New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
The bills S6699A/A8721A (likely soon to be combined, like they did in NJ) will implement the ABC test in NY.
They are stagnant atm due to the coronavirus. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s6699
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
Ridiculous!! I oppose, thanks for letting us know.
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
I oppose as well. Thanks for the heads up. We get the option of staying as ICs, right?
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
You guys are too young to remember but we used to be treated as employees in both NJ and NY and were paid a great hourly of 20-25 an hour and our tips were all OURS. I have to break with you guys and say I support this. Conditions have slipped so far down that women are leaving work owing the damn club. And things are so hectic with far too much competition, and no real training, that people are doing illegal things to bank. Younger dancers don't have a chance to develop and most bolt. That's good for old school gals but it's bad for the industry in general.
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the labor law and the workers' compensation law, in
relation to the employee status of an individual
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this bill is to reclassify more workers as employees
rather than independent contractors in order for them to receive bene-
fits such as healthcare and retirement.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 adds a new paragraph (b) to subdivision 1 of Section 511 of
the Labor Law that requires hiring entities to demonstrate that (i) the
person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in
connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for
performance of the work and in fact; (ii) the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (iii)
the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade,
occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work
performed. If the hiring entity does not demonstrate all three aforemen-
tioned conditions, the person providing the services or labor is consid-
ered an employee rather than an independent contractor.
Section 2 adds a new paragraph (b) to subdivision 3 of Section 160 of
the Labor Law that requires an individual providing labor or services to
be classified as an employee rather than an independent contractor
unless the hiring entity demonstrates that (i) the individual is free
from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with
the performance of the work, both under the contract for performance of
the work and in fact; (ii) the individual performs work that is outside
the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (iii) the individ-
ual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occu-
pation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work
performed.
Section 3 amends subdivision 5 of Section 651 of the Labor law that
requires an individual providing labor or services to be classified as
an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring
entity demonstrates that (i) the individual is free from the control and
direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the
work, both under the contract for performance of the work and in fact;
(ii) the individual performs work that is outside the usual course of
the hiring entity's business; and (iii) the individual is customarily
engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business
of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
Section 4 adds a new paragraph E to subdivision 6 that requires hiring
entities to demonstrate that (i) the person is free from the control and
direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the
work, both under the contract for performance of the work and in fact;
(ii) the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the
hiring entity's business; and (iii) the person is customarily engaged in
an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same
nature as that involved in the work performed. If the hiring entity does
not demonstrate all three aforementioned conditions, the person provid-
ing the services or labor is considered an employee rather than an inde-
pendent contractor.
Section 5 is the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
This bill addresses one of the largest dichotomies in America today -
the power of corporations versus the most basic human rights of American
workers to a voice on their jobs and a role in shaping their futures.
It is a David vs Goliath battle that New York State has a responsibility
to address.
Large corporate entities, such as Uber, Lyft, and Amazon, benefit from
the current rules that classify workers as independent contractors rath-
er than employees.
These corporations rely on a steady pool of low-wage, no-rights workers
to increase their bottom line at the expense of these workers who make
them so profitable.
By classifying them as independent contractors, they strip these workers
of an avenue to have basic benefits - like vacation, sick pay, retire-
ment, and health care for them and their families addressed in any
coherent fashion.
This has led to the disturbing trend in which these workers have to rely
on public assistance and benefits, as well as working two or three jobs,
to make ends meet while many of these corporate giants that employ them
offer these workers no benefits and pay nothing in taxes.
This bill challenges this imbalance by giving these workers, who endure
the misfortune of not having control of any workplace issues, an ability
to be recognized as employees and to work together with their peers to
improve their rights and working conditions.
New York has always been a leader in protecting the rights of workers.
This bill will help millions of New Yorkers currently stuck in the swamp
of employer dominance of their working lives.
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
The legislation sent a slew of industries into disarray at the start of the year. Employees in California are entitled to benefits not offered to contractors, such as a minimum wage, health insurance, paid time off, and reimbursement for expenses. Experts estimate that ridesharing companies should expect to see a 20-30 percent increase in labor costs.
