View Full Version : Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Melonie
08-24-2005, 01:30 PM
No I mean a newspaper articles not pay stubs!
Sorry, we're talking about the mid-90's, in the days before newspapers maintained online archives of old stories. But I will dig through my own records and find an old pay stub if you insist on your TigerLilly-esque refusal to acknowledge a fact which doesn't 'help' your case without hard documentary proof of that fact.
Bridgette
08-24-2005, 04:20 PM
Did you ever see the movie Show Girls? How much do you think the house strippers make in the Vegas shows. They are dancers and are “house” dancers in that they dance there on a regular basis! Especially the stars of the show I bet they probably get $1000’s of dollars and hour.
You know I’ll have to look into that and get back to you !
You must be talking about Vegas Showgirls.
Vegas Showgirls make 1000s of dollars per hour??? LMFAO!!!
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
OMG girl, you've just proven exactly how far in the clouds your head is. Please tell me you don't really think showgirls get paid that kind of money? At least not from the casinos they work for - perhaps they get 1000s from their private clients if they choose to do some after hours work...
Vegas showgirls get about $1k per WEEK. For all those long demanding hours of practice and showtime.
No thanks. I'd rather continue being a IC stripper making MORE money for LESS work!
Femmes Fatales
08-24-2005, 08:13 PM
Dj Captain Rob You say rights are being taken away?? Name them.
Peep show pimps: page 1 of 3
Peep show pimps
By Kerwin Brook
San Francisco strip clubs may be pushing dancers into prostitution.
LISA STOCK BEGAN working as an exotic dancer at the Market Street Cinema strip club in March 1996. The following month, she was transferred to the Century Theater on Larkin Street. The club required each dancer to turn over a $125 "commission" (later raised to $150) from her tips after each shift, and Stock sometimes found it difficult to earn even that daily minimum, much less make any money for herself. She soon discovered that other dancers were making their quotas by doing "extras" -- sexual favors for customers.
According to a lawsuit Stock filed against the club in August 1997, when Stock complained about the situation to club manager Mike Sohbi, he yelled at her, saying: "I don't care what you have to do. Jerk them off. Make your money. As long as you make your quota." In another incident described in the lawsuit, Stock protested to Sohbi that customers were touching her breasts and crotch without her consent. Sohbi allegedly refused to take any action, telling her: "Let them. That's what they pay for."
Stock says the incidents caused her emotional stress, panic attacks, and depression. She quit her job at the club in February 1997. In August she filed suit against Sohbi and Bijou Group Inc., which owns the Market Street Cinema and the Century Theater.
The suit charges the club's owners and management with sexual harassment, infliction of emotional distress, and state labor code violations. The case is pending in San Francisco Superior Court; no trial date has been set.
Sohbi declined to be interviewed for this story, but in a response filed with the court Nov. 14, Bijou Group lawyers state that Sohbi's comment "I don't care what you have to do" shows that he was not encouraging them to break the law, but that he was "concerned about plaintiff meeting her quota, and did not instruct her to perform sexual acts."
Stock is one of many San Francisco exotic dancers who say they feel pressured to perform illegal acts at work. The issue has drawn attention from several local and state agencies, including the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, the California State Labor Commission, and the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, which has been investigating the Market Street Cinema and other strip clubs since last May.
But none of those agencies has taken action against the clubs, and dancers at the Market Street Cinema and the Century Theater still have to turn over $150 to the club every time they work. "The policy is that if we don't come up with the money, for whatever reason, then we get fired," Carla, a dancer at the Cinema, told us. (All dancers' names, except Stock's, have been changed at their request.) "Girls get desperate, so they're pulling tricks. It's right out in the open."
Carla says the prostitution that goes on in the club has a direct impact on her work. "Whenever my customers see there's a girl doing a blow job or something, they want it, and I have to explain why they can't," she told us. (Stock's suit alleges that she heard other dancers discussing "performing sexual acts, including ... oral sex ... with the customers.")
Janet, another Market Street Cinema dancer, tells a similar story: "The business really changed a lot when the quota came in. A lot of people have dropped their standards because they've got to make money." Janet says the increased competition between dancers has also caused the price of dances to fall to half its level of just one year ago. "It's really made it difficult for us to make money and not cross the lines," she told us. "I try to keep my standards the best that I can. That's all I can do."
According to Carla and Janet, many of the dancers at the Cinema are performing illegal acts, risking arrest and making it more difficult for others to earn money without turning tricks. But while they say competition between dancers is the direct cause of declining prices and increasing sexual activity, Carla and Janet -- and Stock's lawsuit -- blame management for the situation.
"A lot of girls feel pressured into it," Carla says. "They do it to make sure that they can make their quota."
"The lines wouldn't be crossed if there weren't such a large fee to pay," Janet says. "The club owners have allowed the girls to do things that we never did before so that we could give them larger amounts of money."
In her suit Stock makes the same claim: that the club "allow[ed] other dancers to perform sexual services upon customers, thereby preventing [Stock] from obtaining tips in a legal manner."
The dancers we interviewed went out of their way to stress that they do not oppose prostitution -- just the economic coercion that goes along with the commission system in the clubs. Members of the Exotic Dancers' Alliance, which works to improve conditions for dancers, argue that decriminalizing prostitution would actually help dancers.
"Decriminalization would impact the owners' ability to engage in these types of unfair labor practices," Johanna Breyer, an EDA cofounder, told us. "Right now people are afraid to speak out because what they're doing is illegal, so there's no protection. Hardly anyone even talks about it with each other because they don't want to be marked. Also, with the police busting the workers on the street, a lot of [longtime prostitutes] will go into those clubs where it's easy to just walk in and get a job. That's complicating matters a lot."
The EDA hopes to encourage women not to use club premises for prostitution. "Prostitution within the clubs puts economic pressure on other women," Breyer says. "Customers sometimes even get angry and abusive when another dancer won't put out."
Femmes Fatales
08-24-2005, 08:15 PM
Dj Captain Rob You say rights are being taken away?? Name them.
Peep show pimps: page 2 of 3
Pay your way
Dancers at the Market Street Cinema once worked under a straightforward system: Dancers kept their tips, while the club took in cash from customers at the door. In March 1992 the club introduced "stage fees" of $10 a shift; the fees were raised to $20 early the next year. In May 1993, Market Street dancers Breyer and Dawn Passar called the first meeting of the Exotic Dancers' Alliance; more than 30 dancers attended. (Breyer and Passar no longer work as dancers.)
In July 1993 the EDA filed a complaint about the Market Street Cinema's stage fees with the California State Labor Commission, arguing that it was illegal to charge employees for the right to work. After a two-and-a-half-year legal struggle (during which the stage fees were raised to $25), the commission upheld the dancers' complaint.
The victory was short-lived. The EDA had hoped the rulings would lead to a system by which dancers would keep their tips and collect minimum wage. Instead, club management introduced a new system that enabled
the club to keep even more of the dancers' tips.
According to the EDA, the club owners insisted that the dancers' performances were the property of the club -- a stipulation that allowed management to charge a hefty commission on each dance "sold." Dancers were thus officially required to turn over 60 percent of their tips. Since the club had no way to keep track of the "sales" of dances, management introduced a daily minimum of $200 in "commission earnings" that had to be turned over at the end of each shift. By asserting ownership of the dancers' performances, in other words, the Cinema was able to rename stage fees "commissions" -- and raise them to eight times their previous level.
In January 1997, shifts were lengthened from five hours to eight and the fee was raised again, to $250, before it fell to its current level, $150 a shift. Most of the Market Street Cinema's dancers went to work at other clubs, but the difficulties followed them as other clubs adopted similar commission policies.
