View Full Version : Then why do you come here??
Hopper
11-07-2011, 06:49 AM
Again, in the type of club that I work at... I don't know how a guy who isn't spending, can go there to unwind. He's not going to be able to. Every girl that he will eyeball will approach him for a sale... how many times is he going to keep on saying no?? That is going to get annoying quick & i've seen guys like this get irritated at dancers too for doing their job. ::) Girls will be giving him dirty looks all night. I don't know how that doesn't make someone feel uncomfortable?
Tell me about it. I feel uncomfortable even though I do go to SCs to buy dances, because I say no to most of the dancers. I usually only like one or a few dancers in any club on any given night. I don't necessarily say yes to a dancer I like straight away and may not buy a dance from her at all that night. So even though I'm spending money, I'm still possibly irritating a lot of dancers. Add to that the fact that I don't eagerly engage in conversation with dancers, because I don't want to give them false hope, and they often interpret this as stand-offish.
Hopper
11-07-2011, 07:03 AM
The SCs I go to clearly aren't just drinks bars using strippers to lure in customers. The clubs take part of what the strippers earn. Obviously LDs are part of the business of the clubs. They are fitted out for LDs and stage shows and the whole focus of the clubs is on the girls. The clubs hire special staff to help sell LDs. The names of the clubs indicate that they are primarily strip clubs. It's not just a device to draw patrons, it's their business. True patrons are not forced to buy LDs or tip the stage, but why should they be forced to? A customer may not like any of the dancers. In a restaurant, you are not allowed to have a table unless you order food. But you are allowed to sit down before you order and look at the menu. If you don't like what's on the menu, you get up and walk out without ordering. In a SC, it takes longer to look at the "menu", but they sell you drinks while you are looking.
rickdugan
11-07-2011, 08:49 AM
The economics of club ownership and profitability is not only another thread, it's an entirely different subject. It involves negotiating pretty tricky terrain given the dramatically different club models around the country, the leveraging of brands and locations, wildly differing laws in different local jurisdictions, etc.
IMHO it is directly relevant when girls harbor the belief that guys who are not buying dances should not be in the club. While I fully understand that position, IMHO it is short sighted unless one works in a club where the seats routinely fill up.
I appreciate your comments and insight but I don't think any of us has the raw data to know what would "cause SCs to disappear overnight." Presumably, the worse economy in 40 years that steadfastly refuses to come back to life coupled with persistently high unemployment would do more to destroy clubs than any other scenario -- instead, the clubs have largely survived (under increasing strain) and the dancers have as well (although most have suffered financially and continue to do so) with both having adopted their own strategies to survive, depending on the particular club model -- and there are many different club models, as you know.
However, several dancers (and a female customer) have posted their own horror stories about the displacement effect in this thread and those of us who have frequented clubs for long enough -- I'm including you in this group -- have all witnessed the dead-ass broke wallpaper customers and the perv row nontippers and the college-age one-beer-only crowd and the vehement stand-on-principle clueless twits and the "I'm-too-cool-to-tip" losers and the delusional "friends of the club owner" and the young guys who think they're the shit, and the bar-only regulars who see the dancers as their BFFs so they never tip them, along with the drag-along angry girlfriends, players, gamers, dealers, wanna-be pimps, etc.
That shit adds up.
I think "insight" is a strong word for anything that I contribute to this site. ;)
Now I don't think that I espoused a belief that "all SCs would disappear" if they kicked out non-tippers and guys who do not buy dances, but simply shared my belief that these guys are important to some clubs and I do believe that there would be fewer clubs without these types. I agree wholeheartedly that the club models vary dramatically across the country and I will readily admit that I am in only a small fraction of those clubs each year, but in those particular clubs it is not terribly difficult to deduce how some of them are earning most of their revenues.
Having said all of that, my experiences are obviously limited by (1) the particular types of clubs that I target; (2) the geographic regions that I visit most often; and (3) the times of the week that I normally visit clubs. I will say that approximately 26 of the 30 or so clubs that I have visited in 2011 had far more seats to fill than asses to fill them during my visits, but I will also concede that my particular experiences do not invalidate the displacement theory per se as they are far from representative of all experiences.
See "That shit adds up," above. I just don't have the energy needed to explain this yet again. Sorry.
Nor is any re-explanation necessary. :P
Obviously this conversation could get even more circular than it has already become as many of these beliefs and viewpoints are based upon individual experiences, which of course will differ. I will simply leave this as my last commentary in our serve and volley exchange and you can do with it what you will.
Lastly, I will finish this post with what I think is a shared belief, which is that guys who do not pay girls for their efforts are dogs who should be ashamed of themselves.
rickdugan
11-07-2011, 09:23 AM
Alcohol sale is part of what makes the club money, yes.
I'm only going to speak for the type of clubs I work at.
They make money off of entrance fee, coat check fee, private room fees, funny money purchases, a large cut of our income(which customers gives us) that goes to the club by the end of the night, etc.(i'm probably missing more). If it weren't for us dancers, the club would flop. We sell rooms and champagne bottles, that's where the club makes most of their money. That's where they need us for that. Not by a few bottles of beer or a glass of grey goose.
LOL. It sounds like you are working at a higher-end club with a decent clientele, which is cool.
But your experiences are far from universal. There are a lot of smaller, local clubs out there where selling CRs is fiendishly difficult and, indeed, I frequent a few clubs where the CRs often stay empty for most, if not all, of those nights. In fact, even selling lapdances in these clubs is like pulling teeth and the clubs are forced to routinely offer 2 for 1s just to get guys back there.
In these types of clubs, alcohol sales and door fees are a very important component of total revenues. Hence my belief that gawkers and bar hangers, while despicable IMHO, are a necessary evil in keeping some of these clubs open as a venue for dancers to ply their trade.
Kellydancer
11-07-2011, 12:48 PM
Tell me about it. I feel uncomfortable even though I do go to SCs to buy dances, because I say no to most of the dancers. I usually only like one or a few dancers in any club on any given night. I don't necessarily say yes to a dancer I like straight away and may not buy a dance from her at all that night. So even though I'm spending money, I'm still possibly irritating a lot of dancers. Add to that the fact that I don't eagerly engage in conversation with dancers, because I don't want to give them false hope, and they often interpret this as stand-offish.
I think this is true of most customers. While I have known guys who bought dances from all the dances (usually the regulars)most have a look they like and most dancers won't appeal to him. Likewise I knew that I wasn't going to appeal to every guy nor is any dancer. There is no dancer out there that appeals to every guy, including the bleached blonde/fake boob dancers that are common at every high class club. If I came up to you I would prefer you told me nicely upfront you weren't interested so I didn't waste your time and mine. I would then ask you if you might be interested later and if you said no I wouldn't bother you. The problem though is some guys are pretty mean with rejection by saying how ugly, fat, etc I am. That's not cool, but just saying "I'm here to see her" or something like that didn't bother me.
FeministStripper
11-07-2011, 01:11 PM
Rejection is business as usual in sales, regardless of what you're selling. There are always going to be deadbeats. The great thing about dancing is that, unlike food service, you can just ignore customers who aren't buying - and occasionally educate the ones with poor manners.
