Log in

View Full Version : Should I support these gentle ladies or not?



Pages : 1 [2]

glambman
07-10-2008, 07:02 PM
In other words, some possible consequences should this lawsuit succeed:

- No more flexible scheduling
- No more every day is pay day
- Taxes and BACK taxes (lets face it, a lot of dancers are NOT in compliance with that sort of thing)
- No more being selective of whom you work with
- Lap dances / VIP's become property of the club who will keep half of the money if not more to pay the wages, since there are no more house fees.
- Depressed lap dance sales because the customer's have to buy a ticket from the club now.
- Raised prices on everything from cover to drinks to dances to cover the new expenses of paying wages and reporting everything, and the fact that some customers won't pay those prices, or will expect increased mileage in exchange for it.
- Possible layoffs if the revenue coming in can't support the current staff of girls.
- Having every waking moment of your shift micromanaged.


yeap

-Girls keep most of the tip on services provided. And small portion of cost of service provided.

thisunrest
08-06-2008, 08:24 AM
I have a friend who's a dancer who doesn't pay income taxes at all, also works as a prostitute, has asked me for $$ to travel from Ann Arbor to Lansing, and has a suspended license. I also know another one who hasn't paid taxes in 20 years.I also have a dancer friend who's currently serving a jail sentence.


Jesus Christ!

And you assume all dancers are like your "friends"? Grow up.

By the way,if these types of folks are your friends, that speaks volumes about you.No wonder youre such a butt-hurt,cocky bastard with a narrow sight-line.

thisunrest
08-06-2008, 08:34 AM
Maybe I've been hung out with my strip club manager friends too much. But the 1st thing that came to mind is those 2 is these are the type of girls who are loud and obnoxious that bitch, and whine and complain to the point where you wanna slap em with a wet sock simply because nobody wants to buy dances from them. (which makes up a huge chunk of the girls that work day shift at the club I used to hang out at.)


And by the way,I think youre lying about having "strip club manager friends " and having lots of dancers to hang with.With your personality,no dancer I've ever worked with would go five seconds without putting you in your place and ditching your ass.

AudreyLeigh
08-07-2008, 08:28 AM
Hope you shredded those checks so dumpster divers could not endorse them and cash them. Next time, just endorse them and send them to me.

I shred everything and anything that has to do with money/credit. :)

Paris
08-07-2008, 08:57 AM
I've always paid my taxes. I don't cheat either, I claim 100% of my income itemize my deductions and pay a sizable amount every year to state and federal income taxes.

Why would you assume that because a person earns money in cash that we automatically just skip paying taxes? There are so many advantages to paying taxes vs. dropping below the radar.

I had a problem with clubs that didn't issue receipts for house fees and tip outs. I had considered issuing 1099 forms to the clubs I worked for, but decided if it is really an issue with the IRS, I could prove that the dancers do indeed pay these fees, if necessary.

Paris
08-07-2008, 09:05 AM
I agree with x. On the surface, I think they will be hard pressed to prove that they signed contracts under duress.

Just because a contract is signed "legally" nothing says that the contents of said contract are legal. A person is not legally obligated to fulfill a contract that outlines illegal terms.

AudreyLeigh
08-07-2008, 09:15 AM
I love when Im watching those judge shows on TV and the people claim it was under duress.

Duress means: Coercion illegally applied, Forcible confinement

I highly doubt these girls were forced into signing this contract. They could have said no and worked somewhere else. Duress is force...

Bob_Loblaw
08-07-2008, 10:26 PM
Just because a contract is signed "legally" nothing says that the contents of said contract are legal. A person is not legally obligated to fulfill a contract that outlines illegal terms.
I had to re-read this thread because I forgot what it was about. Your point is taken. I was merely focusing on the assertion that contracts were signed under duress and paid no mind to whether the contracts where legal to begin with or not.

xdamage
08-08-2008, 05:34 AM
Why would you assume that because a person earns money in cash that we automatically just skip paying taxes? There are so many advantages to paying taxes vs. dropping below the radar.

They aren't mutually exclusive. A person can easily remain on the radar by filing tax returns claiming some income, and still not claim 100% of their income.