Other changes at the Market Street Cinema followed. When dancers had performed only on a single main stage, management built small, secluded areas for greater dancer-patron interaction. According to EDA members, managers repeatedly told dancers: "We won't be watching you. Do whatever you have to do to make your quota." (In her suit Stock claims Sohbi told her much the same thing; she says he told her, "I don't care what you have to do ... as long as you make your money.") With the dancers worried about making their daily minimums, Breyer says, and Stock's complaint alleges, sexual contact became increasingly standard practice.
Meanwhile, the San Francisco Police Department has stepped up enforcement of prostitution laws on the streets, pushing street workers directly into the newly "unfettered" clubs. Faced with competition from longtime prostitutes and other dancers, and forced to meet the clubs' minimums, many of the dancers who remain feel compelled to "put out" or lose their jobs.
Many dancers have left the industry. Others have made compromises in order to stay. "Some of the dancers have children, or a drug addiction is definitely going to keep you there," Carla says. "But for most of us it's girls who have been strippers for years and years and didn't expect these changes. They just feel trapped. That's definitely my story. I just don't know what else to do, I'm a stripper."
Janet tells much the same story. "I haven't got many other options," she says. "It's the type of job where you could work a lot less than 40 hours a week, have time for your kids, and have time for another career that you're working on. Those are the ideal things about the job -- you make enough money to survive.... It's hard money, but I do make it."
Though dancers' earnings vary greatly, a dancer working at Market Street before the quota system was introduced might have taken home $100 to $300 a night, veteran strippers say. According to EDA members, a dancer working there today might find herself struggling to meet the daily minimum two out of five nights unless she offers illegal services.
Even on a good night, a dancer who refuses to engage in prostitution would have a hard time earning more than $100 after paying off the club. On a slow night, dancers have no choice but to pay a portion of the fee out of their own pockets, hoping to recoup their losses the next day.
Private dancers
A number of other clubs have also introduced secluded areas and private rooms. Dancers allege that with them has often come illegal sexual contact. Stage fees and commission systems have also spread.
According to the EDA, dancers at the four San Francisco clubs owned by Déjà Vu Inc. -- Centerfolds, Casbah, the Garden of Eden, and the Roaring 20s -- pay a 50 percent commission on all their dances and are subject to fines for infractions such as lateness. In an apparent attempt to undersell the competition, Déjà Vu has also posted signs imposing a $20 price ceiling on nude lap dances. With "two-for-one" days and the club's commission, a dancer now keeps $10 for a performance that would have brought $100 to $120 just a year ago.
Several Déjà Vu clubs have also introduced small cushioned beds in their theme rooms; Centerfolds features a circular bed that's more than six feet across. The club's Web page advertises "bed dances," urging customers to "let your favorite showgirl take you to bed."
Déjà Vu officials did not respond to repeated interview requests.
At the O'Farrell Theater, dancers continue to pay a $30 stage fee to an outside booking agency, the Dancers' Guild International, for each evening's work. A 1994 court case filed by a group of dancers against the O'Farrell alleges that the club is in violation of the Labor Commission's ruling against such fees; the case is still in litigation.
The situation at the O'Farrell is complex. Dancers are able to earn more than at other clubs, and some have successfully adapted to the new working conditions. Some dancers support the stage fees, mainly because they fear the introduction of a commission system.
Theresa, a former dancer at the O'Farrell, worked at the club for more than three years before she began to encounter difficulties. "I could not make any money. It was a very gradual thing, but eventually I could not afford [to work without performing sexual acts for customers]. If customers can get a blow job, who's going to want to see a dildo show?"
Nancy Clarence, attorney for the O'Farrell Theater, which is owned by the Cinema 7 corporation, said stories of prostitution at the theater were untrue. "You can't believe everything you hear," she told the Bay Guardian. "This is one of the most well-spun tales, [and it comes from] dancers who have a bone to pick with the house."
Jeff Armstrong, an administrator with the O'Farrell, also denied that prostitution was happening in the club. "We're not in that business," he said. "The girls are independent contractors, and we make sure that they know the laws. The laws are posted everywhere."
At the O'Farrell, management has installed several cushioned lounges in private rooms. One newspaper ad for the club proclaims, "Dive right into our SEX CENTRAL -- forbidden fulfillment everytime in a VIP Dance Parlor!" The theater's Web page further invites customers to take advantage of the club's private spaces: "What you do on your side of the curtain is your little secret."
ccntinued
Femmes Fatales
08-24-2005, 08:22 PM
Dj Captain Rob You say rights are being taken away?? Name them.
Peep show pimps page 3 0f 3
Blind justice
Allegations of prostitution in San Francisco's adult theaters have been raising public concern since the late '70s. Many of the key players in the current drama have been around since then. In 1977 three North Beach "nude encounter studios" were forced to close after it was alleged that patrons were being lured with promises of sex that were never fulfilled. The owner of the clubs, Sam Conti, was arrested and charged with two felony counts of conspiring to cheat and defraud customers.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Conti settled the case by agreeing to close the studios and to never again own a strip club in San Francisco. According to District Attorney Terence Hallinan, Conti now owns 50 percent of Bijou, which owns the Market Street Cinema and the Century Theater.
Neither the District Attorney's Office nor the City Attorney's Office could tell us whether that injunction was still in effect, or whether Conti is violating it by having a stake in the Market Street Cinema and the Century Theater. "Even if it was in our records, it might have been destroyed already," a spokesperson for the City Attorney's Office told us. Conti did not return phone calls requesting comment for this story.
One person who can't plead ignorance is Willie Brown, who was Conti's attorney at the time. The EDA met with the mayor in April 1997 to discuss the dancers' plight. Breyer says Brown gave the EDA a sympathetic hearing and helped coordinate city and state agencies working on the case, but never passed on information regarding Conti's agreement to the D.A.'s Office. Brown's office did not return phone calls regarding this story.
In response to the Conti case, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in 1977 barring private rooms such as those that exist in most San Francisco strip clubs today. The ordinance is still valid: Section 1072.28 of the city's police code prohibits private booths or rooms of which "the entire interior portion ... is not visible from the exterior." But the ban was not enforced for long. By 1985 private rooms had returned to a number of clubs.
According to EDA cofounders Passar and Breyer, that isn't surprising. Government agencies, they say, often fail to give sex-industry workers the same respect or protection as other workers. In 1992, for example, Passar and Breyer filed sexual harassment charges against Bijou manager Sohbi, claiming he had verbally and physically harassed them on numerous occasions. After the complaint had been pending for nearly a year, according to Passar, an investigator from the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing attempted to persuade them to drop their case.
"He told us our case wasn't that strong," Passar told the Bay Guardian. "He went to the theater to investigate and talked with the managers and with four dancers. He asked the four dancers -- in front of the managers -- whether these managers had ever harassed them, and they said no. He also told one of our witnesses: 'Well, what do these women expect? They're walking around in their underwear.' " (The investigator has since left the agency; a spokesperson for the DFEH could not be reached for comment by press time.) Passar and Breyer's case will soon go to a mediator at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The Department of Fair Housing and Employment is not the only agency from which dancers say they have encountered prejudice. EDA members say they have long attempted to persuade the Labor Commission to conduct an audit of club practices. The EDA hopes to have the Labor Commission rule against the commission system, arguing that so-called commissions exist in name only. "Dancers are bringing in cash to pay the fees themselves," Breyer said. "Does that sound like a commission?"
The agency must initiate an audit, Breyer says; dancers won't come forward for fear of losing their jobs. "We basically wouldn't be dealing with the prostitution if the Labor Commission had taken a stand and done an audit," she told us.
Jose Millan, the state labor commissioner, said he would need to hear more complaints before he would investigate the theaters. "Very few women have stepped forward," he told the Bay Guardian. "I don't care if it's a confidential or even anonymous complaint, but I need a complaint."
Millan says he will place the clubs in his Targeted Industry Partnership program so that complaints will be handled by a special task force that currently keeps an eye on labor violations in the garment and agricultural industries.