It's a fact that club management does what it can - often at the expense of its greatest asset, its workers - to attend to its bottom line, as all corporations do when left to their own devices. The difference is that there are regulations in place (at least for now, God help this country) to protect the rest of the work force that don't extend to the rights of 'bad' women, so our bosses continue to exploit us when they can, in ways that won't stop until we begin bargaining collectively; unfortunately, in my experience, getting strippers to unite, even in their own interests, is a bit like herding cats. They need money NOW, TONIGHT; they can't worry about long-term, fundamental improvements in our status and rights. If strippers went on strike or began filing lawsuits, things might change. We certainly aren't going to get much help from the outside; mainstream society figures that if it's uncomfortable enough for us (which, of course, is only right, right?), we'll leave the business and get a 'decent', 'respectable' job, like cleaning their toilets or serving their food with a smile.
Hopper
11-07-2011, 05:33 PM
I think this is true of most customers. While I have known guys who bought dances from all the dances (usually the regulars)most have a look they like and most dancers won't appeal to him. Likewise I knew that I wasn't going to appeal to every guy nor is any dancer. There is no dancer out there that appeals to every guy, including the bleached blonde/fake boob dancers that are common at every high class club.
My point was not so much about rejection (though that is probably irritating too) but that to all the dancers I say no to (which on some nights could be all of them) I am probably indistinguishable from the guys who are there with no intention to spend. I can often tell from the dancer's manners that they are gauging my agenda while working on persuading me. I don't want to look like a "time waster" because then the dancers generally may give me lower priority on approaches.
If I came up to you I would prefer you told me nicely upfront you weren't interested so I didn't waste your time and mine. I would then ask you if you might be interested later and if you said no I wouldn't bother you.
Dancers don't agree on what they like customers to do when approached and I have to cater to all preferences without knowing what any given dancer's individual preferences are. Also, sometimes I do find that I like a dancer after talking to her for a few minutes. Attraction isn't always immediate and sometimes it is not solely physical either.
The problem with telling dancers I may be interested later is that some dancers take this to mean I do want one later and some of these dancers get pissy if I say no again later. I say either yes or no and if I change my mind later I ask them for a dance. It may not be what they all want me to say but it makes things simpler.
Hopper
11-07-2011, 06:30 PM
It's a fact that club management does what it can - often at the expense of its greatest asset, its workers - to attend to its bottom line, as all corporations do when left to their own devices.
When is the last time corporations were "left to their own devices"? 1789? Sensible employers know that the "bottom line" (profit) depends on having good workers. The problem is that business is not "left to their own devices". It is burdened by government intervention, leaving them with less productivity and money to pay their employees. Yes there are bad club owners but having the government standing over club owners doesn't exactly encourage good ones to go into business.
The difference is that there are regulations in place (at least for now, God help this country) to protect the rest of the work force that don't extend to the rights of 'bad' women, so our bosses continue to exploit us when they can, in ways that won't stop until we begin bargaining collectively; unfortunately, in my experience, getting strippers to unite, even in their own interests, is a bit like herding cats. They need money NOW, TONIGHT; they can't worry about long-term, fundamental improvements in our status and rights. If strippers went on strike or began filing lawsuits, things might change. We certainly aren't going to get much help from the outside; mainstream society figures that if it's uncomfortable enough for us (which, of course, is only right, right?), we'll leave the business and get a 'decent', 'respectable' job, like cleaning their toilets or serving their food with a smile.
One person's working conditions are not the business of "society", whatever industry the person works in. (Nor does "society" decide what a "respectable, decent" job is.) Any employee who thinks he is worth more than what a given employer offers him can simply bargain for more or go to another employer. Any ten employees of the same company who think they should be paid more can choose to bargain together or leave together. They already have all the right to do that.
They do not have the right to force an employer (via the government) to pay them more. That is theft. It was precisely the thing which the founders of your country fought the war on independence over: The English government was taxing the American colonists in order to protect the monopolies of the big corporations. The founders of your country called this stealing. "Left to their own devices", those corporations would have been forced to move aside for other businessmen in the same markets.
I'm all for employees bargaining with employers, individually or in groups, but there should be no reason for the government to force employees to pay more.
yoda57us
11-07-2011, 06:40 PM
When is the last time corporations were "left to their own devices"? 1789? Sensible employers know that the "bottom line" (profit) depends on having good workers. The problem is that business is not "left to their own devices". It is burdened by government intervention, leaving them with less productivity and money to pay their employees. Yes there are bad club owners but having the government standing over club owners doesn't exactly encourage good ones to go into business.
Congratulations on posting the biggest piece of nonsense I've read here in ages!
FeministStripper
11-07-2011, 07:28 PM
When is the last time corporations were "left to their own devices"? 1789?
/:O
They do not have the right to force an employer (via the government) to pay them more. That is theft. It was precisely the thing which the founders of your country fought the war on independence over: The English government was taxing the American colonists in order to protect the monopolies of the big corporations. The founders of your country called this stealing. "Left to their own devices", those corporations would have been forced to move aside for other businessmen in the same markets.
I'm all for employees bargaining with employers, individually or in groups, but there should be no reason for the government to force employees to pay more.
Great. Very passionate, and totally wide of the mark. That's not at all what I'm talking about. And if you think the last time corporations had to be regulated in order to be prevented from exploiting their employees was 1789, you're sadly out of touch, sir.
FeministStripper
11-07-2011, 07:36 PM
One person's working conditions are not the business of "society", whatever industry the person works in. (Nor does "society" decide what a "respectable, decent" job is.)
By the way, there's a huge, complex, colorful, eventful, exciting THING going on even as we speak: it's called 'The World', and it's happening right outside your door. You can see parts of it on the interwebz, too. Take a peek; it's clear that you've missed out on quite a bit of it.
rickdugan
11-07-2011, 08:16 PM
It's a fact that club management does what it can - often at the expense of its greatest asset, its workers - to attend to its bottom line, as all corporations do when left to their own devices. The difference is that there are regulations in place (at least for now, God help this country) to protect the rest of the work force that don't extend to the rights of 'bad' women, so our bosses continue to exploit us when they can, in ways that won't stop until we begin bargaining collectively; unfortunately, in my experience, getting strippers to unite, even in their own interests, is a bit like herding cats. They need money NOW, TONIGHT; they can't worry about long-term, fundamental improvements in our status and rights. If strippers went on strike or began filing lawsuits, things might change. We certainly aren't going to get much help from the outside; mainstream society figures that if it's uncomfortable enough for us (which, of course, is only right, right?), we'll leave the business and get a 'decent', 'respectable' job, like cleaning their toilets or serving their food with a smile.
Idk, but I suspect that some strippers might not agree that it is in their best interest to formalize their work situations. If I am not mistaken, in order to take advantage of most of those protections and collective bargaining rights, they would need to become statutory employees, no?
It seems to me that many strippers like the cash and carry aspect of the business as well as the ease of movement among clubs. Not only would statutory employment put them on the radar with the tax authorities, but it would restrict ease of movement between clubs as owners would be forced to engage in more formalized hiring practices. Also, some of these girls enjoy a lot of discretion in when, and how much, they work as independent contractors. How many strippers do you think currently pay a significant (if any) amount in taxes? How many of them do you suspect have an arrest record or other background issues? How many of them would lose scheduling flexibility if they lost their independent contractor status?
