var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
TheOrtega
September 19, 2009 10:25 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Time for the Strippers to unionize?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
kc2idf
September 20, 2009 6:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheOrtega: If the strippers are extra entertainment, let them strike, and then let's see how many patrons the bar gets.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skipweasel
September 20, 2009 8:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheOrtega: Were they ever ionized in the first place?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
September 20, 2009 4:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheOrtega: God knows we don't want to see what a stripper scab looks like.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sheogorath
September 19, 2009 11:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheOrtega:
I believe there's already an exotic dancers union. I dunno if they're in Massachusetts, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 19, 2009 11:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sheogorath: I know San Francisco was one of the first strip clubs where the performers unionized. I hope they branched out. Some are incredibly exploited and more than a few end up with not much to show for it by the time their expiration date hits.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
September 20, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Let's just hope they don't force seniority as the primary qualification for hiring.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
September 19, 2009 10:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

...misclassifying dancers as independent contractors to avoid paying minimum wage, overtime...

Can you really complain about not making minimum wage while you're making fist-fulls of under-the-table, likely-unreported-as-income cash? With \"$300 to $800\" income a night, are these strippers really worried about the extra $5.35 an hour?
Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
ailema
September 21, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: \"The club, she says, pays no salary, charges each stripper $40 to $60 per shift to perform, and imposes other fees for lateness or failing to participate in every dance routine - all at a time when tips have plunged.\"

There is a big difference between that and complaining about making under minimum wage. Most strippers want to work an independent contractors because it allows them a certain amount of freedom over where and how often to perform. If they are bound to working in only one club, and the club has imposed so many fees that it is impossible to make a living wage working there, that is the problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
September 20, 2009 4:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: I once worked a job in college as a personal assistant for a family. They paid in personal checks and didn't take cash out so I assumed it was under-the-table. It wouldn't have been that unusual since I was about 18 at the time and my main duty was babysitting, which I'd often gotten cash for as a kid.
At the end of the year the wife sent me a 1099, and I filled it out not knowing any better. I ended up owing enough in taxes that I had made less than minimum wage - and the surprise taxes meant I had to borrow some money from my folks. It's really not unusual for young or uneducated people to be taken advantage of by employers through 1099, and no matter what your job and how much you're making, it's unfair and it's cheating on there part. I never did anything about my job in college (other than quit) because I didn't know if I had any legal recourse, so kudos to these women for taken a stand on a practice that screws a lot of people over in many different professions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aladdyn
September 20, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lmarconi: I think your very confused as to what your talking about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
September 20, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aladdyn: Makes perfect sense.


Her employers were treating her as an independent contractor, but didn't tell her nor negotiate a rate that would take that into account. When she filed her taxes, she owed regular taxes (nothing was withheld), her portion and the employer's portion of FICA (about 15% of total).


After all that, she made less than minimum wage. She should have been classified as an employee, but the employer took advantage of the situation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aladdyn
September 20, 2009 10:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: yeah but he says he assumed it. Besides he goes on to say that it doesnt matte how much your making its unfair and cheating. Sounds like he doesnt realize thats just how its supposed to work. Its tax evasion if he doesnt report the income.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
September 20, 2009 10:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aladdyn:I'm not sure what you mean by \"that's just how it's supposed to work\". She should have been an employee, she got regular paychecks (without deductions, true), but the employer didn't do it that way. It's illegal for the employer to just decide you are a contractor rather than an employee, too. True, not declaring the income would be tax evasion, but it's possible she would have been tax exempt at that level anyway. The employer broke the law first and it's hard to fault the employee, especially in a first time job.


And the amount doesn't matter, it's still cheating...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
September 21, 2009 8:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: Thanks for the defense - I do in fact know what I'm talking about! You're right, as a regular employee, based on the amount I was making (not much) and my household status (student dependent) I would have been tax exempt. It's never been unusual for high schoolers/college kids to often get paid in cash for babysitting/mowing the lawn/feeding the dog/various kids chores. Consequently, no, tax evasion didn't cross my mind nor do I think as an 18 year old I was responsible, especially since the family never brought up anything about taxes. I wasn't making much an hour to begin with, so once taxes were taken out, yeah, I made less than minimum wage and I was pretty pissed. It's certainly illegal for an employer to say you're an independent contractor for tax purposes, when you're clearly not, simply because it's more beneficial to them financially.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aladdyn
September 21, 2009 1:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: Well I cant really take this discussion much further because I really dont know for sure how the laws apply in this situation. But the way I was thinking about it was they were basically a part time baby sitter. Ive never heard of people being employed by someone to babysit. I would think that the person providing the service is their own boss, and responsible for setting their rate of pay, and understanding that they will need to pay taxes on that pay regardless if they get a 1099 or not.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
September 21, 2009 10:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aladdyn: Her original note says she was a personal assistant (babysitting was part of the job, but not the only piece), which we can assume meant she showed up on a regular basis. Lots of politicians have gotten in trouble for not properly paying their nannies (look up Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) and this sounds similar to those cases.


It's up to both parties to establish the nature of the relationship, but it's exploitative and illegal for the employer not to communicate that ahead of time. I'm sure she was required to come at a certain time, to do certain activities and was under the control of the employer. Therefore, she was (and could safely assume she was) an employee. I read an old article that said only 25% pay the correct payroll taxes on nannies and other household workers.


The situation would be different if she did babysitting for several families and didn't work a substantial number of hours. Here's an example of the law in Oregon covering babysitters:


Casual baby-sitters are exempt from minimum wage and overtime coverage under both federal and state law. Federal law covers baby-sitters who are regularly employed to baby-sit. To constitute regular employment at baby-sitting, the employment must meet or exceed 20 hours per week. All casual baby-sitters are excluded from state law coverage pursuant to ORS 653.020(2).


She didn't break the law taking the checks and may have planned to pay taxes (if she weren't exempt) anyway.


IANAL and there's a reason lawyers make big bucks helping figure out these cases, but the IRS defaults to \"employee\" unless it can be clearly established otherwise. The savings on FICA and payroll taxes are why many employers really push for the contractor status.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DollaValueLIFO
September 21, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo:


I too know more about the profession than I prefer to, but in Baltimore this is a big issue. A lot of the clubs have issues with the police - drugs, underage dancers, drinkers, etc. The women usually are addicts of one form or another, and for them, dancing is part of their income. On the Block, a dancer regularly plies other trades in addition to dancing. Clubs know this and will charge patrons (johns) $120 to take the girl upstairs and then another 25% of her tips.


Girls that are found to have been not paying their share are usually not able to dance for a while, depending upon how long it takes for their bruises to heal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bathmat
September 20, 2009 4:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: The money isn't that good most of the time. On a bad night, the girls will lose money. The strippers have to pay off the DJ, the bartenders, the bouncers, etc. before they can dance. The money doesn't come from shimmying up and down the pole. In fact, that's more or less a punishment. The real money comes from private dances. It can be lucrative, but just as often, it can be brutal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 19, 2009 11:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Can you really complain about your workers suing you while you're making fistfuls of likely-unreported-as-income cash selling overpriced drinks and charging your employees for the privilege of working for you?

Strippers don't really make as money as the guys complaining about the price of lap dances would like to believe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 19, 2009 11:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Yup. If the mob doesn't own them outright, then the owners are wannabes. Either way, tax cheats, employee sharks, etc.
It's funny when Conservatives support mobbed-up establishments, however.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
September 19, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Places that don't pay minimum wage usually don't follow many of the other rules in place to protect workers, these dancers may not have been overly concerned with the $5.35/hr but probably are concerned with all the other illegal things they were doing.
Many places in NYC that don't pay employees on the books use that to their advantage by taking advantage of their employees in any and every way possible.
Your quote actually sounds like some of the club owners I've met.
\"My employees make all kinds of money, therefore they should put up with whatever I feel like doing to them.\"
-Pay the manager out of your tips, forced pooling of tips, pay for walk outs/breakages, etc the list goes on and on.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
September 19, 2009 10:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What does \"The women are not allowed to work at competing clubs.\" mean? Do these women have contracts with the clubs they work at? What do the contracts specify?