Why assume? This is mostly a matter of there is a lot in life you can't prove. Beyond that point everyone has to rely on their judgment based on their experiences with other human beings. It would be nice to believe that "everyone" is honest but my experience says that would be EXTREMELY naive. Rather my experience says that the odds are high, basically 100%, that some percentage of people who are paid in untracked cash do not claim all of it in income. If anyone wishes to believe that all strippers are angels from heaven and are the exceptions, great, enjoy.

Jenny
08-08-2008, 05:41 AM
Welcome to the new industrial revolution. In contract law I think "duress" can also mean an unconscionable bargaining position - like if you were on a sinking ship and someone asked to you agree to sign over all your worldly assets before rescuing you. Not necessarily illegal, but definitely not an agreement freely negotiated and entered into either. The idea that there is generally a grossly and unconscionably unequal relationship between employers and employees is pretty much the foundation of employment and labour law, so it isn't a wild, crazy stretch. Plus, of course - if any employer could just contract out of employment standards and labour law by a clause in the contract declaring the employee to be independent... well, there wouldn't be much use for employment standards and labour law as it would likely just be a precondition to all employment.

xdamage
08-08-2008, 08:36 AM
It is interesting to look at it like this...

Here is the common case for most Employees in the USA. The situation looks kind of like this -

o Employee agrees to work a fixed number of hours per week (typically 20 or 40).

o Employee agrees to work on a schedule (i.e., be at work between during a "shift").

o Employee agrees to certain level of performance on the job.

o Employee agrees to a fixed salary, so whether they sell more or less, their income is fixed... a variation is the commission where there is an incentive to to sell more, but the number is FAR from 100%, and more likely a small percentage of the product's value. So a dance selling for $20, a commission of 10% would be $2. A generous 50% commission would be $10. But Employees never get to keep EVERYTHING, which is what most strippers want, to keep everything a customer hands them.

o Some businesses require employees tip share because the nature of the business is such that it makes sense (e.g., casino dealers).

o Money from customers is given first to the employer, who tracks it all for income tax purposes, who then pays the employee a salary and commission.

For this, the employee gets some benefits including:

o A guaranteed income (the salary). If the business has a bad month, they still get paid. But if the business makes a lot, they don't share in the profits. Lower risk, but lower rewards.

o Maybe some health benefits.

o Maybe some paid leave (a few days a year typically).

o The business files tax info (i.e., the employees income is all tracked).

That in a nutshell is the basic deal repeated country wide in business after business.

Is that the deal Strippers want? Or is the reality that for most of them, this is the last thing they want? And that if forced to work as employees they would find themselves worse off overall?

UtahMike
08-08-2008, 07:31 PM
When I sold cars and had a guaranteed monthly income, that sounded great the first month when I sold lots and lots of cars and made more commission than my draw. The second month I sold lots and lots of cars to people who couldn't qualify for loans, so I had no commission. When I got my check at the end of that month, I also got told that if I didn't sell a car by the end of the day, I was fired. So, I quit instead.

By which I mean to say that a guaranteed monthly income isn't really guaranteed. However, I have a hard time visualizing the dancer who would go a month without selling any dances, and her customers don't have to get loans to buy.

Paris
08-08-2008, 07:50 PM
It is interesting to look at it like this...

Here is the common case for most Employees in the USA. The situation looks kind of like this -

o Employee agrees to work a fixed number of hours per week (typically 20 or 40).

o Employee agrees to work on a schedule (i.e., be at work between during a "shift").

o Employee agrees to certain level of performance on the job.

o Employee agrees to a fixed salary, so whether they sell more or less, their income is fixed... a variation is the commission where there is an incentive to to sell more, but the number is FAR from 100%, and more likely a small percentage of the product's value. So a dance selling for $20, a commission of 10% would be $2. A generous 50% commission would be $10. But Employees never get to keep EVERYTHING, which is what most strippers want, to keep everything a customer hands them.

o Some businesses require employees tip share because the nature of the business is such that it makes sense (e.g., casino dealers).

o Money from customers is given first to the employer, who tracks it all for income tax purposes, who then pays the employee a salary and commission.