Millan says the commission system appears to be legal, although if dancers are regularly forced to pay from their own pockets the clubs may be violating the law. "Here again, we have to act on specific complaints, not just allegations: 'This is what happened during this pay period, when the quota system was placed so high that the minimum wages that I earned are being taken back by this employer,' " he told us. He said the Labor Commission would offer dancers a free educational workshop Feb. 8 to explain their legal rights as workers.
Slow going
The lack of attention paid to dancers' claims has had a significant impact. "It sets a strong precedent that you can be a pimp in the city and county of San Francisco and totally get away with it," Breyer says. "You can pimp out your workers, you can force them into prostitution, you can take all of their money."
The EDA hopes to convince the San Francisco Human Rights Commission to take a proactive role in monitoring the clubs. The EDA has also been talking with the Mayor's Office, the San Francisco Police Department, and the District Attorney's Office. The group is concerned that the police may at any time decide to arrest the women who are prostituting, a threat only heightened by the publication of this article.
"It is a risk," Breyer said. "But I feel like the police have had the opportunity to go in this entire time, and they haven't. Publicizing what's going on definitely pushes the issue, but at this point things are so bad that we feel we have to do that."
Acting lieutenant Ron Kern, commanding officer of the SFPD vice squad, told the Bay Guardian that he doesn't plan to target the dancers. "It's a real challenge to try to get the big guy as opposed to the girls -- they are the real victims in the whole situation," he said. "If I were doing the investigation, I would be going after the management."
But Kern is not investigating the case; nor is anyone else in the police department. In May 1997 the investigation was officially transferred to the office of the district attorney's special prosecutor.
"The police don't go into the clubs," District Attorney Hallinan said."We end up depending on what the women tell us." But waiting for dancers to approach the District Attorney's Office, particularly when they may be engaged in illegal activities, has not proved effective. "They're afraid they'll be blacklisted, afraid there will be recriminations against them." Hallinan acknowledges the situation gives club owners a relatively free hand. "Right now the clubs are pretty unregulated," he told us.
John Shanley, spokesperson for the D.A.'s Office, told us that if club owners knew dancers were performing sex acts for tips, they could be charged with pandering. "If [a club owner] was pimping and getting money on it, he could be brought up on charges," Shanley said. "But it can be very difficult to prove knowledge."
Members of the EDA say the D.A.'s special prosecutor, Debra Hayes, has not pursued the case aggressively enough. Breyer, for one, says Hayes has done little to actively seek declarations from dancers.
For her part, Hayes says she is willing to try anything to get dancers to step forward, even confidentially: "I realize it feels like a crawl, but I can't file a case I know I can't win. I need the information."
Officer Lea Militello, who is acting as a liaison between the dancers and the police department, supports Hayes's work on the case. "The D.A.'s Office has done a lot around this," she told us. "You reach a level of frustration because you need more substance."
Whatever Hayes's responsibility, it is clear that the investigation has been slowgoing. A handful of signed statements are all she has to show for the investigation's first year.
Greater oversight
Thanks to the work of the EDA, government agencies are slowly starting to address the problem. The Human Rights Commission is considering establishing a board to monitor adult theaters and will hear an update from its employment committee on the matter Feb. 5.
Still, for the dancers, hope sometimes seems out of reach. Janet expressed her unease during our interview. "I'm a little bit leery about this whole article because I don't think anybody's out there to help us, and it could possibly hurt us," she said. "Nobody's out there who's going to jump into this situation and say 'OK, we're going to make a difference.' ... People don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of whores."
Janet says she knows too many women who have lost their jobs for criticizing management. Some of the dancers at Market Street seemed visibly afraid of this possibility, glancing around nervously when I told them I was a reporter. "Does anyone else know you're here?" one woman asked. She took my card, but she never called.
With a proposal in front of the Human Rights Commission and hopes for greater enforcement efforts, Breyer is slightly more optimistic. "Sex workers deserve the same legal protection as anyone else," she said. "We want to see the places remain in business, but we want them to operate within the law.... Sex workers have suffered through persecution, through prosecution, through rampant exploitation, and I feel that it should no longer be tolerated. I just feel like it's time."
stant
08-25-2005, 02:43 AM
Excellent post :) Omg someone agrees with me. California....well it might break off into the ocean someday, i guess that would solve that problem..lol :P
More likely you'll be replaced by a jukebox.
A friend of mine from Boston told me tonight that his mother has never come to visit her grandchildren in California because, according to her "California is for young people. No... no... I couldn't."
We're insane and infected with homosexual and communist viruses. Do not come here, please.
stant
08-25-2005, 03:15 AM
No I mean a newspaper articles not pay stubs!:)
Regarding the class action referenced by this thread...
Newpaper articles are weak second hand sources of information at best. The written posts of members on this site (many confirmable workers in this industry) are a better source of both general and specific information (particularly working conditions) pertaining to any particular lub, such as this one.
The best source would be links to publically available Court documents. The courthouse will house tens of thousands of pages of these, and some may be online. Many of these will contain a considerable amount of sworn documents and testimony, although not yet admitted evidence for trial. You've posted a link to only one page. The remaining second hand information is either unrelated to this case or much weaker than what you can learn from sw members about the industry.
Pay stubs, by the way would be damn good evidence to show a person worked somewhere and has first hand information, but Melanie hardly needs to post them. She may listen to too much Rush Limbaugh, but she's no stripper-poser like the dearly departed RoseDelight.
I was hoping your site would have links to court documents such as are frequent on www.thesmokinggun.com (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/) My personal favorite from that site was the complete transcript of Kobe Bryant's secretly taped "interview" by two very clever detectives as he showed them around his hotel room. A TSG classic.
Bridgette
08-25-2005, 10:21 AM
Newspaper articles are full of little tidbits presented in a way that makes it entertaining to a targeted readers in hopes of ......*gasp*.....selling papers. Surely FF can see how they wouldn't be very reliable as real sources of accurate information.
Femmes Fatales
08-25-2005, 02:19 PM
Newspaper articles are full of little tidbits presented in a way that makes it entertaining to a targeted readers in hopes of ......*gasp*.....selling papers. Surely FF can see how they wouldn't be very reliable as real sources of accurate information.
Your so funny this was in a free newspaper the San francisco Bay Gaurdian!:P
doc-catfish
08-25-2005, 02:31 PM
Since were talking about aritcles...
Strangely enough, there is a 2 page article in the September issue of Playboy (forum section) regarding this very subject. Might be worth a read if you have a copy handy, or a perhaps a letter to the editor.
:writing:
Bridgette
08-25-2005, 03:24 PM
Free rags like to keep their articles interesting to targeted readers in hopes of keeping circulation up, in order to........*gasp*.........keep selling ADS. Either way it's the same thing.
luvbuniz
08-25-2005, 04:33 PM
Strippers are not in the business for the long haul. We're in it for the quick buck - to get as much as we can while we can. This in itself leads most of us to prefer IC over employee status, and to lack interest in unionizing or organizing time-consuming lawsuits. We're usually too busy making money... Except some girls in CA, I guess. But then CA is called the land of fruits and nuts.
;D
Totally agree.
There are just too many disadvantages to having an employee system. I work the Gold Club btw and most of the girls there like the IC system.
Femmes Fatales
08-25-2005, 08:57 PM
Since were talking about aritcles...
Strangely enough, there is a 2 page article in the September issue of Playboy (forum section) regarding this very subject. Might be worth a read if you have a copy handy, or a perhaps a letter to the editor.
:writing:
This is just the beginning! As I have sated before the COSW have informed me that 20/20, 60 minutes and many others are following the story.
Femmes Fatales
08-25-2005, 09:28 PM
"Maximum Sustainable Stage Fee: $800"
We know that the marketplace determines the maximum sustainable stage fee. Yet, in today's growing economy, what is that fee?
I will demonstrate that the maximum sustainable stage fee is actually $800 per night.