Anyway, I'm not claiming any great knowledge of the dancer population here and I don't have the answers to the questions I posed any more than anyone else, but these things are certainly worth considering. I can say that I know at least a few dancers that are probably happier with the way things are now than they would be if this became more formal.
FeministStripper
11-07-2011, 08:43 PM
Idk, but I suspect that some strippers might not agree that it is in their best interest to formalize their work situations. If I am not mistaken, in order to take advantage of most of those protections and collective bargaining rights, they would need to become statutory employees, no?
It seems to me that many strippers like the cash and carry aspect of the business as well as the ease of movement among clubs. Not only would statutory employment put them on the radar with the tax authorities, but it would restrict ease of movement between clubs as owners would be forced to engage in more formalized hiring practices. Also, some of these girls enjoy a lot of discretion in when, and how much, they work as independent contractors. How many strippers do you think currently pay a significant (if any) amount in taxes? How many of them do you suspect have an arrest record or other background issues? How many of them would lose scheduling flexibility if they lost their independent contractor status?
Anyway, I'm not claiming any great knowledge of the dancer population here and I don't have the answers to the questions I posed any more than anyone else, but these things are certainly worth considering. I can say that I know at least a few dancers that are probably happier with the way things are now than they would be if this became more formal.
I don't disagree. It would mean big changes. However, it's my opinion that those changes would mean a much healthier environment for everyone involved. Frequently dancers are compelled to sign absurdly illegal contracts which make them a strange, stunted hybrid of employee/subcontractor which benefits their club much more than it benefits them. They have to show up when they're scheduled, but aren't eligible for workman's compensation, for example. They pay high house fees as if they're independent contractors, but don't have the autonomy that such status usually confers.
Sure, it's nice to be off the tax-radar, but most people survive just fine with their taxable income, and dancers frequently make much more than the average service-industry worker. The march toward legitimacy necessarily entails full, productive participation in society. That paper trail also provides employment history and loan-eligibility - not to mention recourse in sexual harassment or other workplace-abuse scenarios, and maybe even a health plan. And, frankly, society tends to be a lot more accepting of things that can be taxed.
All kinds of stuff happens under the radar. Either way, on the up-and-up or the downlow, we'll have to take the good with the bad.
Hopper
11-08-2011, 04:07 AM
Congratulations on posting the biggest piece of nonsense I've read here in ages!
I wish I could say this is your worst response to a comment but it's fairly typical.
Great. Very passionate, and totally wide of the mark. That's not at all what I'm talking about.
Sorry, when you said "regulations to protect the work force" I thought you were talking about regulations to protect the work force. The collaboration of the English government and major corporations in the 18th century is just one example of how government regulations favor corporations, despite the pretext for those regulations being to restrain them.
And if you think the last time corporations had to be regulated in order to be prevented from exploiting their employees was 1789, you're sadly out of touch, sir.
Not the last time they were regulated, the last time they were unregulated. Major regulation of industry in the U.S. didn't happen until early twentieth century, though it was tried in smaller ways from the first couple of decades after the revolution on. Corporations did not start growing into the dominating cartels we have today until that time, although Lincoln (our first Republican president BTW) gave them a good start fifty years earlier with his own interventionist policies.
By the way, there's a huge, complex, colorful, eventful, exciting THING going on even as we speak: it's called 'The World', and it's happening right outside your door. You can see parts of it on the interwebz, too. Take a peek; it's clear that you've missed out on quite a bit of it.
It also doesn't get beamed into our living rooms each night or delivered to our door step each morning. Nor does it get distributed to the shelves of major book stores, printed in political activist leaflets. Nor can you get it sitting in a university lecture hall listening to somebody talk for thirty hours a week. If you mistake all that for the real thing, you will see only what they want you to see. Most people know nothing else their whole lives. I apologize if this is not you.
rickdugan
11-08-2011, 04:38 AM
^Idk, but it seems to me that you are in favor of eliminating exactly what incentivizes some dancers to work in these clubs in the first place.
First, there is no way around the fact that many dancers would take a real income hit. Now the most obvious whack is in the form of taxes on their earnings. However, club owners are going to need to recoup the additional lost income (lost house fees, shift pay, unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, etc.) somehow. And, of course, many clubs would likely limit the number of hours that any one dancer could work in a week to avoid running into full-time employee and overtime issues.
Second, what is not talked about a lot on this board, but is a reality in a number of clubs, are the number of girls that dance because they would have difficulty making it through regular employment screenings due to arrest records and immigration issues. In some areas these girls comprise a meaningful percentage of the dancers working in their respective clubs. For the obvious reasons, these girls would not be in favor of this type of change as they would lose their livelihoods.
Third, many girls work in clubs that do allow scheduling flexibility. IME a significant portion of the dancing population consists of single mothers, students and others for whom this flexibility is vital. Heck, I know a number of dancers who decide on a week-by-week, or even on a day-by-day basis, when they are (or are not) going to go into work. These boards of also rife with examples of girls who routinely make last minute decisions about whether or not they are going to work on particular nights. Statutory employees simply don't have that flexibility in many cases.
So when you say these things...
However, it's my opinion that those changes would mean a much healthier environment for everyone involved.
in my experience, getting strippers to unite, even in their own interests, is a bit like herding cats. They need money NOW, TONIGHT; they can't worry about long-term, fundamental improvements in our status and rights.
...I can't help but wonder if these dancers know exactly what is their best interest and are simply not willing to trade the existing benefits of their jobs, including the simple ability to work (period) and to maximize their takehome pay, for the "status and rights" that you believe should be more important to them.
Anyway, just my :twocents:
KS_Stevia
11-08-2011, 07:59 AM
In simple terms : I was having a smoke with a male colleague. About a month ago I went with him and another male coworker to the strip club nearby for lunch. We were talking about doing it again and at the same time talking about time wasters at our job. I thought of this thread and bitching that at least we were getting paid a decent base salary that necessitates we somewhat deal with these people, versus strippers having to pay to work.
He had no idea, he thought strippers were paid a wage to work. This is a pretty common conversation I've had with various guys and girls. He was shocked and felt he should have tipped more, even though he tipped fine. Thing is, these tend to be guys who aren't regular customers anyway. I believe that the regulars who come in and waste time are pretty damn aware of what's going on.
FeministStripper
11-08-2011, 11:00 AM
...I can't help but wonder if these dancers know exactly what is their best interest and are simply not willing to trade the existing benefits of their jobs, including the simple ability to work (period) and to maximize their takehome pay, for the "status and rights" that you believe should be more important to them.
Anyway, just my :twocents:
I think it depends on the dancer. I've certainly met both kinds. Read up on San Francisco's Lusty Lady and its history. And the fact is that there are many adjustments that could be made in which strip clubs ended up not being the last bastion of workplace exploitation in First-World countries without having to undertake a complete overhaul. Every corporation facing the notion of not exploiting their workers cites a bunch of alarmist statistics about how it's going to hurt everyone from management to mail-room if they have to change. You can hear the same rhetoric in discussions about tort reform.
FeministStripper
11-08-2011, 11:19 AM
Sorry, when you said "regulations to protect the work force" I thought you were talking about regulations to protect the work force.