I'm trying to figure out why these women don't leave if they feel like they're being treated badly. If the clubs decide that they're losing too much business they'll have to negotiate, right?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 21, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: The exclusivity clause points toward employee status of the strippers, as it's a way to control the strippers' means of employment.

This would be in contrast to musicians, who are generally free to contract for gigs, and are designated as independent contractors, except for a horribly decided case in Oregon, where the employment department interpreted a law as to say that touring musicians were employees of a club because the contracts didn't specify the musicians' tax treatment. See [blogs.wweek.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cowboyesfan
September 21, 2009 1:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace:

In my neck of the woods, there are only a couple of management companies that run all of the clubs. Its relatively easy for a dancer to get black listed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NewsBunny
September 20, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace:


When I started in Radio in Massachusetts, my employeer would make us sign a non-compete. Meanting if I left for any reason, I could not work anywhere in the same air market for a YEAR.


I was not under contract. I did not get benefits or vacation. I barely made more than minimum wage. But if someone offered me more money at a competing station, I couldn't take it.


It sucked, and was finally outlawed in Massachusetts (and RI, I think) about ten years ago.


So entertainers very often get hit with these non-competes or something similar.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
September 19, 2009 11:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: The women aren't paid by the clubs. The club charges the dancers a percentage of the tips patrons give them, as a fee to allow the dancer to dance there. The dancers are complaining that the clubs are raising the percentage, without raising the benefits they offer as employers.

As for the exclusivity contract, it cuts down on competition, and allows the club to advertise that only they have this dancer or that dancer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cortana
September 19, 2009 11:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Difdi: Most clubs charge a fee to dance for the night, from 50 to upwards of $300 in the best clubs. Don't cover your fee, you're in the hole. It's not a good place to be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
corinthos
September 20, 2009 12:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: Also they do shady things in the contracts liek if you are sick you owe them 600 dollars for the night you missed. Thats what happened to my neighbor who strips and got the flu for a week. She was in debt with them for like 1800 dollars. I'm sure they would have trouble enforcing it if she just quit on them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sanveann
September 19, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: You're missing the point. They're not complaining about not making minimum wage, they're complaining about having to pay to work. And they're paying a lot more than they used to.

I know more than I care to admit about this profession, and on a bad night, you can actually leave with less than you came in with.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
September 20, 2009 1:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sanveann: What point am I missing? If they don't like the conditions, whatever they are, they can be looking elsewhere. If a dance club is changing contract terms around (assuming there's a contract) then the strippers can accept them or not.

If the clubs are struggling because of the economy and are trying to make up some of the loss by taking more from the strippers, the strippers can leave. I think the clubs would find themselves at a much greater loss without the strippers and would ultimately need to convince them to come back by offering better terms.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
September 20, 2009 2:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: I'm betting it's more like \"it's ok, we had 15 secretaries, accountants and computer programmers out of work and desperate to feed their families come in and apply this week, have fun trying to find another job to make ends meet for your family.\"

Because the economy is bad, they probably have more women willing to strip. It's a job you can jump right into, no 2 - 4 year degree required. People out of work right now don't have the reserves to go to school before they take a job, and are thus pretty limited.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mr_Human
September 20, 2009 1:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: If they all have same rules that exploit workers, then where else will they go? This was why unions were created in the first place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
September 20, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr_Human: In addition, it's generally a small community within a city. As in, one owner may own a lot of the clubs, or likely knows the owners of the others, so will track down the other owner before hiring. Lateral moves are not simple if you think you're being mistreated.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DollaValueLIFO
September 21, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@subtlefrog:


Agreed. Most cities don't have RL districts any more. Clubs are usually spread out due to zoning and liquor board requirements. Losing your gig at one club pretty much precludes to from working anyplace else.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 19, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, I doubt people go to strip clubs for alcohol either. But I don't go to McDonalds for the soda - guess what they're largely in the business of selling? Sure other stuff makes them a profit, but nothing like soda does. Just because that's not the reason people go doesn't mean that isn't their main business.

And while yes, that isn't very respectful to the dancers, that doesn't make it any less true - just like in a sports bar where the draw is the game on a big tv or a pool hall where the draw is, well, pool the strippers are the draw at a strip club. The industry itself lacks respect for the women (and men) involved (for the most part) - it's systematic, not isolated to this club

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
DovS
September 20, 2009 12:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: Your comparison would only make sense if McDonald's was selling soda and letting other people come in to sell the burgers. At McDonald's, the restaurant clearly relies on both the food AND the drinks to satisfy customers. Strip clubs rely on both the dancers AND the drinks to satisfy their customers too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 20, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DovS: It doesn't matter who provides the entertainment/burgers (and they are paid by the club so it's not entirely someone else selling the burgers). The writer suggested no one goes to a strip club for booze - and that's fine. Who goes to a fast food joint for their soda? You go for the strippers or for the fast food, not the drinks. It just so happens that the drinks are the big money makers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 1:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: Sigh. Way to miss the point. The club is trying to pretend that the naked women are not the reason that people come to the bar, and that their legal status is no different than that of a wide-screen TV. This is really a dumbass legal argument, but their lawyer had to say SOMETHING other than \"Damn, you got us.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 20, 2009 1:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I get the point - but how much money does the club making from putting on strip shows? Just because people come to see the naked dancers doesn't mean that's what the club's main business is - why would they consider their \"main business\" to be anything other than their most profitable? They're not denying that the women are an attraction, they are in fact the main attraction - but their comparison to sports bars and pool halls is valid. But like I said, they still treat their performers shitty - but that's the entire industry. Which is no excuse, but they're not any worse scum than the rest of em. (for the most part, I'm sure there's some ethical strip club somewhere)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ailema
September 21, 2009 6:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Probably because the area job market is horrible and the strippers are likely to stay no matter how badly you treat them. It's easier to screw people over than treat them well and build your business in an ethical way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DollaValueLIFO
September 21, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren:


You really don't get it. There are specific tests applied to businesses with respect to what qualifies someone as a contractor versus an employee. In this case, the IRS has always looked the other way with respect to the fact that these women are in no way, shape, or form contractors. They work on site with club provided equipment, and are required to do so.


Your argument would be akin to suggesting that the servers at your local TGIFriday's are contractors because people go for the food, not the service.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 21, 2009 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DollaValueLIFO: No, you really don't get it - I'm not nor was I ever making the argument that they were independent contractors. You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm only saying the claim that selling alcohol is their main business seems to be an accurate claim.

And if I were trying to say they were contractors - which I'm not - then my argument still wouldn't be akin to the example you provided, because the servers are not the attraction at TGIFridays, the food is. In that case the food would be an independent contractor (if I were indeed saying the strippers are such, which I am not)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: What are you talking about? The club is not a bar that happens to offer \"Open Pole Night\" once a week. The business does not exist without the strip shows. More importantly, the dancers are not independent contractors.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 20, 2009 8:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I never said they were independent contractors.

I also never said or implied that the strippers were anything but integral to the club - that doesn't make it any less true that selling drinks is where they make their money, and thus their \"main business\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: Who cares? Really, why is this relevant at all? The judge pointed out that the strippers are integral to the business.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 21, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Well my original point - that the article was saying that people don't go for booze when that isn't the argument being presented - was entirely relevant.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Changed my name to \"I like potatoes\"
September 19, 2009 11:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just have to say...that is quite a picture!

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
September 19, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@changed my name: That's the \"Peep Show\" installation from Museum of Sex in NYC.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
LuvJones
September 19, 2009 11:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would think the main business is the business that brings in the most customers and is bringing in the largest amount of revenue. Most strip joints have a cover charge and I don't know many guys/girls who will pay a cover at a regular bar( I'm talking about a bar not a regular dance club) just to drink.