Let's jump right into the topic of brothels masquerading as high-class strip clubs. The typical "dancer" (i.e. prostitute) services a minimum of 1000 (not necessarily unique) customers per year. That number translates into 20 customers per week or 4 customers per day. Each sex act garners about $300 for the prostitute. The daily total is about $1200.
Here's a key question. What is the price of a lavish lifestyle that affords possible drug habits (typically, marijuana) and lifelong medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. herpes or HIV)? The minimum price of that lifestyle would be tax-free $100,000.
How can this number be right? Note that a tax-free $100,000 is equivalent to a taxable $170,000. If you earned $170,000 per year, you would live a wonderfully luxurious life. Furthermore, $100,000 represents a $50,000 premium over the high-end annual pay (for the very best dancers) at real stripclubs (i.e. not brothels); at real stripclubs, the high-end annual pay is about $50,000. The premium of $50,000 seems reasonable in light of the risks (i.e. social embarrassment, arrest by the police, chance of catching and spreading HIV) of prostitution.
So, clearly, $100,000 is the cutoff. To achieve an annual take-home pay of $100,000, the prostitute must earn about $400 per day.
There you have it: $1200 - $400 = $800. $800 is the maximum sustainable stage fee that the thugs running the brothel can charge the dancers.
So, given that the current maximum stage fee is $500, there is still room to grow. We can expect the thugs to continue to raise the stage fee until it reaches $800. Beyond that amount, the prostitutes will start to quit and join real stripclubs.
Femmes Fatales
08-25-2005, 09:30 PM
Totally agree.
There are just too many disadvantages to having an employee system. I work the Gold Club btw and most of the girls there like the IC system.Lets get this straight one more time.
The courts have ruled that dancers are "employees", not "independent contractors." Therefore, any club that charges a dancer a stage fee for the right to work is in clear violation of the law.
Believe it or not, some clubs actually follow the law and classify the dancers as employees. Those clubs do not charge a stage fee. Other clubs, ie MBOT, continue the practice of charging a stage fee, knowing all to well that most of the dancers won't have the courage to take legal action. And some dancers aren't even aware of the law.
Hypothetically you can debate all you want about the proper "stage fee" but remember one thing, those stage fees are illegal. And remember one other thing...if the stage fees were eliminated the prices customers pay would be far lower. Have a nice day.
stant
08-26-2005, 06:39 AM
Totally agree.
There are just too many [opinion on merits] to having an employee system. I work the [*****] btw and most of the girls there [have an opinion about] the IC system.
Given this is just your lay opinion on an issue you are most likely unqualified to testify about, I doubt defense counsel will bother to subpoena Pryce's records to seek you as a witness. If they do, have fun at your deposition.
FF is not entirely correct that the desire of the individual never has a bearing on the status of IC vs. employee. I have no idea if it does in this particular case, but ....
Hypothetically you can debate all you want about the proper "stage fee" but remember one thing, those stage fees are illegal.Generally I would agree, however, this sort of conclusory proclamation about a pending case is not helpfull. You don't know the specific facts of this case or legal arguments of the parties, nor the specifics of this Court's decisions leading up to this. The Court will decide what's legal and based on one hell of a lot more information than you seem to have at your disposal.
What fun this case must be for the attorneys. Herding cats must look easy by comparison.
Deogol
08-26-2005, 03:18 PM
There will always be Adult Entertainment Theaters in America. If one dope can’t figure out how to make money some smart guy will legally!
That is what they said about manufacturing.
Suppose dancers get a union and get paid $20 to $100 an hour. Remember guys are there not to see management but dancers. So if management wants to get up there and try to dance for a bunch of horny fat old men let them.
Unions are breaking up and dying. They are for the 70's - not for the 21st century.
Are all your proposals a negative Do you have one positive outcome.
It is going to be porn that wins this one.
If one of these dancers is injured there is no safety net they deserve their American rights.
There is no right to a safety net. Look at the homeless on the street.
That’s what I’m proposing give the girls there rights as American citizens and human beings.
Change is scary compared to bitching about it.
Besides, as Melonie has written, we are dealing with a state and nation that is basically bankrupt it's self. The government is out looking for money where ever it can find it.
Glamazon
08-26-2005, 04:21 PM
Lets get this straight one more time.
The courts have ruled that dancers are "employees", not "independent contractors." Therefore, any club that charges a dancer a stage fee for the right to work is in clear violation of the law.
Believe it or not, some clubs actually follow the law and classify the dancers as employees. Those clubs do not charge a stage fee. Other clubs, ie MBOT, continue the practice of charging a stage fee, knowing all to well that most of the dancers won't have the courage to take legal action. And some dancers aren't even aware of the law.
Hypothetically you can debate all you want about the proper "stage fee" but remember one thing, those stage fees are illegal. And remember one other thing...if the stage fees were eliminated the prices customers pay would be far lower. Have a nice day.
No, let's get this straight. Upon signing an entertainer contract at the DV/SAW clubs, the entertainers are given the option to be an hourly employee or an IC. This way there is no "stage fee" (AKA dance minimum) but there are stricter standards and quotas. Who wants to deal with that? Oh, and we don't pay an actual stage fee, if you have ever worked for the company, you would see that your payout receipt reads "HOUSE DANCE." Stage fees are illegal in CA. There is nothing in my contract that talks about stage fees. Dance minimums are the name of the game.;)
FF, have you ever worked for DV/SAW?
Glamazon
08-26-2005, 05:12 PM
By the way, FemmeFatales, I was in one of my favorite stores a little over a week ago (maybe 2) when either you (I don't know you) or some sympathaizer of yours entered and informed the owner that she was under COURT ORDER to have a supply of information regarding this lawsuit available to her customers. That is disgusting, IMO, to force an independent business owner (who is a former dancer, herself) to have this information posted or even be required to have it available. This may imply, to people that are not aware of the order, that she agrees with this ridiculous scam to extort more money out of the industry and therefore make it harder for those of us remaining in the business. It's so cliche stripper. Really. To milk whoever of as much money as possible regardless of who it hurts. Fan-fucking-tastic.
BTW, I saw you or whoever and your companion a mile away. I didn't even HEAR the conversation, but based on the short visit and the look on this shop owner's face, as well as the stereotypical feminist appearance, I knew what the conversation was about. What you DON'T realize, is that this lawsuit is ANYTHING but feminist. If you and those involved with this lawsuit had your feminist rights (or anyone else's, for that matter) in mind, you would leave well enough alone, because you'd realize that we have excercised our RIGHTS already!! We and you and anyone else have made a concious decision to be in this business and can get out at anytime.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Rather, put the pipe down...
stant
08-26-2005, 06:07 PM
By the way, FemmeFatales, I was in one of my favorite stores a little over a week ago (maybe 2) when either you (I don't know you) or some sympathaizer of yours entered and informed the owner that she was under COURT ORDER to have a supply of information regarding this lawsuit available to her customers. That is disgusting, IMO, to force an independent business owner (who is a former dancer, herself) to have this information posted or even be required to have it available. This may imply, to people that are not aware of the order, that she agrees with this ridiculous scam to extort more money out of the industry and therefore make it harder for those of us remaining in the business. ....
Well I found the case file online... Most of the meaty portions are sealed and anyone involved will be relieved to know that not a single dancer's identity is revealed, apparently not even in the filed and sealed Court documents. Interestingly, a number of dancers have been testifying for the Defendants in critical motion practice that could have been dispositive. (Hasta lawsuit motion --- re: certification of class). Defendants lost this motion.
Glamazon is mostly correct, in that the Court order for the notification of the class was ordered to be distributed at a SF store with coincidentally the initials FF. It is incorrect to surmise that this notification is an endorsement of one of the parties in this case. I can see, however, how someone not used to reading these things might think the notice was a notification of an outcome. In any case, I doubt the notice will have any effect on the outcome.