Then why did you talk about regulations to force employers to pay more? And by the way, what do you think minimum wage is?
Kellydancer
11-08-2011, 12:03 PM
Regarding unions and all of that I get where Feminist Stripper is going and actually agree with the basic thought and that is many clubs exploit the dancers. Many of us have worked clubs where they treat us as employees but we are independent contractors. I've worked at clubs where they told us when we could work, what we could charge (most of the clubs we had set prices), and when we were required to be at work. Many clubs charged even more if we were late (I never was btw), if we broke one of the "rules" which were often pretty lame like wearing certain outfits, etc. For the most part I avoided the clubs with the strict rules that were pretty lame but eventually there were more of them and the rules became more and more outrageous, like telling dancers when they could take breaks. I walked in and out of a club after they started explaining to me all the rules they had, which were when I could work, when I could take a meal break, even what I could and could not wear. Not to mention the music could only be dance music (I'm a rocker). So yes many of the laws about the whole IC/employee need to be looked into.
I am not saying though that I would prefer having unions or a wage. I have worked at clubs where they paid me and generally speaking I made less than at the other clubs. There is usually a reason why a club pays the girls and it's because the money isn't there. Either that or they have rather ugly and obese dancers and want to keep the cute ones.
I think though that Rick has a good point about many of the dancers that I hadn't thought of because it doesn't apply to me. That being some of them have no other choices. I have worked with a few immigrants who could barely speak English and while I never asked I probably worked with a few dancers who had criminal records. I know I've worked with a few with drug problems so it is possible they were arrested for that. I also worked with several dancers who didn't have high school diplomas, including a roommate. She didn't want to dance but no other place would hire her without it so she eventually went back to get a GED.
FeministStripper
11-08-2011, 01:46 PM
I think though that Rick has a good point about many of the dancers that I hadn't thought of because it doesn't apply to me. That being some of them have no other choices. I have worked with a few immigrants who could barely speak English and while I never asked I probably worked with a few dancers who had criminal records. I know I've worked with a few with drug problems so it is possible they were arrested for that. I also worked with several dancers who didn't have high school diplomas, including a roommate. She didn't want to dance but no other place would hire her without it so she eventually went back to get a GED.
I see what you're saying. I feel compelled to point out, though, that plenty of women in exactly those circumstances who can't or won't dance do, in fact, find another way. I hate to feed into the anti-porn feminists' flag-waving about how the sex industry is an instrument of patriarchal economic oppression. I've never met a stripper who HAD to be there. I've met plenty who felt that way because they weren't willing to do menial labor - and that's fine. But menial labor is always available, which means that the sex industry, as a source of higher income and more palatable work is actually a liberator rather than an oppressor. I think it's important to make that distinction.
rickdugan
11-08-2011, 02:38 PM
I see what you're saying. I feel compelled to point out, though, that plenty of women in exactly those circumstances who can't or won't dance do, in fact, find another way. I hate to feed into the anti-porn feminists' flag-waving about how the sex industry is an instrument of patriarchal economic oppression. I've never met a stripper who HAD to be there. I've met plenty who felt that way because they weren't willing to do menial labor - and that's fine.
OK, so your opinion is that, in order to accomodate your world view of how strip clubs should be, it is fine to force a large block of current dancers out of clubs an into lower paying menial labor jobs? NICE. ;D
And the fact is that there are many adjustments that could be made in which strip clubs ended up not being the last bastion of workplace exploitation in First-World countries.
Wow, that sounds intense. :O
Apparently the girls who are working in these "last bastions of workplace exploitation" didn't get the memo about the menial labor jobs available to them as a means of escaping this vile treatment. Or perhaps the ones who are being "expolited" are just not smart enough to do something about it. Thank goodness that you are here to help them see the light. Now if clubs subscribed to your views, then many of these dancers would see income decline and some would even lose their jobs, but it is for their own good...really...it is. ;)
Every corporation facing the notion of not exploiting their workers cites a bunch of alarmist statistics about how it's going to hurt everyone from management to mail-room if they have to change. You can hear the same rhetoric in discussions about tort reform.
Ok...did some evil corporate executive slip in here when we were not looking? ::)
My comments relating the the various potential harms to dancers if clubs used the statutory employee model were purely my own, but I also noticed that you have - twice now - used trite comments like the one above to sidestep addressing those potential harms. Now we agree that a change in the employment model by clubs would result in big changes, but IMHO you have not really made a very compelling case for how these changes would really result in a net benefit to the existing dancer population.
Anyway, just my :twocents: for whatever it is actually worth.
Kellydancer
11-08-2011, 02:48 PM
I see what you're saying. I feel compelled to point out, though, that plenty of women in exactly those circumstances who can't or won't dance do, in fact, find another way. I hate to feed into the anti-porn feminists' flag-waving about how the sex industry is an instrument of patriarchal economic oppression. I've never met a stripper who HAD to be there. I've met plenty who felt that way because they weren't willing to do menial labor - and that's fine. But menial labor is always available, which means that the sex industry, as a source of higher income and more palatable work is actually a liberator rather than an oppressor. I think it's important to make that distinction.
In some cases menial work isn't even available because many employers will not hire people without diplomas or GED unless they are in school. There's the problem. Of course some could work these jobs but choose not to.
I got into the industry because it was either work less hours and make more money and still go to college, or work more hours, less money and possibly struggle with school. I chose the industry because I could attend school full time and still make money.
I think though a bigger issue is the women who enter the industry because the corporate world is closed to them. The reality is that women with degrees are still often discriminated against. At my former employer (non sex industry)I was paid less than my male coworkers. This happens a lot and it's more prevalent the lower on the economic scale you go. A woman without a degree generally makes less than a man without a degree. This income inequality needs to be fixed.
FeministStripper
11-08-2011, 04:43 PM
OK, so your opinion is that, in order to accomodate your world view of how strip clubs should be, it is fine to force a large block of current dancers out of clubs an into lower paying menial labor jobs? NICE. ;D
That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least. I brought up the fact that other options are available to illustrate the fact that most women CHOOSE to dance and like their jobs; it's not a prison camp. I sincerely doubt that industry reform is going to force women with criminal records out of the business.
Apparently the girls who are working in these "last bastions of workplace exploitation" didn't get the memo about the menial labor jobs available to them as a means of escaping this vile treatment.
Or I just think strippers deserve the same rights and respect as every other worker. Why doesn't the 'vile treatment' bother you more? Why should a stripper lose her apartment when she breaks her ankle at work because workman's compensation is unavailable to her and she can't pay her rent? Why should she have no recourse if she's sexually harassed by her boss? Why, if club owners want to absolve themselves of all the responsibilities that come with having employees rather than subcontractors, do they still reserve the right to treat their dancers like employees whenever it suits them while they continue to make twice as much for every drink as a regular bar and still charge dancers huge house fees as if they were subcontractors?
You forget that my point was that strippers would have to collectively bargain to change things. If they don't want that change, then they won't ask for it. Some have, most haven't. Many would like to, but don't feel that they can. And who knows whether they'd choose to be treated more like employees or more like subcontractors? All I'm saying is that right now it's neither fish nor fowl, and that's unethical and unfair.