So if the ta-tas and booty cheeks are making the most money and bringing in the customers then they're in the business of ta-tas and booty cheeks.

Most girls don't want to switch clubs because they build up repeat customers after being in a club for a while. If they just up and leave they are really starting over which means they take the hit money wise.

Most dancers don't hand out business cards with a contact number so regulars have no idea where the girl is working when she moves on.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 19, 2009 11:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is SOP for strip clubs - treat your employees like crap and figure they won't complain. Then profess shock and amazement at the idea that \"but they're just hos!\" doesn't cut much ice when you commit wage and hour violations.

I truly don't understand the business model of US strip clubs. Pay them minimum wage and let them keep tips and you can still make buckets of money, and you get the best dancers wanting to work at your club. But I guess it helps if you're not a greedy idiot.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 19, 2009 11:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: You forgot \"misogynist\" and \"coke-abusing assh*le gumba wannabe\", but besides that, pretty much to the point.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 19, 2009 11:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What part of its anatomy is the pink bunny using to grip the pole, because I don't think it's using its thighs...

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 20, 2009 1:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: I believe that part would be the \"marsh\" of the Peep. The \"mallow\" is a little lower and to the left.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
September 20, 2009 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: I once skinned a peep with a Swiss Army knife. I wasn't sure what was marsh and what was mallow.

It was a mess.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 20, 2009 1:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: I'd imagine a Brazilian Wax would get quite sticky. Quickly.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
September 20, 2009 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if they're not employees, and they get injured in the club, they can sue the same as any patron, and not be limited by workers comp, right?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
whim17
September 20, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Or perhaps part of the contract they sign includes a waiver of liability where the strippers sign away their right to sue for injuries.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@whim17: I doubt they actually sign a contract.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DollaValueLIFO
September 21, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago:


Varies state to state, but usually they don't sign deals with the clubs. That along with the fact that there are often no set schedules has been the clause that allows the clubs to claim \"contractor\" rather than \"employee\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 1:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: I think you would see a magical transformation in their status if that happened.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 20, 2009 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know a few strippers, and while they are treated poorly by the club owners, they often make very good money. Enough that they dont quit. One of the girls I knew would only work 5 nights a month as a striper and could make her rent, she then worked as a hostess the other nights at the club, where she also made very good money. In total maybe working 15 or 17 nights a month. She seemed happy enough doing it and liked the money and was in school at the time so the scheduling worked out well.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ailema
September 21, 2009 7:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: What does any of that have to do with strippers? I'm suppose to take responsibility for men who are bad fathers? How does the act of taking your clothes off for money affect others ability to parent, or be a good spouse?

I did way more harm to people working in fastfood than stripping. I didn't refuse to sell burgers to fat people because that was not my place. I wouldn't demand to know the marital status, and spouse's opinion on stripping before performing. Please put the responsibility where it belongs.

You are one of those women who blames the other woman for her husband cheating, yes?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 12:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Imagine how good the money would be if they weren't getting ripped off by their bosses. If a senior IT guy found out that his boss was siphoning off his paycheck illegally, I doubt he would say \"Well, I do make six figures, so why should I complain? I have plenty of money.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 20, 2009 3:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: she wasnt getting siphoned off of. She was paid as a contractor, as as part of that she paid a percentage of her money to the bar, in the same way stylists pay salons for chair time. In exchange for that set percentage of her tips, she had a place to dance, security to make sure people didn't get too touchy, and a bar to serve them alcohol. If people bought her drinks, she got a cut of those sales.

She didn't get medical, dental 401k, or things like that, but neither do contractors. Overtime isn't an issue with contractors either. If I take a job as an Systems admin, where i am a contractor, it up to me to decide how much i'm working. If it takes me 80 hours to get something done, and the customer wants it done in a week, I hire a second guy, or I work those 80 hours and my cost will reflect that.

And actually, there are a LOT of legit jobs where people over look things because they want the job. Look at just about any average business. Most break small violations whether its OSHA, Health department, labor laws, etc, things are rarely 100% and employees don't report their employer because they are benefiting from the business as a whole.

So just because a strippers job doesn't have the same benefits or environment you have, doesn't mean they are unacceptable. (and like all things, some place are just going to suck and those need to be dealt with) my point is, be a stripper can be a legit, and profitable job.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: You're kinda missing the point here. The lawsuit is about the fact that the bar treated employees as independent contractors in order to screw them out of money it would have otherwise owed them. \"Well they make a lot of money anyway\" does not excuse that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 20, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: if you read the article, its about strippers who are mad that they need to pay 40-60 per shift when they arent making as much as they used to in tips because business is slow, so now if they make 200 in 8 hours, 60 goes to the bar, and 140 to them, instead of making 400 in 8 hours and getting to keep 340. I bet they weren't offering to give the bar more money when they made a killing on good nights.

If the bar is charging them 60 a shift, and they think thats too much, then its time to find a new bar or a new job. Thats how business works.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Incredulous1
September 20, 2009 12:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is it me or is that yellow peep winking at me??

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This \"profession\" needs to disappear completely. Every time my state of residence is in the news it's something I'm ashamed of being associated with.

If women feel compelled to dance naked in front of a bunch of grimy men who view them as sex objects and nothing more, the economy is in worse shape than I thought.

I hope the lawsuit fails so that these women, whoever they are, will feel obligated to choose a better line of work.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
PegImbecillous
September 21, 2009 3:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker:

I hope the lawsuit fails so that these women, whoever they are, will feel obligated to choose a better line of work.

No, what you're hoping for is that they become unemployed--and you want us all to believe that it's for their own good.

How very effing noble of you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 20, 2009 5:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker:


Yo, dude, what is the difference between stripping for you in your bedroom and stripping for other men in a lounge?


Not much. Stripping to generate sexual interest in somebody of the opposite sex is still stripping to generae sexual interest in somebody of the opposite sex. Doesn't matter if it is your wife doing it for you, your daughter doing it for her boyfriend or your Aunt Betsy doing it for $ and kicks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: Yo, dude, there is a huge difference. Your wife is doing it to turn you on because she loves you and wants you to find her attractive, and probably so that the two of you will have sex. The professional stripper is doing it for money. She's not interested in your dick.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DeeJayQueue
September 20, 2009 1:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Wow.
First off: there's a BIG difference between strippers and prostitutes.

Second off: Sex work is one of the oldest professions in the world. Just because it doesn't jibe with your own personal moral sensibilities doesn't mean you get to dictate where it should go and what it should do. It's survived every permutation of society we've had from cavemen through the Romans through Medieval times all the way up to today. It's not going anywhere.

Third off: Keep in mind that the women who do this kind of work choose to. Wrap your tiny little mind around that, if you can. There is nobody keeping these women (and men for what it's worth) tied up in a basement in between acts, nothing stopping them from changing professions, they all choose to be there.

Know what's ridiculous and needs to be outlawed? The distortion and shame we place on our own bodies and emotions regarding anything of a sexual nature. People like you propagate the fear and shame that any natural urge or desire we have is nasty and needs to be hidden and suppressed. It's that kind of thinking that leads people to be unfaithful to each other in relationships instead of being honest. It's that kind of backwards attitude and head-in-the-sand thinking that keeps these women working for seedy back-alley strip joints because it's the only place they can get work, instead of in places where the rules are followed and enforced. I could hijack the thread and relate this to the \"war on drugs\" but I won't.

I also know that I can't change your teeny weeny little walnut mind, but just know that you have no idea what you're talking about and the world is a better place without you.

DIAF,
Queue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smonkey
September 21, 2009 2:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DeeJayQueue: Thank you for being a voice of reason.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
September 20, 2009 10:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DeeJayQueue: Not to mention the fact that the laws GuinevereRucker so vehemently advocates actually open the door to the same abuses he claims to be against. Prositution being illegal opens the door for women and children alike to be exploited and brutalized by both Johns and their pimps. This also resorts in threats to public health such as the spread of sexually transmitted disease. The brothels in NV (where prostitution is legal) don't have any of the problems that prostitution has in other parts of the country.

