Poles Apart: Exotic Dancers Clash Over Employment Status
jackslash
Detroit strip clubs
"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."
https://capitalandmain.com/exotic-dancer…
https://capitalandmain.com/exotic-dancer…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
52 comments
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?