What a bunch of freaking slime balls

Just joking on the last thing there. (Mostly cause I suspect that’s illegal lol)

I’m all for you spamming them. Fuck these people. They are taking advantage and we do not need to be employees. I support whatever activity is taken to stop these people.

I am gonna troll dem fuckers. I will write o. Thst form that I had slime on my balls and I needed to take a shower after

Kang of da trolls mane

I hate slime on my ballz. I need paid for that shit

Massachusetts made dancers employees long before California did.. The cost was passed on to the customer.

Friggin' SC trolls. These guys need to be shut down just like the porn trolls were. A law firm filed "John Doe" type lawsuits against IP addresses for downloading porn through bittorrent. The mastermind was disbarred. arstechnica.com This isn't necessarily the same type of operation as the bittorrent porn troll case involved fraud, but its these types of lawyers that give the entire industry a bad name.

Let's troll des trolls out of business

the ‘trickledown’ theory.

seen it in reality. sucks.

Shouldn't be surprising - there are many lawyers looking to exploit w/e financial opportunity they see

At first I was afraid this post was about me lol pheeewww

Most of what is posted on that web site is correct. I suppose it's possible that a strip club could structure its business so that the dancers meet the legal definition of independent contractors, but most don't. That's why they invariably lose these law suits. Also, keep in mind, for the greedy lawyers to make money on these law suits, they must have a greedy dancer client.

They do have a greedy dancer client. It’s dancers who no longer dance and have nothing to lose and want money.

—‘The info on the site is correct.’ What is also correct is that it’s not legal for you customers to touch us or for us to be within 3 feet of you, let alone all the other stuff that doesnt happen in the club, but do you customers want that enforced? On the same token, if it is still correct, making me an employee gives the club most of my money while I make minimum wage for a job WE LARGELY DO because there is very good income potential.

It may be correct but regulation in the strip club benefits no one. It benefits NO ONE.

"What is also correct is that it’s not legal for you customers to touch us or for us to be within 3 feet of you." This is true in some places, but not everwhere. It varies by club and location, and is usually dictated by local ordinances/liquor regulations.

"let alone all the other stuff that doesnt happen in the club," Yeah, if by "other stuff" you mean "extra stuff" then true.

"It may be correct but regulation in the strip club benefits no one." I agree. I didn't say I liked what was stated on the web site, only that it was mostly true. But it goes along big government and employment laws that dictate almost every aspect of the employer/employee relationship.

I dump a load in their basement 😂😂😂

I have heard that all these strippers suing some of these clubs are like either retired from dancing completely or won't/can't go back to certain clubs they are suing. I have never heard of them receiving crazy money either for this. I do think sometimes a club getting sued does help them get their act right? I know of 1 club that got sued at least once and changed a few things by the time I worked there, but they still had some issues and I am pretty sure they either got sued more than once or were in process of being sued by someone when I worked there... LOL idk.

DJV got sued in Michigan and court ruling said they had to provide L&I. So in Washington, and all other clubs, they provided it and took away an option we had to pay a weekly rate for house fee so they could charge us more and not have to pay for the expense of providing this benefit to us. I do not know of one person ever who used it, the people who sued were retired. Awesome people.

There's no honor among strippers

😊

These are the true ROB's where they take $ from everyone and take a dump on the club.

Idk I am gonna have to disagree. I think some places are better because they were sued. I also realize that it makes some places worse or straight takes them out of biz. It's either a crapshoot what happens as a result or maybe there is a pattern w/ the places that improve their act after being sued vs places that go to shit from being sued. It isn't a black and white all or nothing deal, sorry.

I blame a lot of this on the legal profession and The ABA, truth is these cases generally make more money for the attorneys involved than for the actual plaintiffs, the real problem is this system that has been set up to allow interested parties to make lawsuit generation into an extremely profitable business. Not to long ago the ADA was used as a bludgeon against small and medium size privately owned and family owned businesses. People would go into buildings that were used for various businesses and take note of things like lack of Handicap Rails in bathrooms, no matter that building was used for a construction company that specialized in high rise elevation work, the business was cited for lack grab rails and wheelchair ramps, yet no one with permission to enter had any need for any of those Items. That business spent almost $8000. to come into compliance, and paid a fine of $900 of which 50% of the fine was awarded to the creep that snuck into my warehouse and sent the letter to the county commission which sent an inspector to investigate why there was a lack of handicapped accessible bathrooms and ramps yet not one person using that facility needed those accommodations, That's my opinion of those compliance lawsuits.

@25 - you might have fallen victim to the latest troll-style lawsuits. There are trolls out there hiring people with disabilities to file bogus complaints and lawsuits against business for being out of technical compliance with the ADA. They'll go out there and measure existing ramps and access points (assuming that the business has those things in the first place), and they they'll send out shake-down letters if the businesses are a hair out of compliance. These types of lawyers are the worst and should, at a minimum, be disbarred. These lawyers do nothing to advance the public interest, and are only in it for their own self interest.

@jacej there's nothing new about this, the incident I'm referring to, happened in 2006-7-8, we were aware of these creeps for a few years prior, I actually installed a power gate on the parking lot along with a camera and keypad card reader about 2 years prior on the advice of my insurance broker and we anticipated the lawsuit, I most likely could have had it dismissed and won in court as the complainant entered my property fraudulently, but was advised just to let it go and they'd leave us be but if we fought back they would keep trying, even if I were to prevail the costs associated with self defense were not worth it so I just signed the consent form and made the necessary additions of two ramps, hand rail for the employee bathroom and two marked handicap accessible parking spaces and dropped it. Pissed me off but didn't really affect anything, lol

^ I saw something about-a-year-ago on the local-news describing your situation - some slimeball lawyer and some slimeball disabled-guy would go looking for businesses to hit/target solely to sue and get paid - it wasn't as if some random disabled-person happen to patronize a particular business that perhaps didn't have the proper setup, these 2-guys would target business after business - just looking at their faces one could tell what slimeballs they were.

This is one of the negative-sides of regulations that was discussed in another thread where they can often do more harm than good.

@Papi, This really has very little to do with regulating contractors, it's more about a couple of sleazeballs getting together and running a con, as I stated above I could have beat them like a drum in the Macy's Turkey day parade, but it wasn't cost effective nor worth the time and effort, In that thread the con-men were running advertising looking for victims if they hadn't been running false advertising they never would have come to the attention of the regulators.