View Full Version : NEW YORK NEW YORK!!!!
Optimist
04-09-2004, 12:17 PM
.BTW, along the same lines - Don't the plaintiffs understand the FULL ramifications of
what their "Victory" will mean for themselves; their
fellow dancers ( and auxiliary personnel ) and the
business as a whole. It's probable that for the vast majority of dancer's this just isn't such a big tragedy. Check www.stripperweb.com/forum/index/. On the 'How much money is typical' thread it says: 10% will make 1,000, 20% will make up to $700, and 70% will make up to $300. Most dancers don't have to lose sleep 'worrying' afterall. Also, of the 70% probably 50% don't remain in dancing but go on to other things because they didn't make money or they didn't like the gig. This is really an elite problem. The IRS wants to go after big clubs and 'big time' dancers not the few hundred gypsies. Even if they did, the back taxes would be small compared with the gains of thousands of workers: the dancers, waitresses, the house mom, the makeup artists, and even DJ's who get f'ed out of pay because they're our employees. Everyone stands to gain because the greatest abuses are at the clubs that can afford it. A club that can't afford to pay it's people is run by idiots. It wouldn't surprise me if these plaintiffs do know the implications and want to leave behind a better workplace than they had. I'm glad they've stood up for themselves. Maybe the adversarial relationship between management and employee will improve and we can work together to rescucitate our industry. There are plenty of strip club lovers and we need to lure them back not present them with a staff of angry abused workers.
Melonie
04-10-2004, 04:34 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if these plaintiffs do know the implications and want to leave behind a better workplace than they had. I'm glad they've stood up for themselves. Maybe the adversarial relationship between management and employee will improve and we can work together to rescucitate our industry.
This might be true in theory but IMHO it would be far from true in practice. Consider for a minute the real implications of dancers being treated as 'employees', and what greedy clubowners could do if they chose to.
#1 - rigid dancer scheduling with a maximum of 3 nights (= 24 hours) per week of full shifts per dancer. This would certainly not be good for girls who are students and who have to schedule their dancing around their classes.
#2 - abolishing stage fees (which would be illegal for employees) in favor of a 50% split of all private dance and champagne room money. This might be good for low earning dancers, but not good for higher earning ones.
#3 - institution of tip sharing systems (possible with lots of restaurant precedents) which would be good for low earning dancers but not so good for higher earning ones.
#4 - scheduling priority based on seniority rather than popularity (lots of employee precedent on this one as well), which would be great for low earning dancers but not so great for higher earning ones who have just come to the club.
There are many other possibilities but I won't bore you. My point here is that a girl who is a travelling dancer, and who is stunning, and who is a high earner, comes to a club which treats their dancers as employees, she's going to have to hand over 50% of whatever she earns (rather than say $100 or $200 stage fee). She's going to have to take whatever shifts are open in the schedule (which will probably not be the most lucrative night and weekend shifts). She may have to put all of her tips into a 'can' and get maybe half of that money back at the end of the night when the tip money is divided evenly between all of the dancers working. She also risks not being able to deduct the cost of her travel and accomodation expenses to come and work at this club, since employee business expenses do not allow deductions for travel and accomodation.
Guaranteed that once this top notch travelling dancer discovers the effects of being treated as an employee, she will not come back to this club. Nor will other girls like her. Eventually this will change the club from a super-upscale show club into just another neighborhood club offering average looking local dancers (who will be the only girls that can afford to keep working there).
Yes this would be a good thing for average looking local dancers in particular since employee treatment would essentially drive out the 'competition'. However, IMHO this is not good for the strip club industry in general because it will force top notch dancers to work elsewhere. As top notch dancers leave for other clubs (or other cities), so will high rolling customers. This will severely reduce club income as well as income potential for the remaining average dancers.
Before Lace Times Square was sold to the Lace/Stiletto?GGR chain it was independently operated under the name Runway 69. They had the very same problem with the DOL and IRS, and were forced to enter into a "voluntary settlement agreement" where they agreed to treat their dancers as employees. As a result, the top notch stunning dancers working there quickly left, and the remaining girls working there (who couldn't easily get hired by other clubs) saw their incomes drop like a stone as the high rolling customers left as well. Soon after that they resorted to a very high sleaze factor in an effort to restore income levels (since 'extras' money didn't have to be reported to the club so dancers could keep 100% of what they earned from providing 'extras'). Soon after that the club started drawing lots of attention from NY's Finest, and wound up being sold.
Melonie
04-10-2004, 05:00 AM
On the 'How much money is typical' thread it says: 10% will make 1,000, 20% will make up to $700, and 70% will make up to $300. Most dancers don't have to lose sleep 'worrying' afterall.