Most interesting is that the case is already in the process of summary adjudication. Plaintiff's filed opposition to summary judgement papers today. Defendant's reply is due next week. If defendants' case is strong enough to win on legal grounds alone (no facts in dispute), this may be over in a month. I'll put up some links when I get a chance. It's somewhat messy to get to. Both the complaint and answer are available online. Might be interesting to a few here to see how the wheels of justice churn along in a case such as this.
Glamazon
08-26-2005, 08:56 PM
Glamazon is mostly correct, in that the Court order for the notification of the class was ordered to be distributed at a SF store with coincidentally the initials FF. It is incorrect to surmise that this notification is an endorsement of one of the parties in this case. I can see, however, how someone not used to reading these things might think the notice was a notification of an outcome. In any case, I doubt the notice will have any effect on the outcome.
You misunderstood what I meant, stant. Those who were not previously aware of the lawsuit may view the notification being available at the store (yes, it was FF) as the owner of the store having a certain stance on the lawsuit. I don't know exactly what her view on it is, however. I can't speak for her, but personally, I'd be pissed if I were her and I was against the lawsuit for whatever reason. What I'm saying is that patrons may view this in a negative light and may choose not to shop there because they feel she is endorsing a political move (that's what this is, really) that she, in fact, does not. If I had not been there, I would have asked her, when I saw the notification, what her view on the lawsuit was. If I found that the proprieter of a business that I was a regular of was endorsing something that may, in the end, make my life more difficult, it would be a matter of principle for me to no longer patronize that business. I hope I was a little more clear.
stant
08-26-2005, 09:25 PM
You misunderstood what I meant, stant..
I understood you. I just deleted my explanation and forgot to delete "mostly". In retrospect, it was the people you overheard that were mistaken, not you. I didn't want to go into it because it involves an interpretation of the Court's order as it applies to the store owner. Without offering an interpretation, let me leave it that the order states: "Plaintiffs are ordered to...." with respect to displaying the notice at the store.
You should understand, however, that the Court's interest (in general in this type of action, imo) is to inform as many potential Class members as possible of the action because this is an "opt-out" Class, and unless they decide to opt-out, they will be automatically included. Hence, the wider the publication of the notice, the more likely more potential members will opt-out. On the other hand, publication provides an opportunity for members whose current addresses are unknown to both Defendant and Plaintiff, and whose employment records are missing or incomplete, to opt-in. Whether publication at the store increases or decreases Class size is anyones guess. In one of the Court docs I read, the size of the Class is estimated to be 300-700, a surprisingly low number. This is similar to voter registration in that anyone eligible to vote should be informed that they have that opportunity.
One last thing I forgot to mention.... Melanie's favorite -- Plaintiffs are suing for punitive damages. }:D
Melonie
08-27-2005, 02:23 AM
One last thing I forgot to mention.... Melanie's favorite -- Plaintiffs are suing for punitive damages.
Yeah, my favorite all right. Let's see here ... if these girls are lucky, they'll actually be able to collect enough money in punitive damages to pay the INTEREST on the back taxes the IRS and California FTB are likely to hit them up for. Signing on to this lawsuit requires that every girl list her real name, real address and whatever other personal data the defense attorneys request. Signing up for this lawsuit then creates a public record document which basically proves these girls were working as dancers at the club being sued from date x to date y. I can hear the saliva dripping on the floor at the IRS and FTB offices, as auditors patiently wait to get their hands on the court document and feed the dancers' personal info listed in the court filing straight into their tax database !
stant
08-27-2005, 02:37 AM
... on the back taxes the IRS and California FTB are likely to hit them up for. Signing on to this lawsuit requires that every girl list her real name, real address and whatever other personal data the defense attorneys request. Signing up for this lawsuit then creates a public record document which basically proves these girls were working as dancers at the club being sued from date x to date y. I can hear the saliva dripping on the floor at the IRS and FTB offices, as auditors patiently wait to get their hands on the court document and feed the dancers' personal info listed in the court filing straight into their tax database !
Absolutely not true, at least in California. See my response to a parallel thread started by GnBeret. In fact, I've even seen the file here and NO such information is present. NONE. This will not happen in California.
Also, any information that is in the Court file is covered under a protective order, which I also reviewed in the file.
I can understand this concern, but for the numerous reasons I addressed in the other thread, it is unfounded.
This is also not an "opt-in" Class action. It is an "opt-out" Class action. Meaning whatever records are available to either party is the basis for the Class, including all such "real" information as you suggest. "Signing on" to the case has ZERO effect on the record because Class members are "signed on" by default.
California has a Constitutional right to privacy that supercedes these Federal agencies right to fish in sealed Court documents. More than thirty years of case law has created a considerable record that would probably surprise you.
Remember also, in this particular case, this information IS NOT IN THE COURT RECORD, even under seal. This will not and cannot happen. I'd bet the farm on it.
Melonie
08-27-2005, 11:45 AM
Absolutely not true, at least in California. See my response to a parallel thread started by GnBeret. In fact, I've even seen the file here and NO such information is present. NONE. This will not happen in California.
Well then, the lawsuit won't happen either. The defense attorneys have demanded that their defendent has a right to face 'his' accusers, meaning that the dancer 'Stage Names' provided in the text of the original court documents are not going to cut it.
Femmes Fatales
08-27-2005, 11:48 AM
You know all I'm trying to do is help the dancers get back their money.
This money was taken from them illegally and by law are entitled to it back.
I'm sorry some of you resent the fact that some people do not like having their money taken form them.
They are the victims not the bad guys.
Your anger should be directed towards the owners (the law breakers) not the dancers.
Glamazon
08-27-2005, 02:24 PM
You know all I'm trying to do is help the dancers get back their money.
This money was taken from them illegally and by law are entitled to it back.
I'm sorry some of you resent the fact that some people do not like having their money taken form them.
They are the victims not the bad guys.
Your anger should be directed towards the owners (the law breakers) not the dancers.
Money was not "taken" from dancers. There was no theft involved. If there was a law broken, then the owners (previous owners, in this case) should pay. But what about being held accountable for our own choices as adults? How about that? Each and every one of these women had the CHOICE to work elsewhere, to question what and why they were being charged for, and to flat out refuse to pay it. Simple as that.
And you still have not answered MY question: Have you worked for DV/SAW? Have you even ever worked as a dancer? It seems that you have very good intentions, however you also seem to be dealing with an industry in which you have little or no experience or knowledge of. Posting regurgitated information that you are getting from other online sources and/or newspapers doesn't really give you a leg to stand on in your case. Give us something other than opinion, because that's what this issue really boils down to, and then maybe, just maybe someone will stop and listen. How about something truly thought provoking from your side, for once?
Femmes Fatales
08-27-2005, 04:54 PM
Money was not "taken" from dancers. http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b209/White_Rabbit_1979/rofl.gif
There was no theft involved. to question what and why they were being charged for, and to flat out refuse to pay it. Simple as that.
No I say closer to extorsion! Pay or you don't work! Don't pay you fired no job thank you good bye.
If there was a law broken, then the owners (previous owners, in this case) should pay.
But what about being held accountable for our own choices as adults? How about that? Each and every one of these women had the CHOICE to work elsewhere,
Yeah I'm sure they could find a club somewhere that dosen't charge stage fees in San Francisco can you name one?The lusty lady a $.25 peep show booth unuionized run buy dancers and you get an hourly wage. Only thing How are several 100 dancers all going to work there. Not possible?
How do you know who is being sued and who the owners are Glamazon. According to the ABC the Vice president of this corporation different from all the others clubs is also not the same vice president of the other clubs.
You see there are several corporation involved in Deja vu. The attorneys could not sue unless they were involved. these lawsuits have been in the wings for several years.
And you still have not answered MY question: Have you worked for DV/SAW? Have you even ever worked as a dancer? It seems that you have very good intentions, however you also seem to be dealing with an industry in which you have little or no experience or knowledge of.
How long have you been dancing? Are you a dancer? Do you do extras?