If you ask me, making Prostitution illegal does more harm to those involved than good.

And the big problem with marriages falling apart due to strippers and porn is that husband and wife refuse to discuss sex openly and honestly with each other. Either party wants to hide anything they do from the other regarding their own sexuality. Not only that, sometimes both husbands and wives can't stand self gratification.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NightSteel
September 20, 2009 1:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Wishing unemployment on someone not necessarily deserving is bad enough when the economy is good. It's downright mean now that the economy is bad. I doubt anyone gives a flying fark about your embarrassment over your state of residence.

I hope more bad things about your state hit the news, so you, whoever you are, will feel obligated to choose a better one.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 12:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Back in the day, I quit work as a bank teller to be a stripper because the working conditions, attitude of management, behavior of customers and pay were all way better. But thanks for putting your own warm, self-indulgent glow above other people's well-being.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I don't respect your decision at all. It was foolish, and there were any number of other jobs you could have sought.

If that opinion offends you because you were a stripper, I'm sorry. But that entire industry needs to be shut down. We need more men in the world that will take responsibility for a family, take care of their wives, and be faithful - not men who hang around in strip joints ogling naked women.

By being a stripper, prostitute, or whatever you call it, I believe you actually do *harm* to people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 21, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: \"I don't like it, so it should be illegal.\"

Gotcha.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DollaValueLIFO
September 21, 2009 12:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker:


Strippers dance for money. Prostitutes fuck for money. Please don't confuse the two. You'll offend both.


You are a troll.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
September 20, 2009 3:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: could you possibly be more trollish? be grateful karma doesn't come balance the scales via your being placed in her position.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 20, 2009 1:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: It's America and people are entitled to do what they damn well please. If you don't like it, then don't reward them with your patronage.
THAT said, the workers are often screwed. Much of the \"ills\" ascibed to the profession are the result of the skeezy owners, not the dancers. So if it's these aspects that grate on you, then you should work together with the workers to ensure they have a clean, safe, non-exploitive working environment. That way, everyone benefits.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NightSteel
September 20, 2009 1:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: I'd say it has something to do with needlessly Puritanical laws, too. There are lots of countries where sex work is largely legal and well-regulated, and *they* aren't falling apart at the seams because of their loose morals. It's like Carlin used to say. \"Selling is legal. F*cking is legal. Why isn't selling f*cking legal?\"

I'd compare it to Prohibition, or the War on Drugs. There will always be some portion of society that wants to look at naked people. So you can either provide a clean, safe, well-regulated environment for it, or you can force it into back rooms, where owners can exploit the workers with relative impunity, as regularly happens to illegal immigrants.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 1:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Your opinion is not informed or intelligent enough for me to be offended by it.

You seem to believe the world of men is sharply divided into two groups: responsible, 1950s-style family men who would never dream of ogling women, and irresponsible cads who drool over naked ladies - and if only we get rid of strip bars, the latter group will quietly shuffle off and become the former. What an adorable fantasy!

And to feed this fantasy, you want women who often have very few other choices (did you think all these strippers dropped out of medical school, or are Trustafarians?) to take work that pays and treats them worse, purely so that you can convince yourself that all men would be really nice people if it weren't for the goddamned whores running around.

Being a sex worker means getting paid for what in normal life, women are expected to put up with for free. Maybe that's what's really got your goat.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
September 20, 2009 2:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago:
While we FREQUENTLY disagree on here, your comment made me actually laugh out loud (mostly the first line).

I basically agree with everything you said, though I think a number of strippers probably have other options and simply do it because it can pay incredibly well. I know that college towns in particular tend to have strippers that use their income to pay tuition/expenses while working toward their undergrad, grad, law or medical degrees.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Well, we had a brief shining moment of agreeing here, and now I have to disagree with you again. Sorry about that.

The \"co-eds paying tuition\" story is largely a myth. Even in college towns. It is comforting to think that the woman sitting in your lap is just doing it for pocket cash and will move on to a better life someday, but chances are much better than she's a single mom with little education or job skills, who's doing this because pays a shit-ton better than working retail, and the working hours let her leave her kid(s) at her parent's or sister's house while she's making money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
September 20, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago:
I would generally agree with your point, though I know in the town where I went to college our school paper actually ran an article on the student strippers that worked at the town's \"classier\" club, and about 1/3 of their \"employees\" were University students. Granted, I'm willing to accept that that is the exception and not the rule, but I suspect in true \"college\" towns it's more common than in say Chicago, New York or LA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
your new nemesis
September 20, 2009 1:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I am going to offer a different point of view, just for fun. Strip clubs often charge higher prices for drinks, and get away with it because they offer a service that most don't. The women show up and show a little bit of skin, and guys throw money at them for the cheap thrill of seeing some live nudity without the added benefit of getting to score. Basically, the business model is designed to encourage uninhibited spending of its patrons by exploiting the most primal of urges. I would argue that strip clubs are more exploitation of guys, and less exploitation of women.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NightSteel
September 20, 2009 2:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@skizsrodt: (spoken accusingly to a porn director) \"You pig! You're the one responsible for degrading all of those women!\" (a male porn actor speaks up) \"Hey hey! What about men, huh? He degrades them too!\" (Another coworker agrees) \"Yeah. Men are equally degraded in pornographic films.\" (the first speaker fires back) \"The men are always in a position of power!\" (one of the actors speaks up again, the director is looking baffled in the background) \"The men are the ones who want the product so bad. They're the victims!\" (the first speaker again) \"Well, then, it exploits men by exploiting women.\" (back to one of the actors) \"Hence... it exploits... people.\"

Orgazmo.. great movie. Ron Jeremy delivers some of those lines, including the last one. Trivia aside, I think it's pretty accurate. The sex work industry, if you view it as exploitive, is exploitive to just about anyone involved. The problem is in the fact that people view it that way. Sex work is still work. It is a product being bought and sold largely by consenting adults. If people could get past the idea that it is somehow inherently harmful or shameful, that legal sex work would turn us all into sex maniacs and wreck all of our marriages, it would be much easier to provide a good environment for.

If you *really* want an exploitive business, look at payday lending, collections, or Wall Street.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
your new nemesis
September 20, 2009 9:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NightSteel: Sex is only work if you find the wrong person. If you have a good partner, then it's play.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
your new nemesis
September 20, 2009 2:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NightSteel: I concur. In a few European countries, prostitution is a legitimate and regulated industry, complete with it's own set of rules and codes. If we could get past the shame factor here, then maybe it wouldn't be so taboo and we could worry about more important things.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 4:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@skizsrodt: Why does everyone assume that because you hate the stripper/porn/prostitute business that you are ashamed of the human body?

Let me assure you that my wife couldn't be happier with our sex life (as she often tells me), and that neither of us are in the least bit ashamed of each other.

That doesn't make pornography, homosexuality, stripping, immodesty, public nudity, rape, adultery, and prostitution right. Shame has nothing to do with it, except that the people who engage in these activities *should* feel ashamed.

As far as the personal attacks, I'm sorry that many of you have to resort to them. I decline to respond in kind, because I understand the difference between disagreeing with an opinion and hating a person.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DollaValueLIFO
September 21, 2009 12:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker:


Ah, the rare \"man\" who doesn't like naked women.


TROLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLL

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
September 20, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: So. . .your wife is happy with your sex life, and that ties into homosexuality being 'wrong' how, exactly?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
September 20, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: You totally lost me when you included homosexuality. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. Educate yourself before you spout off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
your new nemesis
September 20, 2009 9:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: I'm curious where you are coming from in that arguement. I am curious how you could mix rape (forced and unconsenting sex, if your curious) and pornography, homosexuality, stripping, immodesty, public nudity, adultery, and prostitution together. While I will contend that prostitution could be more exploitave (due to pimps and boss's etc.), the rest is about people making personal decisions. When you try to throw them all together as one, it defeats your arguement. People choose to be strippers, no one chooses to be raped. Try thinking once. it hurts at first, but the pain goes away.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@skizsrodt: Good question. My point in lumping all those things together is that I believe that they are ALL harmful to people in various ways.