Those numbers may apply nationwide, but I would argue that they do NOT apply in a specific high priced small geographic area like NYC. But even if the figure in question was $300 a night, that's $1500 a week or $75,000 a year for a full time dancer. Just for the sake of argument say that such dancers reported and paid taxes on 2/3 of this amount or $50,000. The combined federal, state, and city income tax rate on earnings above $50,000 in NY is in the ballpark of 40%. So if the IRS did discover through its investigations or project through IRS agent monitoring of the club that dancer X earned $25,000 more than she reported, over the course of 3 years this would amount to a back tax bill of $25,000 * 3 * 40% = $30,000 ... due and payable immediately ! An unexpected bill for $30,000, with the threat of having bank accounts and assets frozen unless it is paid, would definitely cause me to lose a little sleep !
However, since the area in question IS NYC and the clubs in question ARE fairly upscale, I would argue that the potential amounts of money involved could be MUCH higher - likely double the amounts in the above example with potential $60,000 back tax bills for dancers working in the upscale clubs (actually they don't need to earn double to owe double, since the tax rate percentages are progressive with rising total income).
This would mean that by investigating just one club with just 100 dancers, the IRS, state and city tax people would stand to recover something like 6 Million Bucks in additional tax money ! And that's without counting any additional tax money they may be able to pry out of the clubowners ! That kind of 'easy pickings' can justify lots of investigation !
The_Kid
04-10-2004, 02:43 PM
Melonie- thanks again for an excellent explanation of what is going on.
Optimist- with all due respect, your post of 4/9 was
breathtakingly naive; short-sided and even has a
tinge of the quasi- Marxist twaddle that from time to time gets tossed at high-earning dancers in high-
earning areas like NYC.
You call this an "elite problem"! ? ! ? How proletarian
of you. First of all we live in a capitalist society where,
ideally, the only limits on someone's ability to earn
are the extent and demand for their talents & abilities.
Some of you gals were fortunate enough to have good
genes. Others have gone as far as diet, exercise &
plastic surgery will take them.Others are content to just
do the best they can with what they got & are
apparently content to take home $300 a night from
their regular local "tit and a beer" joint. That's fine.
Not everybody's ambitious. Not everybody maximizes
their gifts and opportunities to their full extent - sometimes it's personal choice; sometimes they're
just victims of circumstances AND sometimes they are
just plain lazy.
The same goes for club-owners- Some try to max out
& have the best club possible ( obviously taking on
the best available dancers to help them do so ) and
some are content with their local roadhouse with the
proverbial "warm beer, lousy food & ugly dancers".
In addition to what Melonie has stated so well and
which you'd be well advised to re-read- the problem
could easily become EVERYONE's problem. A lot of
states are having SERIOUS budget crises right now.
Do you see seriously think that this "problem" is
going to be limited to high earning dancers in NYC????
Or just the big-name clubs???? That's why I said your
post was both shortsighted AND naive.
If all the better clubs in the better locales are forced
into compliance it will be as Melonie has said. That means you dancers will have three ( and only 3 choices)
Go along with being an "employee"; stop dancing or
go "underground".
nutmaniac
04-10-2004, 09:30 PM
Girls, if you want to make money go to Flashdancers. You just have to be able to handle the scajual
Optimist
04-12-2004, 01:14 PM
Optimist- with all due respect, your post of 4/9 was
breathtakingly naive; short-sided and even has a
tinge of the quasi- Marxist twaddle that from time to time gets tossed at high-earning dancers in high-
earning areas like NYC.
You call this an "elite problem"! ? ! ? How proletarian
of you. First of all we live in a capitalist society where,
ideally, the only limits on someone's ability to earn
are the extent and demand for their talents & abilities.
In addition to what Melonie has stated so well and
which you'd be well advised to re-read- the problem
could easily become EVERYONE's problem. A lot of
states are having SERIOUS budget crises right now.
Do you see seriously think that this "problem" is
going to be limited to high earning dancers in NYC????
Or just the big-name clubs???? That's why I said your
post was both shortsighted AND naive.
If all the better clubs in the better locales are forced
into compliance it will be as Melonie has said. That means you dancers will have three ( and only 3 choices)
Go along with being an "employee"; stop dancing or
go "underground".
Your post was not respectful but condescending. As a matter of fact, I am a member of the proletariat. I'm a proud working-class woman as are most of the women on this site. Maybe you weren't aware but I have a right to join this discussion whether you agree with my point of view or not. You are naive. We live in a capitalist society that has little caring for your ideals. A worker's ability to earn is affected by prevailing business practices. A business takes as much advantage of a shady moneymaking situation as it can until it is stopped. I don't have to re-read Melonie's post. I am well aware that states are operating on shoestring budgets. You should re-read my post. I said that although governments need cash, they are not going to allocate the resources necessary to run down small-time tax cheats. They want the big cheats. Most dancers do not work full time and most do not continue to dance more than two or three years so there is no fifteen-twenty year tally of fines headed their way. Most don't leave a juicy enough trail of purchases to interest the government. I said this problem is limited to high earners, regardless of their location. Melonie's nightmare scenario will not happen because club owners are not part of an evil conspiracy. They won't all adopt her ideas any more than they do now.
