetorical questions. btw, you might want to try taking a course in rhetoric at your pay the fee get a B institution not that it would do you any good
better yet, memorize this: “would you like fries with that?”
LOL
How on earth do you know about my LSAT progress? I'm curious to know if you think we are so super close that I would message you about my LSAT progress. Are you delusional?
I'm 5 years behind the curve? That's absolutely hilarious. I didn't know people where supposed to start law school at age 19-20. Lol. Do some research.
There's nothing irrational about calling yourself an adult while still being "dependent" on your parents' health insurance when the law allows college students to stay on their parents' health insurance until (or past) age 26. I pay all my medical bills, co-pays, etc. I think you're just mad because I don't fit into the "daddy issues" bubble for you to poke fun at because my dad has made it possible for me to have great insurance through his job. All my other insurance (renters, car) is in MY name. I live in my own apartment and pay all my bills by myself, along with tuition. That is called being an adult, you miserable fool.
The fact that you go through great lengths to pounce in on any Nina-bashing that you can, shows that perhaps you are the childish one. It certainly shows more about your character than mine.
Something about me really creams your corn. I get that I'm awesome but you don't need to be jealous, that's unattractive boo.
For those of you guys who think, "If I owned a strip club, I would do X, Y, and Z", it's not really straightforward. When I see ideas thrown about by PLs -- or by strippers, for that matter - they are often laughingly, eye-rollingly bad, or at best merely bad. It's not easy to understand the challenges of running a strip club, if you haven't done it. I had an acquaintance who was part owner of a club for a while, and a managing owner at that, and the stories he told me were eye-opening. I don't know how many "why in the world to strip clubs do this or that stupid thing", he met with amazing stories of how the staff or strippers or even customers acted, that led to the policy maybe being not so stupid after all. Which is not to say I don't think strip club managers are bottom of the heap as far as management skills, just that just because YOU don't understand a policy, doesn't mean it isn't the best of a lot of bad ways to corral what are basically a bunch of adult babies.
I fantasize about owning a strip club, and how awesome I'd get along with the girls and how well I'd treat them, while all of us made tons of money together. I'm guessing if any of us owned & managed a strip club, though, we'd start understanding some of those horrible policies put in place at strip clubs, right quick
Well Mister Condescending jackass, explain the rationale behind the rule of the dancers getting fined for not taking off certain clothes. That's one of the few demands Poledancer asked for (and one that shouldn't cost customers money, since healthcare is a magic unicorn). So let's hear it, since you have a direct line to the president.
-->"explain the rationale behind the rule of the dancers getting fined for not taking off certain clothes. That's one of the few demands Poledancer asked for (and one that shouldn't cost customers money, since healthcare is a magic unicorn). So let's hear it, since you have a direct line to the president."
Alas, I used the word "HAD" an acquaintance, because I wanted to indicate past tense. This was back in the mid- to late-90s, before deja vu came in and took over all the clubs but 3. I haven't seen him in 10 years, but I'll ask him if I bump into him. Again, I'm not arguing that strip club managers don't make outrageous decisions, or that the dancers don't deserve to get treated better... Just that not all the policies are as random as it appears. I can certainly make guesses as to why there's a fine for not taking off certain clothes, but just guesses.
Could it be b/c it’s called stripping? Just taking an out-of-the-box wild guess here.
+ a dancer is sorta the equivalent of a self-employed person; kinda like their own little micro-business and as such there are pros and cons to the situation – can’t have one’s cake and eat it to – i.e. be an IC and everything good that comes w/ it and also all want all the good-stuff that comes w/ being an employee (can’t have it both ways)
+ AFAIK all if not almost-all self-employed people buy their own health-insurance – and even if one is an employee one still has to pay a portion – plus w/ Obama-Care most folks should be able to afford health-insurance these days
+ I think the current dancer/IC system just needs to be improved/optimized – going all the way to the other extreme of becoming full-time employees will be a case of the cure being worse than the disease
+ on-paper a lot of things look-great – e.g. on paper Communism and the “equality” it promises can look very attractive – but in practice it’s an object-failure – e.g. there don’t seem to be too many successful SCs around employing the dancer employee method
+ “there is no such thing as a free lunch” – not such thing as free or free-$$$; it has to come from somewhere/someone – implementing the “employee-dancer utopia” will most likely result in killing the good that lays the golden-egg and most likely result in everyone losing (clubs, dancers, PLs) – it is sorta the Keynesian vs supply-side economics dilemma where I feel supply-side, implemented correctly, is the best way to go
+ w.r.t. dancers not keeping enough – I think the idea of them keeping all their $$$ is implausible – i.e. if one has a business selling a service they can’t expect to keep 100% of their profits and not pay for a retail space in a shopping-center for example – i.e. a club provides facilities for dancers and everything that goes w/ that including sound system, VIP rooms, supporting staff; etc – it’s implausible to think that dancers should not chip-in sorta like a person paying for a retail space in a shopping-plaza
Off the top of my head; and w/o really looking it at-it from all possible angles – I often wondered if a system could be implemented in which dancers would pay the club based on how much they earned – i.e. let’s say it was a slow-night or custies are just being cheap and dancers are having a hard-time selling-dances; in such a situation their fees would be reduced – and if dancers are doing well then they would pay higher-fees but up to a certain point to where she stills gets the bulk of her earnings and if she did bad she would not be in the hole – this would make it easier for dancers and sorta a win-win in that the club makes $$$ from dancers if the dancers do well and don’t (or make less from them) if the dancers don’t do well.
I assume there may be obvious reasons as to why this is not a good-method or un-implementable (e.g. being able to accurately keep track of the $$$ the dancers is making; etc); but it’s a thought.
Every place I've worked at, I had to pass a drug test to be hired and random tests could be done or required if some boss suspected something. If anyone is involved in an accident even off the job due to someone else and you were not even driving, it's an automatic drug test. If I break any of their specified special safety rules, automatically fired. They can request I work. On projects with close deadlines requiring me to work long hours for no overtime pay. I hate this. I've worked several weeks and put in 60 to 70 hours lots of weeks for no extra pay. The pay I did get was anywhere from a 1 to 3% pay increase if you jump through hoops working long hours. Lately pay increases keep getting delayed. I do get paid vacation but they expect me to put in extra hours to still get all the work done. That would be like requiring a dancer to do 80 dances a day or 400 a week but giving her two days off that week if she can do the 400 in only 3 days instead of 5. If she can do that in 3 days 12 hours long, then she would get a satisfactory performance review with everything else good. Just an example. Also most employees can not drink or smoke on the job.
The problem with some strip clubs was that they hired too many dancers for a club without doing hardly any screening. Then when the girls don't even make minimum wage due to lack of customers and too many dancers, the strippers get upset. Most businesses say their employees are important but we all get treated to almost as little as possible especially compared to CEOs and top executives. We jump through hoops doing all kinds of work with less and less people and they call that progress.