"Carrying signs with nearly identical lettering and shouting “10-99!”, a few dozen strippers and their supporters protested in front of Los Angeles City Hall Tuesday to demand their right to be independent contractors, rather than employees. The chant referred to IRS Form 1099, used by independent contractors, who typically lack the job security and workplace benefits of company employees."
^ The problem with hiring some as ICs and some as employees is they are conflicting business models, it’s very difficult to have ICs interacting with employees that are non-supervisory, it creates a conflict with the business model and it’s difficult at best to keep required records leading to improper or corrupted, record keeping. Ex; how to treat income if a IC and an employee do a room with the same customer at the same time, is the money paid tip income to the IC and/or payment for services to the business which must in turn pay the employee Is it ordinary business revenue or is it commission derived.
shadowcat-->"All of those law suits have come back to bite them in the ass."
In this particular case, I think the originating lawsuit had nothing to do with strippers, they just got caught in the crossfire as the court defined who is or isn't an IC
Papi-->"This is confusing - why aren't clubs able to still hire them as ICs - is it the clubs are unable or unwilling to treat them ad straight ICs?"
This is a (disastrous, for strippers) court ruling that defined who is or isn't an IC. The summary here is, based on the court ruling -- no, the clubs are not able to hire them as ICs. If there were an option, the overwhelming majority of girls would choose to stay as ICs. Every strip club in CA has had to move to an employment model
I'd documented in a previous thread the changes as I saw them, and heard about them. In fact, I just went on a meet and greet with a girl on SA who turned out to be an ex-stripper... she'd thought about stripping again but still has stripper friends and heard about all the changes, and decided to stick with a regular job plus being an SB. It's been terrible for the girls throughout the state; I can tell you that in my area, it's not been good for customers either. This time we can't blame it on the clubs, since this was thrust upon them.
I should add -- I know firsthand the employee status has happened to all Deja Vu clubs. As far as others, my impression is, many have gone to employee status. According to the article, some clubs have not, but I haven't personally been in a club that hasn't changed over yet or heard firsthand reports of one (maybe some clubs in the south?)
as I understand it in California is is a issue about contractor truck drivers contending at they are actually employees. so under such circumstances the strippers got caught in the crossfire.
Cali strippers have been fighting for employee status for over 10 years. It came about coz of clubs basically treating them like legal employees without any of the benefits associated with the status.
Those of you defending IC status, would you give up all of your employment rights to become an IC? Go tell your boss you want to be an IC instead of an employee!
As a reminder of some of the changes, at least in the Deja Vu clubs:
- Strippers cant' work more than 32 hours per week: because if they work more than that, other expensive benefits kick in - Strippers can't work overtime or do doubles: because then there's overtime pay (I'm a little less sure if I'm remembering this one right) - Stricter scheduling and rules, rather than a little more loosey goosey as before -- they're employees now - Disadvantageous salary structure versus the previous structure (I documented this in the earlier thread) -- they make less. This is probably the #1 concern of the girls. - Forced 30 minute break. This might sound good, but girls have to take breaks while sitting with customers & regulars, and regularly lose out on the payoff. - Fewer girls on shift. Sometimes this works out to their advantage. But in this area, it's resulted in commensurately smaller crowds, and often turns into a negative. I personally am SCing less often because I often can't find a girl I like among the 5 or so girls on shift. Have heard from girls and managers that the crowds have gotten smaller as the shift sizes have, and managers are under more pressure than ever to bring revenue back up
Icey, retired strippers looking for payday are the one who were fighting for retroactive employee status. Active strippers overwhelmingly prefer the IC model because of the earning potential, scheduling flexibility and ease of mobility from one club to the next. I know many dancers that bounce around 2-4 clubs at will who could not do so under the employee model. Many dancers also travel strip, which is also not as possible under the employee model.
The employee model just does not work for strip clubs. This is stage 1 of the death of strip clubs in California. Next, after clubs have already been ravaged by this change and reduced in number, which is inevitable, those still standing will inevitably start getting hit with discrimination, sexual harassment, unsafe work conditions and other employment lawsuits. Employment related lawsuits, and the cost of insurance premiums to protect against them, will no doubt be the final nail in the coffin.