Melonie
04-13-2004, 09:13 AM
Melonie's nightmare scenario will not happen because club owners are not part of an evil conspiracy. They won't all adopt her ideas any more than they do now.
Actually, I hope that you are correct about this. I agree with you wholeheartedly that, lacking a specific reason to do so, the IRS and state/city tax agencies probably do have "bigger fish to fry" than strip clubs and dancers.
However, you are glossing over the point that the VIP lawsuit brought by former dancers against the owners of a group of clubs in the NY/NJ area will FORCE the Dep't of Labor to begin investigations, if for no other reason than to be able to respond to the lawsuit. Also, you are glossing over the point that there is a new, aggressive councilwoman in NYC who has heavyweight NYC TV news at her disposal (which make their way nationwide via cable and sattelite), and who is attempting to aggressively build a political career by slamming NYC strip clubs the same as former mayor Rudy Giuliani did. This kind of news coverage and political pressure have the ability to attract the attention of the IRS, and especially to attract the attention of NY state and city agencies.
True, the odds of a strip club in Indiana or Ohio or Texas being audited as a result of either the lawsuit or the councilwoman's press coverage is probably just as low this year as it was last year. However, I would definitely say that clubs in the NY/NJ area cannot safely make the same assumption.
Once a club is investigated, the owners then face 3 choices. #1 - take the rap 100%, pay up and/or spend a while at Club Fed. #2 - hire very good, very expensive lawyers and fight the charges, appeal after appeal. #3 - accept a "voluntary settlement" offering, which eliminates the majority of the potential penalties if the club loses, and which eliminates the majority of the legal expenses if the club eventually wins or loses.
Given that very few clubs are in a position to pony up $100,000+ in high powered legal fees, and given that very few clubowners desire a Federally financed vacation for a number of months or years, the "voluntary settlement" option can be very attractive.
But with the "voluntary settlement" option also comes whatever changes in club/dancer treatment under Labor Law and Tax Codes that the powers that be wish to stipulate !
The_Kid
04-13-2004, 11:20 AM
Thank YOU Melonie!- Nobody says it better!
OPTIMIST-Please do not confuse disagreement and
legitimate critique with disrespect or condescension.
BTW- your Marxist leanings ( or sympathies ) are IMO
evident from some of what you have to say AND more
importantly, how you say it.
1. YOU are the one who referred to this as an "elite
problem" arguing that it will somehow ( magically?) be
limited to the top-earning clubs and top-earning
dancers.
2. YOU are the one who assumed altruistic motivation
for the Plaintiffs in the VIP suit ASSUMING that they
WERE aware of ALL the possible ramifications of what
might happen if they won AND that their primary
motivation was to improve the "strip - biz". I would
argue the converse- that they do NOT have any
appreciation for the ramifications and couldn't give a
damn about anyone else so long as they got theirs.
BTW- I researched the possible liability of the NEW
owners for the resposibilities of the OLD- unless they
AGREED in writing to assume the debts and liabilies
of the former owners as part of the sale- they have
NONE; ZERO; ZIP; NADA! And unless they were total
idiots there was no such agreement on their part as
they simply bought the assets of VIP.
3. The business practices prevalent in the adult
entertainment industry certainly do have an effect
on a dancer's ability to earn $ BUT it is NOT the
overwhelming chokehold that you portray. If a dancer
does not like the working conditions at a particular club she is free to leave and work somewhere else. If
she doesn't like kicking up 1/3 to 1/2 of everything she makes to the club she can go elsewhere.To read only
your opinion and commentary could easily lead an uneducated reader to think that the strip clubs of
today are Dickensian "workhouses" populated by
street urchin dancers dressed in rags and fighting
each other for scraps. In fact, dancers are free to do
what they can to maximize their opportunities to earn
and work where they find the conditions to be most
favorable for them. Sometimes this might involve
leaving an unsatisfactory club or even re-locating to another city.Certainly, there are a few dancers for whom these are not viable options.They either have
to "go along to get along" or do something besides dancing. Just like the assembly line workers who
don't like the GM mgt. and feel exploited putting in
their 8 hrs. every day. They can either learn to like it
or move on. It's called living in the "Real World";at
least until the Marxists take over and make everybody
poor.
4. The IRS and other Tax agencies WILL go after a few
"small time tax cheats"- VERY openly and VERY publicly
to create examples that will "encourage others" to
be voluntarily compliant.
wheelz5656
04-21-2004, 11:46 AM
Hey Tori, So far the info has been correct the summer does slow down.But you will still make decent money. Try the Hustler club on the west side, it's a fun atmosphere and not the major scam alot of other clubs have. Plus theres no house fee, (at least right now) becareful in Nyc clubs charge anywhere from 120-300 a night in tip outs, if ya want some info on Hustler email me and I'd be happy to help ya :)
[email protected] good luck