Now if clubs subscribed to your views, then many of these dancers would see income decline and some would even lose their jobs, but it is for their own good...really...it is. ;)
That's your theory. I'm not so sure I agree. If the enormous house-fees disappeared, for example, the dent in income made by income tax would be comparable. People who work for tips as employees still do their own taxes and declare what they want - and they can use their bank statements to qualify for home and small-business loans. And I'm not sure which dancers you think would lose their jobs. Legitimate businesses hire ex-cons all the time.
Speaking of trite sound-bytes, you haven't offered much that isn't exactly what all industries have claimed would happen when their workers have demanded rights and regulations. If we pay out on workmen's comp claims, we'll have to lower your wages, and if you make one we'll have to fire you; if you institute a minimum wage, we'll have to raise our prices and lay off part of our work force; if you force us to let our workers have breaks, days off, a limit on the hours we can demand of them, we'll have to cut their wages in order to hire more people to keep up with product demand. If you make us subject to legitimate lawsuits, we'll have to pass that cost on to you, the consumer. Best to leave things the way they are.
Ok...did some evil corporate executive slip in here when we were not looking?
:O ...What does that even mean? Nothing I've said sounds even remotely pro-corporate. In case you misunderstood, I'm against tort reform.
yoda57us
11-08-2011, 06:32 PM
I wish I could say this is your worst response to a comment but it's fairly typical.
In the case of my responses to your posts you may very well be right. I'm pretty much OK with that...
Hopper
11-09-2011, 12:39 AM
^You responded merely to imply that I don't know what I am talking about, not to actually query what I meant. That's just being offensive. It's also stupid, because you are just assuming that, because you failed to understand the other person's comment, it doesn't make sense. Your behavior is not that of a reasonable and respectful adult. Grow up.
Kessler
11-09-2011, 02:56 AM
"Don't flower your speech to sound more intelligent. To the trained ear, meaning mine, it has the opposite effect." - My 11th grade English teacher. I got a B on that essay. I was devastated, but realized he was right.
Here's another gem from Mr. L (I still remember his name)... "If no one understands your point, regardless of the reason, then you have failed at the basic level of communication with the reader."
Hopper
11-09-2011, 05:01 AM
^Thanks for reaching down with your advice and lending me your own trained ear. I guess in the text generation plain English can sound flowery to some 11th graders. Myself, I was brought up to read books. I don't know what any of that that has to do with whether or not my comments are actually intelligent.
What if the reason somebody doesn't follow my point is that he is just obtuse, lazy or unintelligent? Even if it's my fault, does it justify somebody assuming that I don't have a point? You'd query the person first, right? Or else, if you weren't interested, you would not comment at all. Did your teacher say anything about common courtesy in communication?
Hopper
11-09-2011, 05:22 AM
Then why did you talk about regulations to force employers to pay more?
Because I thought you were. In the same paragraph, you complained about there not being enough regulations to protect the workforce and you complained about strippers not being paid enough money. I put two and two together and assumed you wanted the government to force club owners to pay them more, or take less from them (effectively the same thing).
And by the way, what do you think minimum wage is?
It's somewhere between the lowest pay the employee is prepared to accept for his services and the greatest amount the employer is willing to pay for them. It has to be above the minimum cost of living. It also depends on the value of the currency, general cost of living and other factors. If an employers doesn't pay at least that, his business ceases to operate and the employee looks for another employer or another line of work.
Kessler
11-09-2011, 06:33 AM
Wait... what's a "book"?
FeministStripper
11-09-2011, 02:22 PM
[re minimum wage] It's somewhere between the lowest pay the employee is prepared to accept for his services and the greatest amount the employer is willing to pay for them. It has to be above the minimum cost of living. It also depends on the value of the currency, general cost of living and other factors. If an employers doesn't pay at least that, his business ceases to operate and the employee looks for another employer or another line of work.
It's also the law - the government compelling businesses to pay their employees no less than a certain amount. Earlier, specifically in post #163 in this thread, you characterized that as theft:
Any ten employees of the same company who think they should be paid more can choose to bargain together or leave together. They already have all the right to do that.
They do not have the right to force an employer (via the government) to pay them more. That is theft.
Interestingly, here are some of the classic objections to minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#History) - very similar to rickdugan's objections to reforming the strip industry:
The classic exposition of the minimum wage's shortcomings in reducing poverty was provided by George Stigler in 1946:
* Employment may fall more than in proportion to the wage increase, thereby reducing overall earnings;
* As uncovered sectors of the economy absorb workers released from the covered sectors, the decrease in wages in the uncovered sectors may exceed the increase in wages in the covered ones;
* The impact of the minimum wage on family income distribution may be negative unless the fewer but better jobs are allocated to members of needy families rather than to, for example, teenagers from families not in poverty;
* Forbidding employers to pay less than a legal minimum is equivalent to forbidding workers to sell their labour for less than the minimum wage. The legal restriction that employers cannot pay less than a legislated wage is equivalent to the legal restriction that workers cannot work at all in the protected sector unless they can find employers willing to hire them at that wage.
By the way, I don't recall saying that strippers aren't paid enough money, or that club owners are responsible for that. Could you refresh my memory?
yoda57us
11-09-2011, 07:53 PM
^You responded merely to imply that I don't know what I am talking about, not to actually query what I meant. That's just being offensive. It's also stupid, because you are just assuming that, because you failed to understand the other person's comment, it doesn't make sense. Your behavior is not that of a reasonable and respectful adult. Grow up.
Hopper we've been down this road before. This is a chat board not your personal blog. I can read what you post, form an opinion and post it. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand you. Frankly, your thought process is not all that deep...
Hopper
11-09-2011, 09:45 PM
It's also the law - the government compelling businesses to pay their employees no less than a certain amount. Earlier, specifically in post #163 in this thread, you characterized that as theft:
Yes, I know the government sets minimum wages. Theft is taking somebody's without his free consent. The government takes our money by force. That is what government is: force. Telling an employer to pay his employees more than he wishes to is the same as taking money from him.
Interestingly, here are some of the classic objections to minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#History) - very similar to rickdugan's objections to reforming the strip industry:
All sensible objections. Generally, whenever the government intervenes in the market, the overall result is worse, not better. The biggest possible bureaucracy with the most minute detail of control could not manage individuals in the market better than they can manage themselves. Numerous socialist regimes have demonstrated this.
By the way, I don't recall saying that strippers aren't paid enough money, or that club owners are responsible for that. Could you refresh my memory?
Here:
It's a fact that club management does what it can - often at the expense of its greatest asset, its workers - to attend to its bottom line, as all corporations do when left to their own devices. The difference is that there are regulations in place (at least for now, God help this country) to protect the rest of the work force that don't extend to the rights of 'bad' women, so our bosses continue to exploit us when they can, in ways that won't stop until we begin bargaining collectively; unfortunately, in my experience, getting strippers to unite, even in their own interests, is a bit like herding cats. They need money NOW, TONIGHT; they can't worry about long-term, fundamental improvements in our status and rights. If strippers went on strike or began filing lawsuits, things might change. We certainly aren't going to get much help from the outside; mainstream society figures that if it's uncomfortable enough for us (which, of course, is only right, right?), we'll leave the business and get a 'decent', 'respectable' job, like cleaning their toilets or serving their food with a smile.