There was a lot of organizing done and strippers overwhelmingly supported it. The main problem was that they were and still are, given the expectations and obligations of employees without any of the benefits whatsoever.
The majority of strippers don't travel and don't go from club to club... This law protects those who are the most susceptible to abuse, as laws should.
The problem isn't workers demanding rights, the problem is the unscrupulous businesses fighting to not have to give said rights. Insurance companies are a monster in an of themselves and should be dealt with via legislation as well.
Employee status is going to push the real $$ earners to better places. The one PL upside is there may be there will more OTC opportunities for those girls not willing to travel somewhere else.
Icey's just making up a troll argument, but hopefully any lurkers realize that the "Icey" persona has made up a fantasy world of SJW utopoia (or more likely, troll utopia), and with no actual contact with the strippers who this is affecting, simply makes up even more delusional explanations every time it's pointed out that reality doesn't match the fantasy world. In the real world, stripper lawsuits are exactly as Rick says -- exit strategies to elicit a payout, not because the girls actually wanted to be employees. The current state of affairs -- deja vu and beyond -- was entirely predictable. Yes, employee status has hurt the girls, yes, the girls have left in droves, yes it's worse for customers, and no the girls don't want employee status; no, this isn't just an DV thing as all clubs I've heard about are doing similar things, and no, going in even deeper isn't going to make things better lol ... I like the girls and want them to do well considering how tough the work is; no amount of repeating "this is what the girls want" changes the fact that this is exactly what the girls don't want, and all you need to do is talk to, well, any of them, to see why. Only a troll or a rabid SJW could possibly fantasize otherwise, which should be obvious to everyone?
Some choice quotes: "Dancers said morale has plummeted at clubs across The City" "The drastic pay cuts and availability of cheap flights have pushed some dancers to seek work outside of San Francisco, traveling as far as Las Vegas and Reno one or two nights a week while continuing to live in The City."
Etc. Mostly, an echo of what I've been saying -- but I have actual contact with real strippers, and am not a troll just stirring the pot, so what do I know? :)
I only know of one club in CA that still uses the IC model, and that's Gold Club Centerfolds in Rancho Cordova. The vibe from the dancers in that club is much different from all the nude clubs in SF. Dancers are much happier, unlike the SF clubs, where the dancers are asking for a tip for any and everything. Much more than before this law.
SF dancers hustle coz SF is expensive, not coz they're unhappy. If you don't hustle in a place like that you don't eat.
Subraman, you're a moron. There are opinion pieces about everything out there. Fact is, dancers got what they've been fighting for for over a decade. But of course your right wing ass supports business over the worker.
lol ... now now, don't get all sassy with me just because I point out that reality doesn't match the fantasy world you've built up. I'm not remotely right wing in any sense. In fact, in this case, I'm not political at all; it's more about recognizing reality, and the real harm this has done to the girls (or "bitches" and "hoes" as you variously call them). And I do so by citing facts and first-hand observations, not bleating and repeating baseless descriptions of the fantasy world. But good try :)
Also, from reading the article, it seems that Dejavu voluntarily changed the girls status from ICs to employees. It says they did so to protect themselves from future litigation. They didn't have to change the status just yet, but they did.
The article mentions that other companies have largely ignored the ruling so far. It also mentions that it won't be until another bill makes it's way through the legislature that companies will then be forced to adhere to the ruling.
So companies like Uber and Lyft still operate with the IC model, and won't be forced to change until later. Non Dejavu strip clubs can still use the IC model for the time being, so far I only know of one in NorCal. I would imagine clubs like Paradise and Synn in Socal still use the IC model.
Lastly, the article mentioned a pro employee status counter protest showed up, and one woman in particular explained why the employee status would be better for dancers. Sounded exactly like Iceyloco lol.
Reality? You're the moron claiming an opinion piece as proof to discredit a decade long stripper struggle for employee status.
But yeah, god forbid dancers have workplace safety protections, a minimum amount earned per shift, can now use pay stubs to get an apartment of their own, are protected by labor laws.... We wouldn't want that! Definitely wouldn't want business owners accountable for the workplace culture and way they treat their employees!