Bridgette
08-27-2005, 05:56 PM
IMO, most the strippers who sign on to these lawsuits are those who are past it and didn't have the presence of mind to save money or develop an exit plan, or those who are already out and just want the "free" money. There. I said it.
Now, FF, why not do us the courtesy of at least admitting that you don't really give a rat's ass how badly this affects strippers who remain in the biz AFTER this is over.
Femmes Fatales
08-27-2005, 06:11 PM
IMO, most the strippers who sign on to these lawsuits are those who are past it and didn't have the presence of mind to save money or develop an exit plan, or those who are already out and just want the "free" money. There. I said it.
Now, FF, why not do us the courtesy of at least admitting that you don't really give a rat's ass how badly this affects strippers who remain in the biz AFTER this is over.
But with $20 million I can retire in style!http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b209/White_Rabbit_1979/rofl.gif
What bussiness is it of your how I live my life anyway?http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b209/White_Rabbit_1979/exactly.gif
Katrine
08-27-2005, 06:43 PM
Wow B, you nailed it!
Femmes, remember that there is an SC world outside of San Fran and California. And clubs like MBOT aren't really strip clubs anyway, they are sex clubs. Tying these few types of clubs into all of the SC's in this country is almost apples to oranges.
In most of the clubs I have worked, we pay a reasonable flat fee to work AND keep all of our dance and stage money. Some places don't even allow dancers to tipout other staff.
Now, we all have issues with the housefees and huge tipouts to staff. The industry has drifted that way due to greed. But the financial benefits of IC is worth keeping for those of us with entrepeaurial mindsets who know how to hustle. If a dancer wants to sit on her ass and get paid a flat fee to work, she can go get a job as a damn secretary.
Anyway, the point is moot, we now see what your true colors are, and they have nada to do with justice or rights. You are just as greedy as the club owners. Actually, you are worse, since you will be taking down a number of women with you. As a matter of fact, I still doubt you are either a woman or a dancer.......you exhibit precious little stripper mentality.
Bridgette
08-27-2005, 07:42 PM
The POINT, FF, is that you "ladies" aren't doing this to try and make things better for anyone in the industry. In fact, you don't give a damn if it HURTS the rest of us in the industry or not (and history shows it most definitely WILL). This lawsuit isn't about correcting any unethical, immoral or illegal practices strip club owners and management engage in. You're just in it strictly for the payola. You know damn well this will only make things worse for the girls still in the industry. I don't care how you live your life. I do care that bitches like you ruin the industry for the rest of us because you were too lazy/shortsighted/whatever to plan appropriately for your future.
Or are you really one of the greedy selfish bastard plaintiffs' lawyers on the case? Considering the way you've handled this thread, that makes more sense.
Femmes Fatales
08-27-2005, 10:09 PM
The POINT, FF, is that you "ladies" aren't doing this to try and make things better for anyone in the industry. In fact, you don't give a damn if it HURTS the rest of us in the industry or not (and history shows it most definitely WILL). This lawsuit isn't about correcting any unethical, immoral or illegal practices strip club owners and management engage in. You're just in it strictly for the payola. You know damn well this will only make things worse for the girls still in the industry. I don't care how you live your life. I do care that bitches like you ruin the industry for the rest of us because you were too lazy/shortsighted/whatever to plan appropriately for your future.
Or are you really one of the greedy selfish bastard plaintiffs' lawyers on the case? Considering the way you've handled this thread, that makes more sense.
That’s untrue! We do care! Sorry you can’t understand!
No I’m not a lawyer on the case! I wish because I would soon be very rich!
Bridgette
08-27-2005, 10:40 PM
If you cared you wouldn't be doing what you're doing. Either that or you're incredibly stupid. Plain and simple. There's enough evidence in this thread alone to support either of these assumptions.
I hope the money yall get makes you miserable because the rest of the girls remaining in the industry will be paying for it.
Femmes Fatales
08-27-2005, 11:05 PM
If you cared you wouldn't be doing what you're doing. Either that or you're incredibly stupid. Plain and simple. There's enough evidence in this thread alone to support either of these assumptions.
I hope the money yall get makes you miserable because the rest of the girls remaining in the industry will be paying for it.
If you say so Bridgette!
What I find most interesting is you and your click contol this board proven by the posts in this thread.
However in the real world dancers are fighting to stop stage fees and extras in their clubs.
Sort of like the neo-cons having taken over the government!
stant
08-28-2005, 03:55 AM
Femmes, remember that there is an SC world outside of San Fran and California..
I hope the money yall get makes you miserable because the rest of the girls remaining in the industry will be paying for it.
I wouldn't sweat this one girls. First of all, from what I reviewed in the pleadings available online (and not meant as advice, yada yada yada) the legal theory asserted by Plaintiff in this action to determine employee vs. IC status is based upon that bizarre California statute defining SC entertainers as employees, not IC's. Second, the Class is limited to a particular club, with a specific means of fees and payouts, including coupons, etc. Both of these limit the application of the outcome of this case. Third, this is only at the Superior Court level in California. Case law precedent comes almost exclusively from appellate level and above rulings. I highly doubt that Defendants will appeal a loss, and if they do, add on another two years before an outcome. If this were a Federal Court case covering say, a company's entire chain of SC's, THEN I'd start to be concerned. But even then, I'd wait for another two years or so until the Ninth Circuit ruled on it.
Most of all, it AIN'T OVER. Plaintiff could end up with a big fat doughnut on this one. Believe me, happens all too painfully often. Even is Plaintiff's win IN the courtroom, Defendants may declare bankruptcy (very likely, imo), making ANY recovery an even longer drawn out process. This again happens all too painfully often.
Sit tight, and look up. See, the sky isn't falling.
I hope the money yall get makes you miserableB...seriously, you're talking to strippers and lawyers. This really IS nunneryweb.com!
Well then, the lawsuit won't happen either. The defense attorneys have demanded that their defendent has a right to face 'his' accusers, meaning that the dancer 'Stage Names' provided in the text of the original court documents are not going to cut it.
This is civil, not criminal court. I don't know what "lawsuit" you are referring to, but this one is well under way, and fast approaching an outcome by either summary judgement or trial. The Court has already ruled on issues of confidentiality, a protective order, and sealing the Court file. You may be referring to earlier squabbles on these matters, all of which the Defendants have lost so far. Doesn't mean chit as far as final outcome, however.
But with $20 million I can retire in style!
Further evidence that drugs are in fact rampant in SC's. Save the money you're spending on hallucinagens, and go buy a lotto ticket already.
[edit: I'm kidding of course, FF, but if you seriously want to learn more about this case, go to the SFSC website for electronic court docs:
http://www.sftc.org/ . Follow directions for downloading the e-filing plugin, and click on casenum lookup.
The case number for this matter is: CGC-04-431683 (do not enter dashes in search). The most important documents available online are the complaint and answer, and the Court order certifying the Class. You can also see which entertainers and employees of the club submitted declarations (sworn statements/testimony) for each side (referred to by stage name only, of course). I certainly would advise against bothering any of those you may dissagree with while at work. }:D That would be bad.]
Femmes Fatales
08-28-2005, 06:21 AM
I wouldn't sweat this one girls. First of all, from what I reviewed in the pleadings available online (and not meant as advice, yada yada yada) the legal theory asserted by Plaintiff in this action to determine employee vs. IC status is based upon that bizarre California statute defining SC entertainers as employees, not IC's. Second, the Class is limited to a particular club, with a specific means of fees and payouts, including coupons, etc. Both of these limit the application of the outcome of this case. Third, this is only at the Superior Court level in California. Case law precedent comes almost exclusively from appellate level and above rulings. I highly doubt that Defendants will appeal a loss, and if they do, add on another two years before an outcome. If this were a Federal Court case covering say, a company's entire chain of SC's, THEN I'd start to be concerned. But even then, I'd wait for another two years or so until the Ninth Circuit ruled on it.