For this, the employee gets some benefits including:

o A guaranteed income (the salary). If the business has a bad month, they still get paid. But if the business makes a lot, they don't share in the profits. Lower risk, but lower rewards.

o Maybe some health benefits.

o Maybe some paid leave (a few days a year typically).

o The business files tax info (i.e., the employees income is all tracked).

That in a nutshell is the basic deal repeated country wide in business after business.

Is that the deal Strippers want? Or is the reality that for most of them, this is the last thing they want? And that if forced to work as employees they would find themselves worse off overall?

Many, many dancers have to adhere to much of the requirements of being an employee, but don't get any benefit of employment (such as paid sick days or vacation time or a PAYCHECK). So pretty much dancers have to share tips, pay the house a portion of sales (kind of a reverse commission) and adhere to a schedule, and on top of it all, they have to pay the "employer" for the privilege of working w/o any guarantee of income whatsoever.

If dancers were forced to work as employees, they would be unhappy, mostly because many clubs would rather close than have to pay dancers a wage. The clubs have become dependent on the dancers for a sizable portion of their income, and they don't know how to turn a profit while paying dancers even a minimum wage. Add to that the expense of hiring a bookkeeper and paying the 7% employer cut of Social Security, and most clubs would rather buy some big screen TVs and call themselves sports bars.

I'm sure the labor loopholes for exotic dancers will begin to close within the next four years. The stripclubs will start hitting the market just in time for a real estate rebound, and the owners will decide to get out instead of get buried in a declining business.

But not to worry, there will be better strip clubs, with better dancers in the end. This will be a win-win situation for dancers, club owners and customers alike. Extras will likely go away in the club atmosphere, but there will always be escorts available for that kind of thing...

bebewood
08-09-2008, 03:44 AM
many clubs will not let you work for them anymore if they find out you are working at another competitor's club.
I work in LA and have not found this to be true, in fact many of the clubs I have worked at have known that that was not the only club i was working at and they were fine with it...

bebewood
08-09-2008, 03:46 AM
But yeah I say we let them win their case so that way these bitches are forced to pay taxes like the rest of us. I saw this story on the news this morning and I just couldn't help but to laugh.


Being an IC, doesnt mean you dont have to pay taxes...everyone who makes money or recieves gifts over a certain amount has to claim it. I am sick of people assuming that we must be rich because we don't have to pay taxes. We DO have to pay taxes. Some dancers chose not to and that is a risk they chose to take, and an illegal one at that. I would hope that they win too, considering i ALREADY pay taxes and at least if they win i would have a higher income because the clubs would not be taking 50 percent of my earnings.

bebewood
08-09-2008, 03:52 AM
This could be my backwards, upper midwestern thinking simply because I've never sued anyone before but litigation is something that doesn't go on amongst friends (last I checked) and you don't bring the court system into minor, friendly disagreements. These clowns supposedly feel that they signed their contracts under duress and were forced to work at that specific club.(I could be mistaken but nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to sign. It's friggin LA they could've gone to another club.) I saw this story on Fox News this morning and my 1st thought was "I can't believe these nimrods want a pay check along with the 100's of dollars they walk out with every night." but then I was like fine. If they wanna paycheck. They can pay full taxes on their wages + tips just like the rest of us. (but I have a feeling they wouldn't honestly report their tips.)

100s of dollars? Obviously you think we are all nimrods and therefore you aint giving us 100s of dollars. Lots of men share your thoughts, therefore they aint giving us 100s of dollars...so where are these 100s of dollars magically appearing from? OH RIGHT THEY ARENT!!!
In LA especially, so many girls have nights where they walk out with LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE. Again, we arent all rich spoiled brats. we work our asses off for our money and are often underpaid. When was the last time you had to sit on a strange guys crotch for 13 bucks (thats all we get out of a 20 dollar lap dance at a major nude club, minus the tip out to everyone we end up with 10 bucks out of a 20 dollar dance). When was the last time you had to deal with licking, kissing, guys pulling out their dicks on you, guys trying to suck your nipples, guys forcing you down on their cocks and trying to make you grind them as hard as possible (again all for 10 bucks)? Damn i WISH we always walked out with hundreds of dollars. there are some nights when I dont even walk out with 100 bucks.

bebewood
08-09-2008, 03:54 AM
I have a friend who's a dancer who doesn't pay income taxes at all, also works as a prostitute, has asked me for $$ to travel from Ann Arbor to Lansing, and has a suspended license. I also know another one who hasn't paid taxes in 20 years.I also have a dancer friend who's currently serving a jail sentence.