Of course I wish rape on no one, it's a horrible thing that no one chooses (otherwise it wouldn't be called that). I don't think that negates the list. Some of those activities are chosen, some are forced upon you. Some women are forced into a life of sexual slavery, some choose to be porn stars. That doesn't negate the fact that sex for money is bad for people in general.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
September 20, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Key word is \"believe\" which still doesn't make you right. Sex for money is also called dating and in many cases marriage. And that's throughout the entire world.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: I really enjoy the irony of somebody bragging to strangers about how his wife praises his cocksmanship, then turning around and complaining about others' \"immodesty\". Be the change you want to see, friend.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I'm sorry that you think sex is simply \"cockmanship\". To my wife and I, it's so much more than that. I hope someday you can experience a relationship in which someone truly values you for who you are instead of as a sex toy. Really, I do :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: I'm sorry that you think part of a meaningful, mutually caring relationship includes going around bragging to strangers about how much your wife admires your skill in bed. To my husband and I, our sex life is private and important, and isn't something we should flap our lips about to strangers in order to try and score status points. I hope someday you can experience a relationship in which you truly value the privacy of your marital relationship and have respect for your partner. Really, I do :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
September 20, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: You were bragging about your performance in the bedroom. She wasn't making a remark on it being more or less intimate, she was telling you it was immodest and basically rude to even feel the need to announce that while denouncing others being open about sex. Basically you acted like a pig and degraded your wife by even needing to go there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
September 20, 2009 4:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: translation: sex is bad because it's bad. Anyone who reacts disrespectfully to my disrespectful post is pathetic, and anyone who reacts with anecdotal evidence, history lessons, empirical evidence or simply a different morality is LALALALALALALALALALALALA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
September 20, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@skizsrodt: Attempted snarky assessment that 1) the OP, like so many moralists, expects everyone to subscribe to their morality because that's the way the world works and there is no other viewpoint that could possibly be valid and s/he says so, 2) is willing to dismiss entire posts because people s/he is offended that people who s/he was rude to responded by being rude, and 3) completely ignores/fails to respond to any of the posts that provided a valid argument against him/her, because (see 1).

It was late. Sorry. :D

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
September 20, 2009 4:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker:
I will agree with you that the personal attacks were unnecessary (though I admit I laughed at a few of them, but I often laugh at inappropriate things so that's to be expected). Unfortunately, there are a number of regular commenters on here who are unable to distinguish between an opinion and a person; if they disagree with your opinion, you are a terrible person and deserve to be attacked.

That said, I do find your position to be absurd. Your comparison of the act of rape to one's sexual orientation or their chosen profession is pretty extreme. I suspect your opinion is rooted in religion, which means it would be futile to try and persuade you otherwise.

I have never been to a strip club; I simply don't see the point. I'm also not to inclined to spend time with the stereotypical strip club clientele. I do however 100% respect the right of a woman to choose to strip. They can earn a good living at it, which some use to support their children or better themselves (paying for education). I certainly realize that there are women who are not voluntarily in the \"Sex trade\" and I think that is reprehensible. However, the fact that some women are victimized does not mean that all should be prevented from earning a living by \"peeling.\" I also support the right of people to star in/product/view pornography, or to wear whatever clothes they deem appropriate; it's not my position to judge them based on their choices and I don't think it's yours either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 4:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I understand that most people find my views absurd; yet that doesn't make them wrong :)

If you can understand my POV for just a minute as it pertains to that situation though... if stripping really is bad and actually harms people, then it should be outlawed. If it's harmless and is completely benign, then I totally agree with you.

That's the thing though... you see it as harmless and I see it as a scourge on the world, harming both men and women.

I don't expect us to agree, but thanks for understanding.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NightSteel
September 20, 2009 6:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: That's the thing though... you see it as harmless and I see it as a scourge on the world, harming both men and women.

[Citation Needed]

Seriously, your position is indefensible. You advocate removing a person's right to choose their vocation. What's more, a vocation protected by the Bill of Rights; dancing has been held to be art, and therefore protected by the First Amendment. You better have some pretty damn strong evidence to back up your position.

And by evidence, I don't mean the fact that people get divorces because their significant other went to a titty bar. Any couple who gets a divorce because their significant other went to a strip bar has more problems in their marriage than the fact that their mate was in a bar with naked people and--gasp--looking at them.

Like Esquire99, I find your list of illegal and immoral acts to be highly suspect. I can only see it as a tactic to make the supposedly immoral acts in the list that you don't approve of seem worse by association. To equate someone who goes to or dances in a strip bar with someone who actually commits adultery is, frankly, wrong, to say nothing of a rapist. To equate someone who is not of a sexual orientation that you approve of to a rapist or adulterer is also wrong.

I also have to say, your declaration of being above personal attacks is loaded with hypocrisy, considering your wish that those young women lose their lawsuit and lose their jobs, for no better reason than to satisfy your sense of morality. You can protest that it would be for their own good all you like; you are wishing ill upon them nonetheless. These are people you're talking about, no matter how you might distance them from yourself in your mind. They are still human beings, and they have the same inalienable rights that you do. How would you like it if, the next time you went to work, your boss told you you would have to pay him or her a daily fee to keep your job from now on?

Let me ask you a few other questions. Since you equate exotic dancing with rape, would you turn a blind eye if an exotic dancer was raped? How about a homosexual? Do they deserve it? According to you, they deserve to lose their jobs, where do you draw the line?

Oh, and I must retract my prior wish that you be forced to find a different state to live in. I think a different *country* would be more to your liking. Like, perhaps, China, or maybe Iran. No porn or strip bars there; it's subversive, contrary to order and the public good. Imposing the morality of one group of people upon everybody else is standard practice in these places.

/if you are trolling, I have to award you 10/10, you sure sucked in plenty of us

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
September 20, 2009 5:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: \"I understand that most people find my views absurd; yet that doesn't make them wrong\"

Your opinion that they're right doesn't make them right either. It'd be nice if people with a supposed sense of morality would keep their judgmental views to themselves. It's all fine and dandy that you think people should be ashamed for whatever it is you hate them doing, but to actually publically announce that and insult them is something you should be equally ashamed for. Possibly more so because it's cowardly to attack someone, verbally or otherwise, simply because they happen to do something you don't like.

Cruelty and condescension are avoidable things you can control even if your opinion is automatic. Don't tout your opinion based on any sort of moral high ground if you can't afford respect or compassion for others. Keep your first stones to yourself.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 6:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: \"The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.\" -G. K. Chesterton

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
September 20, 2009 7:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Using another person's bias to support yours, no matter how brilliant that person is, does not make your opinions less bigoted. It also does not absolve you of the consequences of any hatred you put out into the world. Quote whomever you like, it does not make you a kinder person.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
September 20, 2009 4:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker:
I would suggest that the mere fact that it is \"bad\" and harms people isn't a reason for the government to outlaw it. Smoking has been proven to be harmful, yet it's still legal (in certain situations, at least). Alcohol is harmful (in excess), yet it's legal. Hell, football is harmful, as people are frequently hurt, and it's incredibly popular. So long as the participation is truly oluntary, and only the participants are being harmed, why should the immense power of the government be invoked to outlaw the activity?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 6:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I guess it's also a question of how dangerous the activity is to people.

I feel that the entire \"sex industry\" in its many forms is basically harmful to the basic unit of society (the family). Should things be outlawed? That's a whole separate argument, I guess.

You are correct about *some* things being ok in moderation (smoking, drinking) both of which I do on occasion. But other things, like... heroin, shouldn't even be touched because of their highly addictive and destructive properties. That's kinda how I feel about strip joints. They're just bad for society as a whole.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 21, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: I would say that religion and bad families are bad for society as a whole - much worse than any of the sexual \"sins\" you cite.