Perhaps you were referring to other kinds of "exploitation" and "expense" besides financial but the discussion up until then had been about customers who don't spend and club owners who take money from dancers in the form of percentages, fees and fines, so I wouldn't have thought you were including them.
Hopper
11-09-2011, 10:02 PM
Hopper we've been down this road before. This is a chat board not your personal blog. I can read what you post, form an opinion and post it. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.
We go down this road because you have a habit of posting pointless and bitchy comments. "Your post is nonsense" is not an opinion. It is not even an intelligent observation. If you don't want to "go down this road", don't start. Perhaps you should put me on ignore.
Frankly, your thought process is not all that deep...
Another meaningless comment and also irrelevant. Whether or not you "can" post what you like here, it's common courtesy to comment to other people's posts constructively or not at all. You are just being a troll with this pointless sniping. You are supposed to be Stripperweb's all-round swellest guy.
FeministStripper
11-09-2011, 10:02 PM
Let me clarify, then - again. I believe it's exploitative to keep dancers in limbo between employee and subcontractor, picking and choosing aspects of each which serve the club and not the dancers, burdening them with the responsibilities of both and offering the benefits of neither. It's unethical.
Kellydancer
11-09-2011, 10:15 PM
Let me clarify, then - again. I believe it's exploitative to keep dancers in limbo between employee and subcontractor, picking and choosing aspects of each which serve the club and not the dancers, burdening them with the responsibilities of both and offering the benefits of neither. It's unethical.
Yeah that is the major problem I have with the whole independent contractor issue. At most clubs I was considered that yet they expected me to come in at a certain time, work certain hours, go on stage rotation at certain times (except while doing VIP rooms), etc. I also worked clubs where there was no schedule, you showed up and you worked. That's how to me it should be but rarely is. And if a club expects us to do a fashion show with their clothes we should get paid for that but rarely do. Not to mention the clubs that tell you when to take a break, yell at you if you are with a customer too long or have ridiculous rules that even the most hardworking dancer is bound to break every so often. These abuses need to stop.
I don't think most men get some of the abuses dancers endure. Not to mention the times where a dancer worked her ass off and still went in the hole or made less than minimum wage.
Hopper
11-10-2011, 12:18 AM
Let me clarify, then - again. I believe it's exploitative to keep dancers in limbo between employee and subcontractor, picking and choosing aspects of each which serve the club and not the dancers, burdening them with the responsibilities of both and offering the benefits of neither. It's unethical.
I know that with SCs there are all kinds of unethical treatment, depending on which club. Some are run by rats who favor dancers depending on which of them agrees to sleep with the owner or manager. But then, some dancers are also abusive toward other dancers. Some clubs are just seedy. There are businesses like that in all industries. But I agree that there are clubs who dictate harsh terms to dancers because they only see the short term dollar. It's not necessarily just due to "the bottom line", though, because it is not necessarily good business sense to treat employees that way.
Strictly speaking, it is not unethical for club owners to treat their dancers as you describe, since the dancer is free to accept or reject the terms on which she works for anybody. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads. But I don't think it's decent for club owners to demand some of those terms. I don't know which terms are unreasonable, because I don't know first hand what it takes for a club to stay in business.
Where do we draw the line between subcontractor and employee? I don't see any important difference between the two. To me, an employee is just somebody who selling his labor to another person and that is effectively a contract. As far as I know, the classifications are only legal ones.
Whether the dancer is an employee or a subcontractor, she is working on the club owners premises and interacting with his customers. It's reasonable for the owner have some control over how the dancer conducts herself while working in his club - she is not independent. The question is where they draw the line.
BTW - exploitation is not a bad thing. The word merely means to use. All labor is exploited but that is not a bad thing, or employees would not consent to it. Employees and employers have a mutually beneficial arrangement. Employees are not slaves on the old plantations. "Exploitation" only became a bad word when Karl Marx decided that the owner-laborer relationship is inherently, economically oppressive. He never proved why it is. People have spent the 150 odd years discrediting Marx's theories and history since that time has demonstrated him to be wrong.
FeministStripper
11-10-2011, 12:50 AM
I know that with SCs there are all kinds of unethical treatment, depending on which club. Some are run by rats who favor dancers depending on which of them agrees to sleep with the owner or manager. But then, some dancers are also abusive toward other dancers. Some clubs are just seedy. There are businesses like that in all industries. But I agree that there are clubs who dictate harsh terms to dancers because they only see the short term dollar. It's not necessarily just due to "the bottom line", though, because it is not necessarily good business sense to treat employees that way.
Strictly speaking, it is not unethical for club owners to treat their dancers as you describe, since the dancer is free to accept or reject the terms on which she works for anybody. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads. But I don't think it's decent for club owners to demand some of those terms. I don't know which terms are unreasonable, because I don't know first hand what it takes for a club to stay in business.
Where do we draw the line between subcontractor and employee? I don't see any important difference between the two. To me, an employee is just somebody who selling his labor to another person and that is effectively a contract. As far as I know, the classifications are only legal ones.
Whether the dancer is an employee or a subcontractor, she is working on the club owners premises and interacting with his customers. It's reasonable for the owner have some control over how the dancer conducts herself while working in his club - she is not independent. The question is where they draw the line.
BTW - exploitation is not a bad thing. The word merely means to use. All labor is exploited but that is not a bad thing, or employees would not consent to it. Employees and employers have a mutually beneficial arrangement. Employees are not slaves on the old plantations. "Exploitation" only became a bad word when Karl Marx decided that the owner-laborer relationship is inherently, economically oppressive. He never proved why it is. People have spent the 150 odd years discrediting Marx's theories and history since that time has demonstrated him to be wrong.
I'm well aware of the meaning of 'exploitation'. I suspect that you and I might be diametrically opposed in our political stances and worldviews - and that's okay, but I think that the twain shall probably not meet, though the dialogue will be lively. :)
yoda57us
11-10-2011, 03:18 AM
We go down this road because you have a habit of posting pointless and bitchy comments. "Your post is nonsense" is not an opinion. It is not even an intelligent observation. If you don't want to "go down this road", don't start. Perhaps you should put me on ignore.
Actually "your post is nonsense" is an opinion. It doesn't always take several paragraphs to tell someone that they are full of it. From the looks of things, several folks agree with my "non-opinion".
I rarely put people on ignore. What fun is that?
Another meaningless comment and also irrelevant. Whether or not you "can" post what you like here, it's common courtesy to comment to other people's posts constructively or not at all. You are just being a troll with this pointless sniping.
Well, fortunately for the rest of the free world you don't set the rules on how message boards work. Otherwise I suppose I would be banned! It takes two to "snipe". If you don't think my responses to your posts are worthwhile then why on earth are we even having this debate?
You are supposed to be Stripperweb's all-round swellest guy.