Most of all, it AIN'T OVER. Plaintiff could end up with a big fat doughnut on this one. Believe me, happens all too painfully often. Even is Plaintiff's win IN the courtroom, Defendants may declare bankruptcy (very likely, imo), making ANY recovery an even longer drawn out process. This again happens all too painfully often.
Sit tight, and look up. See, the sky isn't falling.
B...seriously, you're talking to strippers and lawyers. This really IS nunneryweb.com!
This is civil, not criminal court. I don't know what "lawsuit" you are referring to, but this one is well under way, and fast approaching an outcome by either summary judgement or trial. The Court has already ruled on issues of confidentiality, a protective order, and sealing the Court file. You may be referring to earlier squabbles on these matters, all of which the Defendants have lost so far. Doesn't mean chit as far as final outcome, however.
Further evidence that drugs are in fact rampant in SC's. Save the money you're spending on hallucinagens, and go buy a lotto ticket already.
[edit: I'm kidding of course, FF, but if you seriously want to learn more about this case, go to the SFSC website for electronic court docs:
http://www.sftc.org/ . Follow directions for downloading the e-filing plugin, and click on casenum lookup.
The case number for this matter is: CGC-04-431683 (do not enter dashes in search). The most important documents available online are the complaint and answer, and the Court order certifying the Class. You can also see which entertainers and employees of the club submitted declarations (sworn statements/testimony) for each side (referred to by stage name only, of course). I certainly would advise against bothering any of those you may dissagree with while at work. }:D That would be bad.]
Believe it or not I am not involved in this or any lawsuit against any clubs.
I am merely passing a message to make people aware that if they want their money back here is your chance to get it.::)
Femmes Fatales
08-28-2005, 06:57 AM
It's nice you can look up cases and give opinions on them However no matter what you say the lawsuits (and I mean lawsuits) are out there which will bring public attention along with law makers to start cracking down on this illegal activity.
My involvement started because uncaring prostitutes pushed dancers out of their jobs (talk about the irony about who cares for whom).
The stage fee was the reason dancers could not compete and were forced out of their jobs and no one gave a damn.
This has also caused the spread of it vicariously to other clubs but not just prostitution but also sexual harassment.
Dancers at other clubs were now allowing customers to go further and further touching of their breast and wherever in order to compete with prostitution going on at other clubs to keep their customers from leaving and coming back.
Worry Bridgett since your calling name now I want you to know you should worry and worry a lot because the days of stage fees are going to go away.
Finally there is a national article. It’s in Playboy, which has a very large circulation. Others reporters are following this story and we will continue to push until the nation knows what happened here in San Francisco and nationwide.
Remember the Civil war? People strongly disagreed on that too to the point of much human loss of life and property. I’m just going to have to say me and others disagree with your view point just as people thought slavery was good for them including slaves (poor fools didn’t know any better) you have people who think stage fees are good for them!( Poor fools they don’t know anything different.)
Femmes Fatales
08-28-2005, 06:34 PM
DANCERS NEWS REPORTS COMPLAINTS DATING BACK TO 02/04/98 (http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/phpBB-2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=182&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)
http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/phpBB-2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=182
Testimony Regarding Labor Conditions of Exotic Dancers -COSW (http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/phpBB-2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=183&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)
http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/phpBB-2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=183
Femmes Fatales
08-29-2005, 07:57 AM
In the Playboy article in the September issue WILL STRIP FOR BENEFITS DANCERS FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO BE EMPLOYED by Rachel Shteir The Commission on the Status of Women recommended the San Francisco city council ban both stage fees and private booths.
Bridgette
08-29-2005, 10:35 AM
Me and my "click"?? LOL. I don't control anything around here hunny. And I don't have a "click" (actually, clique, but this isn't spelling class :P).
You just have a problem with people disagreeing with you, thinking for themselves, not following your herd.
I'm not worried for myself. I'll be out of the business with a bought and paid for home before any of your "revolutions" can affect me. I am concerned for other girls though. I hate to see them screwed over by people who THINK they know what's good for everyone else. You wanna talk about poor fools? Just wait until we're all employees making secretary wages like those poor saps at Lusty Lady. LOL
stant
08-29-2005, 11:36 PM
Just wait until we're all employees making secretary wages ...
Back when we all were having a civil debate about this you suggested the idea that strippers should become "true" independant contractors. If you take a look at what the Plaintiffs in this case allege, it is a long, long way away from that. For example, according to the complaint, dancers were required to eat meals from the club kitchen (and pay for them). They allegedly could not order take out. I'm not saying this is or was true. Does this sound like IC to you? From reading the documents available, you may never have worked anywhere that was as bad as Plaintiffs allege this club was.
Employment may not the best option some top eschelon strippers, like yourself, but it might be a superior option for many other more mainstream entertainers. Particularly single mothers, with a much greater need for stability, benefits, and a safety net. Also, the pidgeonhole of a "secretary's" wage is a misnomer. I've known legal secretaries that made near 6 figure incomes. The salary structure and incentive pay of club employee entertainers is by no means fixed in the labor code.
The only thing that one cannot readily escape as an employee is taxes. And death, of course.
Femmes Fatales
08-30-2005, 02:31 AM
I'm afraid I have to agree with stant. The Playboy issue cleverly put next to to the dancer article about the fight for labor rights in America.
One of the things brought forward is the injury and health insurance issue.
Really you could loose it all if god forbid you fell and broke their neck or back. As and IC your screwed as an employee you have a saftey net.
Being on a salary has practical benefits as unemployment payments and workers comp from injuries. They can also file antidiscrimination and retaliation complaints with the state.
Melonie
08-30-2005, 09:44 AM
Being on a salary has practical benefits as unemployment payments and workers comp from injuries. They can also file antidiscrimination and retaliation complaints with the state.
This is absolutely true. However, the premiums the 'employer' must pay to the state to provide mandatory unemployment and worker's comp insurance are pretty substantial ... typically something like 50% of the 'employee's" declared income. Thus if a dancer were to earn say $50,000 per year as an employee, with maybe $10,000 coming from hourly base pay and $40,000 coming from "incentive pay", the club would be forced to pay $25,000 to the state to cover that dancer's unemployment and comp coverage. How exactly do you think that the club is going to go about covering that new expense ?
There are basically two possibilities. #1 the club refuses to allow dancers to declare their total 'incentive pay' as official income, and instead reports the dancer's income as something like $100 a night. This greatly reduces the employer's cost of providing unemployment and comp coverage. But this also puts the dancer between a rock and a hard place, since she is essentially forced to underreport her income and will be treated as if she really only earned $100 a night by banks and other lending institutions. Also if the IRS backtracks a dancer's expenditures and discovers she's spending more money than she (through the club's payroll system) has reported earning in the first place, the dancer and not the club will be held 100% accountable.
The #2 option is for the club to cut incentive pay significantly, keeping 50% or more of all customer private dance money in order to fund the benefit premiums. In this case the dancer doesn't have to worry about underreporting her income, because her income will actually drop significantly.
Actually, there is a #3 option as well. Labor laws differentiate between part-time and full-time employees in regard to mandatory comp and unemployment benefits. Therefore the club could simply refuse to allow any dancer to work more than 24 hours in a one week period, thus officially making her a part-time employee and avoiding the need (and cost to the club) of paying comp and unemployment insurance premiums to cover her.
Bridgette
08-30-2005, 10:38 AM
Stant, I'm a firm believer if a stripper can't make it as an IC, she shouldn't be a stripper. Quit flooding the market with substandard strippers and we won't have as many problems. To be really blunt.
luvbuniz
08-30-2005, 11:59 AM
When one is making $1000 a night.. workers benefits is the last thing on our minds.. ::)
Glamazon
08-30-2005, 01:14 PM
Stant, I'm a firm believer if a stripper can't make it as an IC, she shouldn't be a stripper. Quit flooding the market with substandard strippers and we won't have as many problems. To be really blunt.