Tell me, how is homosexuality \"bad for the family\"? Is it because the families you associate with would tend to ostracize family members who *are* queer?

Tell me, how is \"immodesty\" bad? Do you throw acid in the face of an \"immodest\" woman?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomZero
September 20, 2009 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: It's a question of how dangerous the activity is to people?


I humbly submit that your dehumanization and desire to see these people hurt is doing far more damage to far more people than anybody providing a service to a willing clientele.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
aliasmisskat
September 20, 2009 8:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker:
You ask people to understand your point of view, and yet in every response simply say all arguments are wrong and you're right. That's not constructive dialogue. That's sitting on your high horse, looking down at all who won't cave to your demands.

Most here do not take umbrage with your personal belief. It's the fact you feel you have the moral authority to impose your will on others that everyone is arguing with you about. You have every right to choose not to frequent strip clubs. You have every right to be upset if your spouse chooses to frequent strip clubs. You do not, however, have a right to dictate your personal beliefs on anybody else, especially when there is no empirical data proving *insert controvery here* is actually harmful to people. For the record, though labeled as a \"sexual crime\" rape is not about sex, it's about power and control, and does not belong in an argument about consensual activities like stripping, homosexuality, and prostitution (not including forced sex trafficking). The heroin argument is more apt, however, heroin has been directly proven to kill you. Stripping, homosexuality and prostitution have not. Though they are high risk behaviors, education reduces risks across the board, whereas heroin is pretty much just gonna fuck you up. Heroin=illegal, stripping=/=illegal.

Furthermore, strip clubs do not destroy that bastion of supposed stability, marriage, people do; people make choices in relationships, and then deal with the fallout in very personal ways. The woman on stage, shimmying on a pole does not make that decision for a patron. Simple.

No matter how many laws you try to enact, you won't see a decline in the business for sex workers until people understand sex, relationships, and communication. Even then, I doubt the decline would be great. Sex is not like smoking, it is a biological need, and people will fill it, either by making a personal connection, or paying for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aliasmisskat: You're right, I don't have a ton of \"evidence\" supporting my stance that all the deviant sexual activities listed above are harmful to people. It's something I firmly believe, and I do believe the evidence is out there, but I'm not the one to present it to you.

\"Furthermore, strip clubs do not destroy that bastion of supposed stability, marriage, people do; people make choices in relationships, and then deal with the fallout in very personal ways. The woman on stage, shimmying on a pole does not make that decision for a patron.\"

Absolutely correct. I don't argue that at all. But, as a married man, there are certain things that I avoid because, well, I'm a man. Like pornography and strip clubs. Why? Because I made a vow of faithfulness to one woman. Going to a strip club would be flat out wrong for me, as it would make my wife feel like crap and make me a liar.

Granted, it's a big step from \"it's harmful to me\" to \"it's harmful to ALL men\", but not that big a step. Stripping, porn, and prostitution treat women as objects. Is it possible to have respect for women when we view them as nothing more than an object of lust? These industries USE women (sometimes legally, sometimes illegally) and erode family values.

I can't believe there are women who defend this industry. Do you really believe that you are doing something good for society by giving erections to smelly men who view you as a piece of meat? Really?

It's hard because, for men, this kind of thing is largely in the mind. Few men become serial killers because of porn (although most serial killers are addicted to it). But I do believe it's addictive in any of the above forms, devalues women in general, and is detrimental to healthy families.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
September 20, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: \"So there is something to be said for removing objects of temptation. If I want to remain faithful to my wife and not sleep around and keep my family intact, the very last thing I'd want to do is look at porn or go to a strip club. I don't want the temptation around.\"

It's really hard to think about this but when you find the right person that 'temptation' to cheat actually draws you to the person you want to be close to.

If you have the right person, anything that turns you on will make you more desirous not of what you are seeing, but the person you want to be with.

Porn doesn't make me want to have sex with the actress, it makes me want my wife. The same could be said for the trend of tight short dresses. I don't want the 20 year old co-ed I see, I want my wife. I haven't been to a strip club but I'm certain I'd go home to pleasure my wife and not the dancer.

Not every man is married. Not every married man has his mind wrecked by seeing something that turns them on.

The sheer fact that you can find a woman being sexy as degrading and in the same category as prostitution says a lot for your mindset.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
September 20, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: \"Stripping, porn, and prostitution treat women as objects. Is it possible to have respect for women when we view them as nothing more than an object of lust?\"

Then men probably shouldn't be allowed to open their eyes in public places because absolutely nothing stops them from visually appraising most women who walk by.

Why do you assume all patrons of strip joints are smell? Was this your personal experience or did you smell bad when you went? But, if going to a strip club would make you feel wrong how would you be able to give a personal opinion on the clientele if you have never been to one?

Do you also not masturbate? That's actually considered pretty healthy. It would be somewhat sad to know your wife doesn't like you to pleasure yourself or you to let her do the same.

It is a huge step. Men treat women as objects without any sort of sexual angle. Women's suffrage came after blacks thus they were lower than former slaves. Women's property right struggle was long and hard. The right to birth control. The ability to escape from your husband for abuse and rape is incredibly recent. Women in foreign countries being told pants are too revealing. Women being stoned for adultery and the men being lashed. Women being sold into this country, not even as sex slaves but as slave labor. And it IS a higher instance for women then men.

Porn is not the devil here. If you want instances of men objectifying women you can remove sex entirely. The legalized sex industry is not full of rapists. In America, it is full of consenting adults getting paid very fair wages and set in a pretty safe environment. You actually have less chance of getting an STD from a porn star than you do the average person at a bar. Like it or not, these women are not degraded without their permission and they get higher wages compared to men then in pretty much every other industry. This is the ONE area where women make the rules and set the standard.

No men become serial killers because of porn. Any addiction to porn or violence against women is due to a glitch in themselves, not exposure to porn. The fact that they are sexual deviants is a symptom of their illness rather than any statement about pornography. That is false correlation. Out of all the abused, raped and terrified children that grow up, nearly 100% of them are not serial killers.

Taking away the temptation or the sin does not save the sinner. Like it or not, you wanting to make homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, etc. illegal does not make people less likely to do something you consider immoral. It makes it unsafer and it makes it more tempting. Instead of being able to have frank open discussions about this you are relegating it to backrooms because you think it belongs there, forgetting that those backrooms are things people also willingly go to.

You can't save people by taking away a sin. It doesn't work like that. Personal responsbility is a part of most religions and taking away an avenue will just make someone create their own. If you are unable to control yourself, you must deal with that yourself. Limiting others is not your responsibility or right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 20, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: \"Taking away the temptation or the sin does not save the sinner.\"

I agree with you. In the end, it's what we choose that matters.

But there's a lot to be said for removing the temptation. If you are fat and trying to lose weight, you do NOT buy a box of oreos and put them in front of you and stare at it all day. That's stupid. Why? Because when you have set your mind on doing something, you don't want temptation around.

So there is something to be said for removing objects of temptation. If I want to remain faithful to my wife and not sleep around and keep my family intact, the very last thing I'd want to do is look at porn or go to a strip club. I don't want the temptation around.

So... if this kind of thing is harmful (and I realize you don't agree) then it should be removed from society. Better to remove the source of the cocaine coming into the country than try to cure all the addicts later, right?

\"Men treat women as objects without any sort of sexual angle. Women's suffrage came after blacks thus they were lower than former slaves. Women's property right struggle was long and hard. The right to birth control. The ability to escape from your husband for abuse and rape is incredibly recent. Women in foreign countries being told pants are too revealing. Women being stoned for adultery and the men being lashed. Women being sold into this country, not even as sex slaves but as slave labor. And it IS a higher instance for women then men.\"

Yes, yes. All good things that are worth fighting for. I'm happy that women are treated with more respect now. And when women take that freedom and go and get naked in front of men they don't even know and ACT like sex objects, that bugs me. Because women are not objects, they are people. I don't care how high the pay is, it's an industry that needs to be shut down completely.