In deciding whether the dancers were employees or independent contractors the court looked at the “economic realities” of the relationship between the club and the dancers. The court reviewed several factors to determine the nature of the relationship, however, the most important was how much control that the clubs had over the dancers. In this particular case, the dancers signed in to work each day on a schedule created by the clubs. Policies for fees and customer tipping were also established by management. While they were working, the clubs had strict rules for the dancers to obey and they were “coached” to use a certain type of behavior with clientele. Although the clubs contended that they had a relaxed atmosphere where they did not exert much control over the dancers who used their own “skills and abilities” to bring in clients, the court found otherwise.
This particular victory is an important one in the fight for workers who are particularly vulnerable to other workplace abuses. As the court noted in the McFeeley decision, the “Fair Labor Standards Act was specifically created by Congress to provide ‘fair labor standards’ for employees, including those marginalized workers unable to exert sufficient leverage or bargaining power to achieve adequate wages in the absence of statutory power.”
I think most of you are just concerned that if dancers have rights it'll make them less likely to be so vulnerable as to need to prostitute themselves to you. That's your real fear....you can't be a predator without vulnerable prey.
lol... the subsequent lower take-home and enforced 32-hour weekly limit has made OTC at least as available as ever... duh. Another fact acquired first-hand, that inconveniently doesn't match SJW utopia, along with the current unhappiness of the girls, having had something thrust upon them they never wanted. The girls are miserable and worse off, the SJWs are in denial. The lawyers like it though, shocking :)
-->"Also, there is no lower take home pay. The fees are the same as always, except they're itemized on a paycheck stub now."
Wrong. I itemized these out before; it is lower, the girls are getting less money out of what they make under the new structure, on top of the fact that they're paying full taxes against it (side question: do you ever get embarrassed at being wrong constantly?). So lower take home per shift based on fee structure and limit to number of hours per shift. And second, lower take home due to much more limited hours per week. It is a fact, again, that the girls are taking home less, which is why they're leaving the business and traveling out of state. No amount of "moron" and "idiot" can make up for you not recognizing reality. Moreover, this isn't just Deja Vu -- there may be other clubs who haven't changed IC status, but there are others who have, with the same results.
Plain and simple, SJW utopia isn't working out so well, but you actually have to talk to the girls to know that. Which, as a troll persona, you don't do and haven't done, not in CA, not anywhere else
-->"You're a fucking idiot for saying since the law isn't perfectly enacted by the private sector that it should be canned."
I should note, I never said this. I just stated the actual consequences of the law thus far, and expressed empathy with the strippers whose livelihoods have been hurt because of it.
-->"You're a fucking idiot for saying since the law isn't perfectly enacted by the private sector that it should be canned."
No, it should be canned because it is creating massive headaches for a number of industries, including rideshare, food delivery, package delivery and many others. It has also made hiring temporary workers much more difficult. Net-net it is just one more way that CA is making ti difficult to do business there. All of this will come home to roost over the next several years.
I like the delusional "perfectly enacted" excuse also ... it's a nice strategy, just justify every failure as less than perfect enactment, rather than a problem with the political theory underpinning it. The poor outcomes are someone else's fault. Meanwhile, a vulnerable sector that is near and dear to my heart -- strippers -- are facing real pain over it.
Maybe those industries should rethink their business models and the way they treat employees. Only reason lawsuits go through is that there are valid causes of action as per the law.
25, if you were talking to me: Fewer shifts, fewer hours per shift, and lower pay per hour of shift all add up to easy availability of OTC, with possibly even some downward pressure on prices, all of which is happening, although too soon for me to say definitively whether the price pressure is really happening. But I already don't have trouble with OTC, especially given that I've been spending time on SA so I'm not dependent on the SCs for this type of action... I'd really prefer to have bigger shifts with prettier girls at the SC for my ITC fun, and that's what's noticeably been sacrificed.
Sure Icey, or maybe those businesses will hire fewer people, move out of the state or simply close down operations in CA altogether.
Fro every action, there is a reaction. When you make it harder to hire people in a certain place, then less people get hired. Conversely, in places that make it easier to operate, more businesses gravitate to those places. It is a fundamental reality of economics that the politicians in CA have long lost sight of and this is just one more in a long string of ways in which CA keeps making it harder and more expensive to live and work there. You can't keep losing taxpayers and replacing them with net consumers of social services without consequences, which is exactly what is happening in that state. Mark my words - it is eventually going to bankrupt the state, especially when those massive unfunded pension liabilities that CA politicians continue to ignore finally come home to roost.