I'm sure there are many who would not agree with that observation. I call BS when I see it. On a dancer support site that means I come down on the dancer's side quite a bit more often than the "customer's" side. If that makes me "swell" I can live with that.
rickdugan
11-10-2011, 05:46 AM
I sincerely doubt that industry reform is going to force women with criminal records out of the business.Of course it will. With the myriad of liability issues inherent in the employer/employee relationship, most club owners would be insane to take the risk. It is risky enough to hire ex cons in a normal environment, which is why it is so hard for them to find jobs, but in a SC environment things can (and often do) go wrong fast. Ever here of "negligent hiring" lawsuits? Also, most workman's comp providers would insist upon it in order to keep a club's premiuims down.
So bye bye girls with criminal records and bye bye girls with immigration issues (which you opted not to address). I wonder how many girls that would account for that currently dance? Idk the answer, but I have met plenty of both so I suspect that the numbers would not be insignificant.
If the enormous house-fees disappeared, for example, the dent in income made by income tax would be comparable. First of all, house fees are hardly "enormous" (you really do use a lot of flamboyant hyperbole btw) in many places, so I doubt that the trade off would be at par when you factor in federal, SS and state taxes. Nevermind the fact that there is some number of girls that also collect EICs as well as state benefits for their children (such as health insurance), all of which would be lost if their income became reportable. But let's even assume for a moment that the trade offs voided out, as doubtful as that is. Who do you really think is going to eat all of the additional expenses involved (loss of house fees, workman's comp, shift pay, payroll taxes, cost of tracking and processing taxable income, etc.)? We already know that the ability to pass additional costs on to SC customers is limited. Do you really believe that club owners are going to eat all of this? ::) If not, then by process of elimination, at least some of it will have to come from the dancers.
Or I just think strippers deserve the same rights and respect as every other worker. Why doesn't the 'vile treatment' bother you more? Why should a stripper lose her apartment when she breaks her ankle at work because workman's compensation is unavailable to her and she can't pay her rent? Why should she have no recourse if she's sexually harassed by her boss? Why, if club owners want to absolve themselves of all the responsibilities that come with having employees rather than subcontractors, do they still reserve the right to treat their dancers like employees whenever it suits them while they continue to make twice as much for every drink as a regular bar and still charge dancers huge house fees as if they were subcontractors?
You forget that my point was that strippers would have to collectively bargain to change things. If they don't want that change, then they won't ask for it. Some have, most haven't. Many would like to, but don't feel that they can. And who knows whether they'd choose to be treated more like employees or more like subcontractors? All I'm saying is that right now it's neither fish nor fowl, and that's unethical and unfair.No, most of the changes would be automatically forced upon clubs simply by virtue of statutory employment.
Idk, but the dancers who you feel the need to protect are not childen and I doubt that many of them feel quite as "expolited" as you seem to believe. Most of them also work in areas with multiple clubs, so the club owners that are foolish enough to treat their girls badly often find that they are quickly short on dancers.
There is no arguing that as employees they would receive more protections than as ICs, but at what cost? Beyond the lower earnings that they would take home just by virtue of increased operating costs, there would also need to be some fairly dramatic changes in the clubs themselves if these girls were treated as employees. How in the world could you possibly enforce some of the more applicable employment laws in a strip club environment, including the sexual harassment and occupational safety laws? The answer is that one couldn't, at least not as most strip clubs are today. Owners would need to dramatically sterilize their clubs, which would undoubtedly lead to fewer customers and drive dancer income down yet more.
Speaking of trite sound-bytes, you haven't offered much that isn't exactly what all industries have claimed would happen when their workers have demanded rights and regulations. If we pay out on workmen's comp claims, we'll have to lower your wages, and if you make one we'll have to fire you; if you institute a minimum wage, we'll have to raise our prices and lay off part of our work force; if you force us to let our workers have breaks, days off, a limit on the hours we can demand of them, we'll have to cut their wages in order to hire more people to keep up with product demand. If you make us subject to legitimate lawsuits, we'll have to pass that cost on to you, the consumer. Best to leave things the way they are.
OK, so which one of these things do you think is inaccurate? ::)
Higher per head costs DO lead to fewer workers hired. Also, historically, companies have largely passed on unavoidable increases in regulatory costs along to consumers. However, strip club demand is highly elastic as it is purely discretionary spending for the guys, so these costs cannot be passed on to them. So who do you think will eat them?
Kessler
11-10-2011, 05:49 AM
^Thanks for reaching down with your advice and lending me your own trained ear. I guess in the text generation plain English can sound flowery to some 11th graders. Myself, I was brought up to read books. I don't know what any of that that has to do with whether or not my comments are actually intelligent.
Hold the roll call stripper phone... you accuse others of sniping when I get this kind of a response?
Facepalm.
But kudos for forcibly referencing Karl Marx in a thread entitled "Then why do you come here??" That doesn't seem excessive, showy or pretentious at all.
FeministStripper
11-10-2011, 11:37 AM
Of course it will. With the myriad of liability issues inherent in the employer/employee relationship...
So perhaps the women would choose to be subcontractors instead. Okay, so you see no need to reform the industry. Great: it doesn't really affect you directly, but thanks for the thoughtful input.
Idk (Indeed...), but the dancers who you feel the need to protect are not child[r]en and I doubt that many of them feel quite as "expolited" (sic) as you seem to believe.
Please reference Kellydancer's post (#190) above. I wonder, does the voice of experience usually carry so little weight with you? I spent almost two decades in the industry - as an insider, not a customer.
Kellydancer
11-10-2011, 12:57 PM
The whole "inexpensive" house fee some are spouting is not always so either. Most of the clubs I danced at I paid between $20-$50 and were generally midlevel clubs. Also worked a few dives where they paid me. However, some of the more upscale clubs charged hundreds of dollars which is fine if you are making thousand but what if you aren't? I once auditioned at a club back in the late 90's where the house fee was $150. It was an upscale bar downtown but we all know there are bad days and what if a dancer can't even make that? Sure we can say maybe the dancer shouldn't be in the business, but that's too simplistic. Sometimes it's the club's fault for not bringing in customers or rather bringing in low quality customers. I once worked at a club (that was not a dive btw)where we paid house yet the guys were low class. This club got the brainy idea to put in the paper a coupon for a free dance. So we would get MORE of these guys come in (admission was free and no drink limit)get their free dance and leave or stick around. We weren't paid for the free dance btw because the idea was that they would spend more.
Awhile back when I mentioned that every dancer experiences high and lows moneywise a customer (no one in this thread btw)pmed me and said maybe I wasn't hot enough to dance or not very good. Nice try doofus but that wasn't it at all, neither was the problem that I wasn't a hustler. Also, this wasn't an everyday thing with me. The problem is that there are always cheapos who come into the clubs. Yes, MOST OF THE TIME I made money dancing, but there were timesI didn't and everyone I know has experienced this. One night I might make $600 and the next night I may walk out with $20. At one club I worked at for a few weeks and was averaging $50-$100 dollars, much less than I am used to, though the club was rarely busy. I quit and spoke to a few dancers who stayed (the club is long gone)and they said the money never picked up.
lemiwinks31
11-10-2011, 01:10 PM
How long before Hopper and Yoda just start making out?
Laurisa
11-10-2011, 02:25 PM
You can call it what you want, you can use your extensive vocabulary to argue about it, and you can debate about whether or not it's blasphemous to do so; in the end there is one vital difference between night clubs, bars, car dealerships and strip clubs.