]odd, wouldnt not paying taxes mean these are rich happy spoiled brats? Your friends all sound like deadbeat broke desperate homeless miserable people... why are you trying to make the miserable even more miserable?

bebewood
08-09-2008, 04:01 AM
Wait wait wait They walk out with upwards of $1100 dollars in 1 night working in a high mileage club and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? If it's a high mileage club that they choose to work at then yeah the terms fit. But I fail to see where the tough work comes into play when all they gotta do is sit there, dry hump them a bit and let them goto town. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to work under that clubs rules. But you're right I dunno what goes on in LA (closest I've been was Phoenix, AZ and I'm basing my argument on what I've seen and experienced in Michigan.) [/quote]

the girls he is refering to are sucking cock giving handjobs and having sex. theyre not just sitting there grinding a little. theyre doing fs and risking stds. if i was a hooker i know id charge more than 1000 bucks for 6 hours. wouldnt you?
i guess you dont think getting fucked by strangers or sucking a strangers cock is hard work. maybe you should get into hooking if you think it is such easy work. At 40 bucks a blowjob you too can make 1000 bucks at a gay strip club...of course you would have to service at least 10 men a night, but hey, its easy right?

xdamage
08-09-2008, 06:01 AM
The clubs have become dependent on the dancers for a sizable portion of their income, and they don't know how to turn a profit while paying dancers even a minimum wage.

I've heard this but I question it. Here is why...

First there simply aren't many pure bars left around here. Those that remain are dives. The bars around here are parts of restaurants, casinos, hotels. Nobody says "bars don't know how to make a profit". It's understood, bars supplement some other business, they are not primary businesses. So without out of the way, it is entirely reasonable to me that strip clubs should make a profit from the dancing too.

Second, what I keep hearing is that it is in some way unfair that clubs collect house fees. Dancers simply aren't going to get a deal where they have absolutely no obligations to the club, and yet use the clubs facilities for pure profit for themselves. So either they will pay up front a rental fee, or they are going to have to pay a bigger cut of the dances, but they are not going to get both.

Me, if I was running a club, I'd use house fees, and here is why...

House fees plus a smaller cut of the per dance money puts responsibility for minimum performance back on to the dancer. If she can't even make her house fees, then probably over time she will quit. As an owner I don't have to monitor her nightly performance or weekly or fire her if she isn't making at least $100 or $150 per night for the club. If she wants to lounge or has a poor work ethic, it's costing her. It is a self motivating system.

Now an alternative is to remove house fees and take a bigger cut of the dances, and have a manager watching dancers and keep them busy. As Mike pointed out above, you can still lose your job. that is the usual deal for an employee. Someone breathing down your neck much of the time. And you can still lose your job.

By the way, are there any dancers on SW that are now club owners? We have DJs, managers, and dancers but apparently no one here who owns a club.

doc-catfish
08-09-2008, 07:01 AM
I do know of a few clubs where girls still get shift pay. One reason that they do is because the earnings potential in those clubs is so low that if a house fee were charged, nobody would dance.

Jenny
08-09-2008, 07:11 AM
I do know of a few clubs where girls still get shift pay. One reason that they do is because the earnings potential in those clubs is so low that if a house fee were charged, nobody would dance.If I wanted to go on shift I could get shift pay. I also have the option of paying a fee and freelancing - and being independent here is actually being independent, not just paying to be an employee. I assume my bar makes a profit; it's been around a long time.

xdamage
08-09-2008, 04:13 PM
They aren't filing the lawsuit because of some moral outrage that they should be Employees.

They are filing the lawsuit because they want more money. Specifically they feel they are owed back pay and/or shouldn't have to share tips, etc. (i.e., the reason most people do things is because they want a tangible benefit).

They could win the lawsuit and find themselves earning a salary going forward, but at the same time, find that their previous arrangement with the club changes too. So instead of keeping maybe 66% or more of each dance, they may well find the new terms are a small salary plus they keep 50% or less of each dance. Net result could well be less money.

Battle won. War lost. Happens all the time.