LOL 25. For good OTC opportunities to exist, there have to be enough hot and hungry girls in the clubs. What subraman is describing, that's not really how things are playing out.
The private sector can't hold society hostage to get what it wants... its not above the law. There was a lot of fear mongering when CA raised its minimum wage... nothing bad happened.
You're right Icey that the private sector is not above the law, but neither are politicians above the laws of economics. Every public policy law that seeks to regulate economic activity has an economic cost. Responsible politicians understand this and seek balance. Irresponsible politicians who engage in attention-seeking public policy experiments, without regard for economic costs, often end up doing more harm than good.
Oh, and as far as the minimum wage in CA, there have already been consequences and a lot more are expected to come as it keeps ramping up. Here are some examples:
52 comments
Latest
Ex; how to treat income if a IC and an employee do a room with the same customer at the same time, is the money paid tip income to the IC and/or payment for services to the business which must in turn pay the employee
Is it ordinary business revenue or is it commission derived.
In this particular case, I think the originating lawsuit had nothing to do with strippers, they just got caught in the crossfire as the court defined who is or isn't an IC
Papi-->"This is confusing - why aren't clubs able to still hire them as ICs - is it the clubs are unable or unwilling to treat them ad straight ICs?"
This is a (disastrous, for strippers) court ruling that defined who is or isn't an IC. The summary here is, based on the court ruling -- no, the clubs are not able to hire them as ICs. If there were an option, the overwhelming majority of girls would choose to stay as ICs. Every strip club in CA has had to move to an employment model
I'd documented in a previous thread the changes as I saw them, and heard about them. In fact, I just went on a meet and greet with a girl on SA who turned out to be an ex-stripper... she'd thought about stripping again but still has stripper friends and heard about all the changes, and decided to stick with a regular job plus being an SB. It's been terrible for the girls throughout the state; I can tell you that in my area, it's not been good for customers either. This time we can't blame it on the clubs, since this was thrust upon them.
- Strippers cant' work more than 32 hours per week: because if they work more than that, other expensive benefits kick in
- Strippers can't work overtime or do doubles: because then there's overtime pay (I'm a little less sure if I'm remembering this one right)
- Stricter scheduling and rules, rather than a little more loosey goosey as before -- they're employees now
- Disadvantageous salary structure versus the previous structure (I documented this in the earlier thread) -- they make less. This is probably the #1 concern of the girls.
- Forced 30 minute break. This might sound good, but girls have to take breaks while sitting with customers & regulars, and regularly lose out on the payoff.
- Fewer girls on shift. Sometimes this works out to their advantage. But in this area, it's resulted in commensurately smaller crowds, and often turns into a negative. I personally am SCing less often because I often can't find a girl I like among the 5 or so girls on shift. Have heard from girls and managers that the crowds have gotten smaller as the shift sizes have, and managers are under more pressure than ever to bring revenue back up
The employee model just does not work for strip clubs. This is stage 1 of the death of strip clubs in California. Next, after clubs have already been ravaged by this change and reduced in number, which is inevitable, those still standing will inevitably start getting hit with discrimination, sexual harassment, unsafe work conditions and other employment lawsuits. Employment related lawsuits, and the cost of insurance premiums to protect against them, will no doubt be the final nail in the coffin.
The majority of strippers don't travel and don't go from club to club... This law protects those who are the most susceptible to abuse, as laws should.
The problem isn't workers demanding rights, the problem is the unscrupulous businesses fighting to not have to give said rights. Insurance companies are a monster in an of themselves and should be dealt with via legislation as well.
Employee status is going to push the real $$ earners to better places. The one PL upside is there may be there will more OTC opportunities for those girls not willing to travel somewhere else.
Here's another article: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/new-rule…
Some choice quotes:
"Dancers said morale has plummeted at clubs across The City"
"The drastic pay cuts and availability of cheap flights have pushed some dancers to seek work outside of San Francisco, traveling as far as Las Vegas and Reno one or two nights a week while continuing to live in The City."