True. True. True.
stant
08-30-2005, 10:32 PM
However, the premiums the 'employer' must pay to the state to provide mandatory unemployment and worker's comp insurance are pretty substantial ... typically something like 50% of the 'employee's" declared income. .
I looked into this and indeed found an instance where this truly hard to fathom number is true. The quote was from a carpentry contractor, whose on the job rate of injuries and associated medical may be at least somewhat able to justify this outrageous number. Hard to imagine any business able to survive this cost. According to the article I just read, the contractor pay 99% of salary for workers comp for roofers. It's pretty understandable why contractors tend to hire illegals when you read this stat. 99 frigin percent! http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/0,4621,312256,00.html
Of course stripping is not the same as operating power tools capable of maiming workers...[insert stripper joke here]
I'll agree the costs for these insurance coverages are high and getting higher, unfortunately in part due to rampant fraud, abuse, and skyrocketing health care costs (don't even go down the road of tort urban legend nonsense you always do). But without such coverages, anyone without a safety net that suffers some truly unanticipated catastrophe eventually ends up a burden to the state by some other means of assistance.
I'm a firm believer if a stripper can't make it as an IC, she shouldn't be a stripper. I'm not sure what you mean by "can't make it". Do you mean he/she can't afford to live without payroll deductions? The (short term, potentially illegal) extra cash income just too much for some to handle? Seriously, how many stripper IC's do you know with the foresight and responsibility to obtain private personal medical and disability insurance, and private business liability insurance (for the IC)? How many hire counsel to review and negotiate their IC agreements prior signing one of these contracting agreements? Not to do any of these is a roll of the dice putting your business at risk, and of becoming yet another burden on the public. Many of the benefits (except perhaps discrimination claims) available to employees by default now (disability, medical, and liability coverages) are also available to IC's, but it's silly to expect young (often just entering the workforce) workers to have the experience or maturity to accept these costs as a burden of living responsibly. How many new 16 year old drivers would purchase car insuirance if not forced to? Damn few. Possibly an unfair comparison, but you get the idea. Or, perhaps, the risks are lower than the costs justify.
One of the questions I asked Melanie, once upon a time, was how often were dancers injurred on the job and how severe were the injuries? One would expect, after all, that a job that includes flinging yourself around a brass pole wearing only seven inch heels to have a high incidence of on the job injuries. To my surprise, she said that on the job injuries were very rare, and to my recollection she couldn't remember a single completely debilitating injury suffered by anyone. Given her experience in the profession, I beleive this to be an accurate account, and an illuminating one. First, it demonstrates that the need for true workers comp and disability is quite low. Second, it goes to show how the employment related costs of these coverages are somehow extremely inflated (even if at far less than the numbers quoted by Melanie above). Third, it shows that when given no alternative, people either tend to act in a much more responsible way or simple grin and bear it when they fuck up. The system abusers and whiners sucking up workers comp benefits must be fucking monumental. Its not hard to see why employers and workers would choose to opt out of such a fucked up system.
My point to all this is that idealistically, our system has well designed layers of responsibility and safety nets built into it. Unfortunately, however, the system is FUBAR (fucked up beyond all recognition). I can't blame anyone who chooses to for accepting the risks, and taking every opportunity available to opt out of it. Try not to ride the people too hard that want to try and make it work. FUBAR or not, it's what we have.
Dj Captain Rob
08-30-2005, 10:59 PM
I havent been on in a few days and just read alot of the posts... some things still are just not getting through.
IMO - Even though the plaintiff may win based on CA previous on the books classification, I see several problems with a win. I agree that the IRS will be very intrested in any of the performers who win. (if you think they cant find out, trust me nothing is "sealed" when it comes to the government) Defendants have a LEGAL right to know who is suing them. Even though the court may not allow public access to protect the identity of the dancers, I am sure there will be some bitter club owners that will drop a dime. Also think about this...Lets say a bunch do recieve a judgement, well guess what... That would count as income and then the IRS would know (I forget what law it is) but just as if you won 2 million from a casino, a judgement is reported to the IRS. (If anyone remembers the law remind me, my brain is not totally working today..lol)
Thats all on that point.. also I agree that the club owners would just file chapt 13 or some other liabilty protection. Of course this all boils down to money, the owners will have FAR more to drag out the process..appeals..etc and it would cost $$$ to continue to fight.
Anyways...as i ramble on here. I really, IMO dont think that this will affect the industry as a whole at the present moment. Unless it ends up somehow changing the classification nationally, and at that point (in some of my earlier posts) the club owners would just band together (just as the dancers) and figure out a way as a whole to work around the new laws or standards, and believe me they would still get their "fees". Just the way it works, most dancers know going in how the game is played. Wanna make 1000 a night??? Then you dont get a paycheck...simple. Not a bad deal. Hell I would do it, Comp and Disabilty only really helps you if a stage light falls on your head. I havent seen it happen in 14 yrs, but hell you could buy a new head for that kinda money :)
Seriously though... As I have stated before, this is a few performers trying to "Big Sister" all you others.
Also, I may be wrong here but are we not talking about a "prostitution club" as opposed to a regular SC? There are a few "prostitute" clubs out there, and yes they should be taken down. It is PROSTITUTION that makes it impossible for the "good" girls to compete and make money...not the fact you are a IC or having to pay a fee. In most (notice I say most) regular SC's there are a few "extras" girls, but managments usually weed them out (may take a little time in some clubs) but overall it is controlled. You will always have a few bad ones, and yes it makes it harder for the others to make money. In fact usually its the other house girls in a club that weeds out the "bad" ones. I still do not see where prostitution and the Employee VS IC debate tie in together, one has totally no affect on the other.
Oh well enough for now :)
Cap't
stant
08-30-2005, 11:46 PM
Defendants have a LEGAL right to know who is suing them.They do know who is suing them. Former entertainers of the club. Most of the information on the Class is being provided by the Defendants in this case actually.
Even though the court may not allow public access to protect the identity of the dancers, I am sure there will be some bitter club owners that will drop a dime. You mena notify the IRS? Based on what information? They could be placing themselves in risk of a criminal evasion charge if they do this.
Also think about this...Lets say a bunch do recieve a judgement, well guess what... That would count as income and then the IRS would know (I forget what law it is) but just as if you won 2 million from a casino, a judgement is reported to the IRS. Paying taxes on income.....HOLY SHIT! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! Seriously, determining whether all or part of the award is taxable, and how much is immediately reported or end of year reported via 1099 depends on exactly how it is apportioned among the claims by the jury or judge and how much is awarded as attorneys fees and costs.
(If anyone remembers the law remind me, my brain is not totally working today..lolPull out your old texts on US and California tax law, and turn to the section on civil judgement reporting and taxation, which you are apparently an expert on, like everything else.
Thats all on that point.. also I agree that the club owners would just file chapt 13 or some other liabilty protection. Of course this all boils down to money, the owners will have FAR more to drag out the process..appeals..etc and it would cost $$$ to continue to fight.Guess you're an expert on bankruptcy laws and the civil judgement appellate bond procedure in California too. Bankruptcy offers no liability protection, by the way, only a means for collapsing or reorganizing a business in the face of an insurmountable debt. Also, chap 13 cannot be applied to businesses, the primary defendants in this case, and is limited to ~$300K in unsecured debt even then. Chap 7 or 11 would be appropriate. Even in the event of a BK prior to judgement, this action itself becomes a debtor asset in BK Court and a preference action determines the apportionment of it and BK Court possibly even conducts the trial. But you knew this already. I'm sure its what you meant to say.
Seriously though... As I have stated before, this is a few performers trying to "Big Sister" all you others.
Listening to Big Sisters is usually a good idea. When they are actually are big sisters. (Some doubt remains as to FF. Some day maybe FF will come clean on this. You hear me FF? Nothing wrong with trying to help. But people should know the source of the advice giver..... Hence the perils of taking advice from internet sources.)