As a result, those companies have prepared to make major changes that will hurt the very people the law was supposed to help. Workers will first lose the flexibility that has come to define gig-economy work, as businesses have said they will need to start scheduling workers in tight shifts. And a multitude of operators will be laid off entirely. Under a 40-hour workweek, Lyft expects to kick 300,673 drivers to the curb if it experiences the more modest 20 percent increase in expenses, according to a Beacon Economics LLC study commissioned by the ridesharing company.
As it currently stands, gig-economy businesses present some of the lowest barriers to entry, providing opportunities to lower-skilled, vulnerable populations. Lyft, for instance, merely requires that would-be drivers meet regional age standards, pass a background check, and have insurance, a license, and a decent four-door vehicle. The new regulations, however, would render ridesharing a more exclusive profession, forcing out workers who may otherwise struggle to find a well-paying gig. (As I've previously reported, 90 percent of app-based drivers in Manhattan are immigrants.)
https://reason.com/2020/02/13/federa...ce=parsely-api
The upshot of this is there would be no more illegal immigrants to compete with. Women with substance abuse and mental issues will be less attractive to the club because they can't maintain a schedule. This can slow the race to the bottom we've seen. Women who are stable and respect the job and have long term plans, not short term plans to make money by any means necessary and leave the regulars to live with the aftermath of more LE scrutiny, more requests for extras etc.
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
Here's an article from Reason on how this bill is playing out for some workers:
https://reason.com/2019/12/23/califo...d-jobs-anyway/
A nonprofit legal foundation is suing California on behalf of freelance workers who say the state's recently passed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) will destroy their livelihoods. Set to take effect on January 1, 2020, AB5 will make it illegal for contractors who reside in California to create more than 35 pieces of content in a year for a single company, unless the outlet hires them as an employee.
"By enforcing the 35-submission limit, Defendant, acting under color of state law, unconstitutionally deprives Plaintiffs' members of their freedom of speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," states the lawsuit, which was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
The bill's pending implementation has wreaked havoc on publications that rely heavily on California freelancers. Just last week, Vox Media announced it will not be renewing the contracts of around 200 journalists who write for the sports website SB Nation. Instead, the company will replace many of those contractors with 20 part-time and full-time employees. Rev, which provides transcription services, and Scripted, which connects freelance copywriters with people who need their services, also notified their California contractors that they would no longer give them work.
"Companies can simply blacklist California writers and work with writers in other states, and that's exactly what's happening," Alisha Grauso, an entertainment journalist and the co-leader of California Freelance Writers United (CAFWU), tells Reason. "I don't blame them."
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), the architect of AB5, has heard these stories. "I'm sure some legit freelancers lost substantial income," she tweeted in the wake of Vox's announcement, "and I empathize with that especially this time of year. But Vox is a vulture."
"These were never good jobs," Gonzalez said earlier this month. "No one has ever suggested that, even freelancers."
But many of the freelance journalists, writers, and content creators who now have to navigate the disastrous consequences of Gonzalez's legislation beg to differ.
"I've been able to earn nearly three times the amount I did working a day job, doing what I absolutely love, and having more to volunteer and spend time with loved ones," wrote Jackie Lam, a financial journalist. Kelly Butler, a freelance copywriter, echoed those sentiments. "Thousands of CA female freelancer writers, single moms, minorities, stand to lose their livelihood due to this bill," she said. "I was told by a client because I live in CA they can't use me. I made $20K from them this year."
Grauso says that CAFWU, the group fighting against AB5, is composed primarily of the people that Gonzalez claimed the bill would help. It is currently 72.3 percent women, which, according to Grauso, is no coincidence.
"The reality is it still falls primarily on women to be the caretakers and caregivers of their families, and freelancing allows women to be stay-at-home mothers or to care for an aging parent," Grauso notes. "Being made employees kills their flexibility and ability to be home when needed. I cannot stress enough how anti-women this bill is."