Etc. Mostly, an echo of what I've been saying -- but I have actual contact with real strippers, and am not a troll just stirring the pot, so what do I know? :)
Subraman, you're a moron. There are opinion pieces about everything out there. Fact is, dancers got what they've been fighting for for over a decade. But of course your right wing ass supports business over the worker.
The article mentions that other companies have largely ignored the ruling so far. It also mentions that it won't be until another bill makes it's way through the legislature that companies will then be forced to adhere to the ruling.
So companies like Uber and Lyft still operate with the IC model, and won't be forced to change until later. Non Dejavu strip clubs can still use the IC model for the time being, so far I only know of one in NorCal. I would imagine clubs like Paradise and Synn in Socal still use the IC model.
Lastly, the article mentioned a pro employee status counter protest showed up, and one woman in particular explained why the employee status would be better for dancers. Sounded exactly like Iceyloco lol.
But yeah, god forbid dancers have workplace safety protections, a minimum amount earned per shift, can now use pay stubs to get an apartment of their own, are protected by labor laws.... We wouldn't want that! Definitely wouldn't want business owners accountable for the workplace culture and way they treat their employees!
Victory in the Fight for Strippers’ Rights
https://www.cjglawfirm.com/victory-in-th…
In deciding whether the dancers were employees or independent contractors the court looked at the “economic realities” of the relationship between the club and the dancers. The court reviewed several factors to determine the nature of the relationship, however, the most important was how much control that the clubs had over the dancers. In this particular case, the dancers signed in to work each day on a schedule created by the clubs. Policies for fees and customer tipping were also established by management. While they were working, the clubs had strict rules for the dancers to obey and they were “coached” to use a certain type of behavior with clientele. Although the clubs contended that they had a relaxed atmosphere where they did not exert much control over the dancers who used their own “skills and abilities” to bring in clients, the court found otherwise.
This particular victory is an important one in the fight for workers who are particularly vulnerable to other workplace abuses. As the court noted in the McFeeley decision, the “Fair Labor Standards Act was specifically created by Congress to provide ‘fair labor standards’ for employees, including those marginalized workers unable to exert sufficient leverage or bargaining power to achieve adequate wages in the absence of statutory power.”
You're a fucking idiot for saying since the law isn't perfectly enacted by the private sector that it should be canned.
Wrong. I itemized these out before; it is lower, the girls are getting less money out of what they make under the new structure, on top of the fact that they're paying full taxes against it (side question: do you ever get embarrassed at being wrong constantly?). So lower take home per shift based on fee structure and limit to number of hours per shift. And second, lower take home due to much more limited hours per week. It is a fact, again, that the girls are taking home less, which is why they're leaving the business and traveling out of state. No amount of "moron" and "idiot" can make up for you not recognizing reality. Moreover, this isn't just Deja Vu -- there may be other clubs who haven't changed IC status, but there are others who have, with the same results.
Plain and simple, SJW utopia isn't working out so well, but you actually have to talk to the girls to know that. Which, as a troll persona, you don't do and haven't done, not in CA, not anywhere else
I should note, I never said this. I just stated the actual consequences of the law thus far, and expressed empathy with the strippers whose livelihoods have been hurt because of it.
No, it should be canned because it is creating massive headaches for a number of industries, including rideshare, food delivery, package delivery and many others. It has also made hiring temporary workers much more difficult. Net-net it is just one more way that CA is making ti difficult to do business there. All of this will come home to roost over the next several years.
Fro every action, there is a reaction. When you make it harder to hire people in a certain place, then less people get hired. Conversely, in places that make it easier to operate, more businesses gravitate to those places. It is a fundamental reality of economics that the politicians in CA have long lost sight of and this is just one more in a long string of ways in which CA keeps making it harder and more expensive to live and work there. You can't keep losing taxpayers and replacing them with net consumers of social services without consequences, which is exactly what is happening in that state. Mark my words - it is eventually going to bankrupt the state, especially when those massive unfunded pension liabilities that CA politicians continue to ignore finally come home to roost.
Oh, and as far as the minimum wage in CA, there have already been consequences and a lot more are expected to come as it keeps ramping up. Here are some examples:
https://www.epionline.org/oped/why-the-1…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall…
Were you referring to the 1986 increase?