PS I brought up the wife thing because people were accusing me of being ashamed of the human body and sex. If you don't like me bringing that up, then please don't assume that because I think stripping is wrong I automatically think sex is bad. Then I won't have reason to mention it :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 21, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: \"If I want to remain faithful to my wife and not sleep around and keep my family intact, the very last thing I'd want to do is look at porn or go to a strip club. I don't want the temptation around.\"

I would think the very *first* thing you should do is get rid of the temptation with porn so it does not become reality.

You might waste a lot of sacred sperm and make G-d quite irate, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 21, 2009 3:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: No, sorry, nobody forced you to start sharing the intimate details of you and your wife's marital relationship. All you needed to say was that of course sex is wonderful and the human body is beautiful, you just disagree about A, B and C.

By your logic, if I'm trying to lose weight, the bakery near me should be forcibly shut down and its employees dispersed to go work at Whole Foods; Safeway should be required to empty out its cookie aisle. After all, wouldn't want any temptation around, would we?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
September 20, 2009 11:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: \"So there is something to be said for removing objects of temptation. If I want to remain faithful to my wife and not sleep around and keep my family intact, the very last thing I'd want to do is look at porn or go to a strip club. I don't want the temptation around.\"

Basically you are saying that the temptation should be removed because you are unable to control yourself. You don't want the temptation around so that you don't have to rely on personal responsibility. Deny everyone to make it easier for you. Well THAT'S reasonable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 21, 2009 12:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: Isn't that the same rationale that hardcore Muslim men use to justify all their wimmen in shrouds? \"We can't control our own inadequacies so we'll make the objects of our weird obsessions bear the burden\"?
The similarities are enough to make one either laugh, or cry.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 20, 2009 9:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: I'm curious about your screenname. I'm assuming Guinevere is your wife. Is \"Rucker\" a euphemism for, uhh, committing an act of sexual congress?
If so, then don't you think blasting out such a \"harmful\" idea also contributes to the increased divorce rate in America? Or at least might be offensive to some?

And, you're kind of dodging the issue, so I'll ask straight out: do you think that sexual orientation is a choice?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: And yet, you are happy to support the strip joints themselves, and applaud their infliction of harm not only on society, but on the people they employ. That is, after all, what happens if \"the lawsuit fails\" - the strip bar itself, without which these strippers would have no job, is violating employment laws and stealing money from the strippers.

So yes, I find it a little hard to believe that your problem is with the sex industry. You seem to be rooting for the industry part of it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
September 20, 2009 7:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: The basic unit of society is the individual. If the family were the basic unit then many people, such as orphans, wouldn't be obliged to play by society's rules. We make choices as individuals even if the choice is subordinate to a group choice.

Also heroin gave us opiates, without which pain management and many surgeries and medical procedures would not have advanced the way they did. Nicotine is nearly as addictive as heroin and alcohol has a deadlier withdrawl phase and have nearly no beneficial properties other than sterilization in the case of alcohol.

I'm glad at least you don't yet want to make a case for illegality as your disapproval would certainly be a hindrance to progress.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 20, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wish someone could define what is and is not contract labor. My previous workplace paid me as a contractor but I don't think that was right. Thankfully I don't work there anymore, but I did for four years.

Oh, and I wasn't stripping. Lol

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
September 20, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: Here are the rules set up by the IRS (they are the ones who care the most about this): [www.irs.gov]


In general, if you only service only client, if the employer tells you when to show up and how to do your work, provides you equipment to go the job and controls your work -- you are an employee.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 20, 2009 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: Thanks for that. I basically got screwed for 4 years, which is what I figured. I wish my husband didn't still work there so I could feel comfortable filing that form against my old boss. My husband does seem to really be contract for the most part, so that's good.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 20, 2009 5:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!:


\"Husband does seem to really be contract for the most part\"


Sorry, it is all or nothing. And even all is seldom good enough.


The IRS is especially sensitive to the contractor test because less than honest businesses will use the contractor status to avoid payroll taxes.


Even when a business \"qualifies\", the IRS may still disallow the contractor status. One of the additional criteria used to void the contractor status will be a two part test... is contractor status common to that specific industry and has there been documented instances of employment fraud in the specific industry with regards to contractor status. If fraud is common in the specific industry, the IRS is going to take an up close and personal evaluation of the status if you know what I mean.


The last thing I want is a pissed off IRS agent out looking for extra tax money to collect. They can always find something if they look hard enough.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 20, 2009 5:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: Well basically it was like this:


We both worked at a school that specializes in offering private lessons. I was the person that was the receptionist and office manager. I did all the scheduling and took in all the tuition payments. I answered the phones and took messages and basically ran the day to day business. I had to be there the hours that were open and I used the methods they taught me while I was there. I used their desk and their computers with their spredsheets to do all of my work.


On the other hand.. my husband is a teacher that works there, he uses the space to teach lessons but brings his own supplies to teach with. Previously he worked there every day when he had lessons sheduled for him, but now he has branched out and started teaching at another place as well and cut the old place back to only one day a week. The lessons are paid for to the school and then the teacher gets paid a set ammount of that tuition on a per-lesson-taught basis.


Everyone who works there is paid \"as a contractor\" with no taxes withheld.


I know that I was paid wrong.. and even though \"it's nothing personal, just business\" I would have trouble filing against my old boss because my husband still works there, and a majority of my work history is with that school. Future employers may want to call my old boss and I'd like for him to have good things to say about me.


I guess this is how people get away with that.. When people need the work they take it and they stay in it even if it isn't fair, and then when they're out they still don't take any action because they need the good refrence for future employment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: You should talk to an employment lawyer about your options. (Probably your county bar association can hook you up with a free or supercheap consultation with somebody who does work in that area.) Believe me, worrying about a reference is not something you should let scare you out of this; if your employer did cheat you, and it probably did part of any settlement would be an agreement that they will give you a neutral reference like any other employee.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
sven.kirk
September 20, 2009 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

She is going to have a hard time getting past she has been 'paying club owners $10 or $20 for the right to perform each night' for about 15 years.

But a quick suggestion for the strippers, since he says that the 'main business' is serving alcohol, tell your patrons about you working conditions. Assemble a small union between workers and strike someway. The owner may not go too long without cracking. But most importantly, again, tell your patrons. Have them speak for you.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sven.kirk: You are an idealist.

That said, she's not going to have a 'hard time getting past' anything. Violations of wage and hour laws do not go away because your employees haven't complained so far.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 20, 2009 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Yeah, if anything, Labor Law violations are punished with scary (for the perps), geometric progression when they figure out the penalties & restitution. The authorities look very unkindly to employers caught in a longer term pattern of fraud and abuse. They make sure it gets really ugly to set an example.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
September 20, 2009 3:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think the sense in which the club could argue that selling alcohol is its \"main business\" refers to where the club derives most of its income, not the apparently independent strippers, makes its money. The owner sees most of his money coming in from alcohol, not the $10-$20/night he gets from the strippers.

I wonder about the time scale for the claim \"strippers sometimes barely earn enough to make it worth it.\" If that's means that the strippers might go months without making minimum wage on average, then I have sympathy. But if it means the stripper might go a night without making minimum wage, but makes 100 times minimum wage on another night, then I have no sympathy.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 8:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: So you're cool with breaking the law and stealing from your employees, as long as they sometimes get way more than minimum wage?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
September 20, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: To be clear, I used minimum wage as a reference since the lawyer specifically listed \"minimum wage\" on the list of grievances and later said \"worth it\". I make no comment on the value of the lawsuit overall, just on these two points.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Good point, but I still hold that \"worth it\" needs to be averaged on a sufficiently long time scale. Some servers talk about the days where they come home with less than what's \"worth it\", independent of other days. That's the wrong way to evaluate earnings in a job that doesn't have a fixed pay rate.