Night clubs, bars, and car dealerships pay their EMPLOYEES and allow them an opportunity to receive commission, promotions, and/or raises. Strip clubs contract INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS who in turn pay the club to be there.
With that being said there is a specific distinction between chilling at a night club or browsing a car dealership and intentionally going to a strip club to watch without spending money on the dancers themselves. Since the business relationship between dancer and club has been outlined countless times on SW, it would be redundant to elaborate on that topic any further. Finally, if you are going to the club to buy beer and pay THEIR cover charge you are in essence not contributing toward the other businesses that exist WITHIN that club. Each and every dancer who is an independent contractor is an entity independent of the club legally and fiscally. Intentionally sabotaging their efforts to earn income by deliberately not spending money on them is self defeating in that they are the very entertainment you arrived to see.
Perhaps you would be better suited booking the club after hours for a party so you and your other cheap friends can admire the wall decor, carpet texture, and bathroom lighting fixtures. Surely, since you are only financially contributing to the club's cause, you must be there to enjoy the physical atmosphere of the employees and the building itself rather than the dancers who you are boycotting.
-Laurisa
rickdugan
11-10-2011, 06:35 PM
So perhaps the women would choose to be subcontractors instead. Okay, so you see no need to reform the industry. Great: it doesn't really affect you directly, but thanks for the thoughtful input.
Please reference Kellydancer's post (#190) above. I wonder, does the voice of experience usually carry so little weight with you? I spent almost two decades in the industry - as an insider, not a customer.
LOL. I'm just a guy who hangs out in way too many clubs and deals with way too many dancers in a given year. I am obviously not an insider and would never claim to understand everything that dancers endure.
But I have spent time with a number of dancers who have criminal records and immigration issues, all of whom would, for the reasons discussed, be fucked if your world order was adopted. I also spend time with a fair number of dancers who are single mother and rely upon not only the scheduling flexibility that you seem to believe that they do not have, but also benefit greatly from the fact that their income is not currently tracked, so your proposed changes would fuck them up too.
So when you say this:
in my experience, getting strippers to unite, even in their own interests, is a bit like herding cats. They need money NOW, TONIGHT; they can't worry about long-term, fundamental improvements in our status and rights.
I can't help but believe that they know exactly what is in their best interest and simply don't want what you are pitching. And btw, I found that comment to be rather odd in that you seem to assume that you know more about what is in their best interest than they do. Idk, but most dancers that I deal with seem plenty capable of making that determination for themselves.
But I am curious, if you really view strip clubs as "the last bastion of workplace exploitation in First World countries", then why did you stay in the business for so long? And, more importantly, why do you still miss it?
DesuvsDeath
11-10-2011, 06:46 PM
How long before Hopper and Yoda just start making out?
I want pics if/when it happens.
FeministStripper
11-10-2011, 07:16 PM
LOL. I'm just a guy who hangs out in way too many clubs and deals with way too many dancers in a given year. I am obviously not an insider and would never claim to understand everything that dancers endure.
But I have spent time with a number of dancers who have criminal records and immigration issues, all of whom would, for the reasons discussed, be fucked if your world order was adopted. I also spend time with a fair number of dancers who are single mother and rely upon not only the scheduling flexibility that you seem to believe that they do not have, but also benefit greatly from the fact that their income is not currently tracked, so your proposed changes would fuck them up too.
So when you say this:
I can't help but believe that they know exactly what is in their best interest and simply don't want what you are pitching. And btw, I found that comment to be rather odd in that you seem to assume that you know more about what is in their best interest than they do. Idk, but most dancers that I deal with seem plenty capable of making that determination for themselves.
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But I am curious, if you really view strip clubs as "the last bastion of workplace exploitation in First World countries", then why did you stay in the business for so long? And, more importantly, why do you still miss it?
I'm not pitching anything. I'm telling you how I felt and how many of the women with whom I worked also felt. Another dancer on this very thread has concurred, though apparently that hasn't really incorporated itself into your understanding of the discussion we're having - which, sincerely, is nothing more than ideological. I wish you'd stop with the hyperbole about 'world order' and 'evil corporate executives'.
I was really lucky. I worked at the same club for most of the time I spent in the business and they treated me well, although the same inequities existed there, albeit in a fairly benign fashion. I loved the job - the dancers, the customers, the work itself - enough that, because that was simply the way it was, I accepted it, although I always hoped that things would change. While I was there a group of dancers sued the club (some of those women you think you understand better than I do) for their unfair, neither-fish-nor-fowl employment contract - and, while they got a settlement, they forfeited their right to work at that club and had to go to another that used the very same contract, which is reflective of an industry standard.
I never said there was no scheduling flexibility. I relied on that, myself. However, that flexibility often varies from dancer to dancer depending on how management feels about her, and isn't always available: though dancers pay fees as if they were subcontractors, they frequently must report for duty as if they were employees - and when they don't, though it's illegal to dock the wages of employees, it's perfectly acceptable to fine subcontractors.
When I say that it's like herding cats, I mean that, though I knew plenty of women who complained about precisely the circumstances that you seem to believe only bother me, there really wasn't the possibility of organizing and gaining effectiveness through solidarity, because in a job where your income happens on a daily basis rather than a weekly or monthly check it's really hard to simply stop en masse to fight for your rights. Ask any actual union organizer and they'll tell you it's the same all over - especially when your bosses squelch any such talk posthaste. However, it has happened in the past and likely will again.
Regarding the fact that plenty of strippers benefit from not having their income tracked by the IRS, I have to say that I don't think that fraud has to be part of the profession in order for it to remain lucrative. People might respect strippers more if they didn't believe that women who often (not always) make hundreds of dollars a night are also avoiding paying taxes like the rest of the work force and sometimes taking low-income assistance to boot. We make plenty to live on either way. And as I mentioned before, what we'd pay in taxes is arguably commensurate with what we already pay in often-exorbitant (and no, that's not hyperbole, it's just math) house fees.
So, because you've brought it up, I'll ask: are you normally a proponent of illegal immigration and tax fraud, or just in the case of hot naked women?
Hopper
11-10-2011, 09:45 PM
I'm well aware of the meaning of 'exploitation'. I suspect that you and I might be diametrically opposed in our political stances and worldviews - and that's okay, but I think that the twain shall probably not meet, though the dialogue will be lively. :)
That's more than I can expect from most people. Although it's the minimum I would expect.
KS_Stevia
11-10-2011, 10:03 PM
I wouldn't say the house fee itself is unreasonable at most clubs (is at some) but the forced tipout is where they really get ya.
Oh, I only have the patience to skim through this but yoda IS the swellest guy in SW.......
Kellydancer
11-10-2011, 10:20 PM
Not to mention the places where you have a huge house, huge tips to staff (some that do nothing to deserve it)and on top of this many clubs require you to split dance/room money.
Regarding flexibility while I would say yes that MOST clubs are flexible, not all are. I briefly worked at a club where they were open 6 days a week and required you to work 5 of those days. The shift were long too, something like 9pm-7am in the morning. The club was near the Dan Ryan, which is a busy expressway in Chicago and 7am is rush and if you aren't paying attention you will end up on the expressway (and I did one day). Anyway, 5 days a week to me never sounded flexible especially for those hours.