Strippers as SC employees. What do you think?
Professor906090
We have talked about different aspects of the SC economics. This is what I have stumbled upon recently and wanted to offer up for discussion. Kinda boring, but what a heck, it is a rainy Sunday here in Detroit...
http://cbs5.com/seenon/local_story_11700…
P.S. If the video does not start on your first try (after the commercial) paste the link in the URL line the second time while you are still on the CBS5 site. The video should open on your second try (after the commercial).
http://cbs5.com/seenon/local_story_11700…
P.S. If the video does not start on your first try (after the commercial) paste the link in the URL line the second time while you are still on the CBS5 site. The video should open on your second try (after the commercial).
10 comments
I personally don't think 'dancers' (I like that term better) would ever end up as salaried or hourly employees, with or without benefits. I believe the clubs are making their money, as things are today.
And besides, how would the "tips" be handled? Percentage to the dancer and club? If so, how far can you trust the 'dancer' to acknowledge her actual tips?
Any comments from our 'DANCER' members?
It would be interesting to see if the "superstar" dancers would try to get "premium" wages, rather than there being a "one price fit all" wage scale.
In any event, it 's not going to happen, because the clubs do so well under the current system. And the nature of the employment lends itself to true "independent contractor" status.
In reality the fact that strippers work exclusively for one club and rarely are permitted to work for competitors, and the fact that they have at least 2 or 3 scheduled (mandatory/must show days) -means they are more like employees than independent contractors
In all these discussions, though, I think it's largely just a question of economics. Were there less willingness (based on need? lack of skills? lack of economic opportunity?) to engage in stripping as a money-making activity, there would be less supply of employees, and therefore the ownership would have motivation to do something to keep around the good performers.
In club-heavy areas, there is some degree of this type of incentive going on. At Scores, Rick's, and a few of the Larry Flynt clubs, in New Orleans, for instance, there's some active competition among the clubs for attracting the "best" dancers. Generally, to the club, that means those girls who are reliable about showing up for a shift, who are physically attractive ENOUGH, and who tend to make money. This means that the nicer clubs try to get the word out that their girls benefit by working for them -- free soda all night; free pizza in the dressing room; better house mom; bigger lockers; free escort to the parking garage; that sort of thing. Clubs in less competitive areas can just leave that crap up to the dancer.
This situation also means that a manager's criteria are slightly different from a customer's -- though pleasing the customer is PART of the equation, mostly a manager wants a money-maker, in all that entails. A customer often wants a licentious, easy-to-please girl who doesn't drain his wallet. The two can be at odds. So, oddly, sometimes a large amount of clubs concentrated in one area can actually work AGAINST the customer. We tend to try to get as much as we can for as little money as possible; but conglomerations of clubs can actually increase the cost simply by implication, and instill an "automatic" degree of professionalism and therefore higher demand on the customer. Sure, we aren't dealing with as many unreliable skanks who might pick our pockets (or are we?) but we're also getting less service at a higher price.
That, my friends, is Bourbon Street nowadays ... all cleaned up and Disney-fied. Kind of like what happened to Times Square, and I've heard is happening to Vegas.