If you want a job that pays consistent wages, then don't work as a server, stripper, or in car sales. If your job is on average paying a fine amount on average, then quit complaining about the days that don't because that's just the way it is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 20, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: RTFA. The lawyer did not say \"they only get minimum wage\" as a grievance; he said that the club was acting illegally to avoid paying even the minimum wage required by law.

As for sympathy, you understand the difference between gross and net income, right? If you start your job a couple of hundred dollars in the hole because you have to pay fees before you even start, then you need to make hundreds of dollars simply to break even.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
September 21, 2009 5:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Of course I'm talking about take-home earnings, after paying any fees to the club. If she took in $200 in tips and payed $60 in fees, then of course she made $140. What sense would it make otherwise?

More specific to the lawsuit, the question of whether or not they can be classed as independent contractors, and who benefits the most from it, isn't so cut and dried.

Consider an example: let's say strippers are reclassified as employees and get their right to a $2.63/hour paycheck from the club. When she was an independent contractor, she should have gotten to set her prices,* considering how much she needed to charge to maximize her profit after expenses.

But now as an employee, how much to charge things for a lap or private dance, will be set by the club and be paid by the customer directly to the club. The stripper still gets to keep any tips, but now the club, say, charges a $50 fee to the customer for each private dance and $10 fee for each lap dance. Just as if the customer had ordered a ham sandwich from a server, the strippers sees $0 of that. Is she better off?

___
* If the club is exerting control over her prices and not just how much they charge her to appear, then it calls into question whether or not she's really an independent contractor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 21, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: What strip club do you patronize where the strippers get to set the prices? Or where they are not required to work a set number of hours on a fixed schedule?

It really is all that cut and dried.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
September 21, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I don't patronize any strip clubs. I'm just going off what little I read about strip-club economics. Like I said, if they don't get to set their prices, then maybe they have a legitimate complaint about really being employees and not contractors?

But hours are debatable: I can legitimately hire a DJ as independent contractor*, but that doesn't mean the DJ can come in whenever. I need the DJ there at a particular time to entertain. If the DJ doesn't show up when I asked, it's also fair to charge a fee for non-appearance, as now I have a night with no DJ.

Likewise, if I hire a bunch of independent-contractor strippers for my club, I don't want them all showing up on Saturday night, leaving the other nights with no strippers. Hiring an entertainer is different than hiring a plumber, even if they're both independent contractors.

After some more research, it sounds like King Arthur's was in the wrong, and their strippers should have been employees. But that doesn't mean that all strip clubs are also taking advantage of independent contractor status: I can think of many reasons why it'd be desirable for both parties (see also SacraBos' comment, below), if properly executed.

___
* In fact, I once was such a DJ.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CumaeanSibyl
September 20, 2009 4:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Ditto for whether or not the hassle is worth it. I mean, $500 a night is a lot of money, but then again, you have drunk guys trying to stick their hands in your G-string. The personal threshold for that sort of thing varies from woman to woman.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 20, 2009 4:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CumaeanSibyl:


You want to stick your hand into my undies you better


A) be damn hot because I am not going to loose the W over a skanky witch.


B) finish what you started.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 20, 2009 3:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: \"wort it\" is also highly subjective. If you think you are worth 100/hr and you left with 80, the it wasnt worth it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
September 20, 2009 3:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: My apologies, but \"apparently independent strippers, makes its money\" cries out for clarification that I did not mean to refer to the strippers as a singular, material object. It was an honest mistake that arose from moving \"club\" around, which is why there's a spurious comma as well.

Please read \"apparently independent strippers make their money\" there.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
torgonius
September 20, 2009 3:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's abundantly clear that we need a federal stimulus package for strippers. Let's call it 'Dollars for Dancers.'


Big Brother Barry, kindly send my package stimulating money in singles and twenties.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 20, 2009 4:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The dancers could be considered independent contractors up to the point the club assigned them hours to perform or skimpy clothing to wear.


Once you pass those little thresholds it becomes virtually impossible to consider the dancer an independent contractor.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
September 20, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: The dancers have a lot of latitude, they can decide what shifts they want to work, since they are not paid per shift, but must buy a shift. If you don't buy in, someone else will fill it. You don't have to wear skimpy clothing, but if you don't, your tips will suffer dramatically. They don't have uniforms, like Hooters, They can wear about anything, up to various legal limits (which have to be enforced).

This environment lets the good strippers makes lots of money, and the not-good ones can't afford to do it. natural selection at work. If they want to be an employee, I'd require all the strippers to put their tips in a \"tip pool\" to be shared by all other employees. I think you'd see them begging for contractor status back.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NightSteel
September 20, 2009 6:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: I'm not a programmer, but I would compare it to programming.

If a company hires you and says 'Write me a program that does such and such' with a list of specifications, and you write the program using whatever tools you want and on whatever schedule you want (provided that you deliver the finished product on time of course), and your pay is contingent on quality and timeliness of delivery, that would be contracting.

If a company hires you and says 'Write me a program that does such and such' with a list of specifications, and tells you what time to show up to work every day, provides you with the computer to be working on, assigns you a direct supervisor, forbids you from working for any potential competitor, and pays you for your time instead of for delivery of the finished product, not contracting.

It's not a perfect analogy in that programmers rarely get paid directly by their client's customers, but yeah, if bar management determines all of a dancer's working conditions, that dancer cannot legally be considered a contractor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
September 20, 2009 1:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NightSteel: I think that made it clearer for me, thank you.

I wasn't sure about what contracting entailed.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
September 20, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Eh, if they're 1099 status, they have the power to negotiate the terms of their contract, and if they're a good dancer, they have the power to dance at any club they like.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
September 20, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think they should be independent contractors, much like any other artist at other venues. Yeah, I think they guy screwed up when he described them as equivalent to \"pool tables\".

Beauty parlors often \"rent\" stations to the stylists, who make their money on people served. Musicians often have to pay for the venues they perform at, and they make their money off the performances, merchandising, and/or a portion of the ticket sales. Strippers are simply another performance artist.

If they were employees, the business also couldn't refuse the 50 year old, 300lb candidate for employment due to claims of \"age discrimination\", and other nonsense.

I think they need to be really careful what they are asking for, since I think they will lose a lot of the benefits they are currently getting.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
September 20, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SacraBos: Despite what you may have thought you learned about employment law, yes, an employer can turn down the \"old and fat\" for stripper jobs, just like a director can turn them down for a part in his movie. Doesn't mean someone won't sue, but the employer can still decide based on who is best qualified.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
fxsoap
September 21, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

haha. love the peeps

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Scott
September 22, 2009 11:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As I understand it, strippers as independent contractors is pretty common. The club charges the women a fee and requires so many appearances on stage. The women, in turn, get access to the private rooms to charge for private dances and that's where they make most of their money. It's a balancing act, the club wants the strippers on stage because that will entertain a large portion of their clientele and get them to buy more alcohol and the strippers want to get as many customers for private dances as possible and not spend all their time on stage dancing for singles.

At least, that's how I remember it from The Book of Vice by Peter Sagal.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
marstar
September 29, 2009 9:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hi. I am a stripper. I am putting myself through college. I work in the Dallas clubs. It is brutal. I pay about 20% in federal income tax. I was out of work due to injuries about 3 months last year, most of which was due to club negligence. That is 3 months with no income at all. No workers comp or any kind of compensation from the club. The club I work at makes an average of $6,000+ a night from dancers paying them to work there. I have so much more to say, but I still have homework to do, and class tomorrow and more work tomorrow to pay for it all, so I will keep it brief. If we are private contractors, we should not be forced to do a stage rotation or stay until the club closes for the night. We should not be forced to work mandatory nights. If we are employees, we should be paid by club and given at least the basic benefits that all other employers are required by state law to give their employees(like workers comp...). Dancers in Dallas were once treated this way. We call it the good old days, however, I am not old enough to have benefited from them.
Also, anyone who thinks that we are making just boat loads of cash in this economy is just plain stupid. The only strippers that I know who are making great money are actually full on prostitutes.

Reply
");