The 35-piece per publication limit comes out to less than one piece per week. Anyone who writes a weekly column, for instance, is likely out of a job if their publisher cannot hire them as an employee. The bill also penalizes freelancers who create content in non-traditional formats such as blog posts, transcriptions, and listicles, the latter of which are often requested in bulk and take only "about 20 minutes to compile," writes another freelancer.
"[AB5] was drafted by a lawmaker who had the outdated mindset that most writers work within the old, traditional newspaper and print model," explains Grauso. "But the vast majority of writers are in the digital media space, which operates completely differently."
According to the Hollywood Reporter, Gonzalez initially set the annual limit at 26 pieces, but later changed it to 35 after a backlash. "Was it a little arbitrary? Yeah," Gonzalez told the Reporter. "Writing bills with numbers like that are a little bit arbitrary."
The assemblywoman recently tweeted that unemployment trending lower is "useless" because "people have to work 2-3 jobs or a side hustle" to make ends meet. "Now is the time to demand more," she said.
According to the most recent Census data, only 8.3 percent of workers have more than one job; of that number, only 6.9 percent have more than two jobs. But Gonzalez doesn't seem to care about the data, and has made it pretty clear that she does not want to listen to her constituents.
"[Freelancers] shouldn't fucking have to [work 2-3 jobs]," the assemblywoman, addressing a detractor, said in a Twitter exchange last week. "And until you or anyone else that wants to bitch about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos, you can keep your criticism anonymous."
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
Optimist, Why did NY/NJ stop having W2 dancers?
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seatortuga
Optimist, Why did NY/NJ stop having W2 dancers?
The managers and owners were propositioned first by Brazilian and later Russian "agencies". Brazilians would work at the club for free. Russians would pay to work at the club. So at first they would put on one or two Brazilians a shift. Most could not speak English but they had other...charms. After a year of this they added more to the shifts and they hired less Americans. Why? We were told to take a pay cut that eventually became "accept pay on every other shift", then finally "We're not paying anymore deal with it." By they end most clubs had 1 or 2 shifts for Americans and all the rest were either Latin American or Slavic.
So from 1990 when they were offering 18-25 an hour, just 5 years later you were paying the club to work. American girls tried talking to management, organizing sick outs, talking to press, reporting to Labor/Liquor control boards and nothing stuck. You'd walk into the dressing room and have no one to talk to, no backup with management and gangs of chicks who worked as a team with other illegals to ice us out.
The Brazilians were known for their side work and guys shifted from coming for convo and tipping to coming to cop a feel in the dance room or book time outside. Russians/Slavic were a lot less obvious. A few would hook up but most had a hard line of not allowing much of anything in the club openly. The bottom line is the high standard American girls had to meet in terms of physique costumes and displaying a talent to get hired were dropped to cram in as many bodies as possible. Desperate women were doing anything for money and it was unsustainable.
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
I can see both sides of it. Granted. I suppose in the west coast, dancers might as well be employees since they were micromanaged like employees anyways and nit picked for tip out. (Or so I’ve heard.) And I heard it got even worse after the changes but maybe in the long term it is about the same, idk. I think the ship has long sailed for a base amount of hourly pay :(
Somewhere like lots of areas in Texas or Florida (for example) is where I really wouldn’t be for it. They have a tendency to keep house fees, tip out, etc relatively low compared to other places. And I really liked back when I was in school and could walk in, make a couple hundred, and easily walk out without asking permission. At least in a lot of clubs. They did their end to uphold IC status.
The more of an employee we are, the bigger the onus is on management is to be actual leaders. Rough guessing a number that’s like maybe 10% of them that have that potential??
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
I would be all for this if turning strippers into employees actually gave us an hourly wage while allowing us to keep tips/dance money etc. I just don't see it being that way. The places I know of that are employee status in the clubs, it is just a play to take even more money from you, not give healthcare benefits, no 401k w/ match, and anything else u can think of.
Some places will give the option to be IC or employee and the options are like min wage and give club the dance money u dont keep it so basically only real option is IC. One place that I worked that was employee only - I feel like they used that shit just to take more money from us honestly. Sure there is talk of a minimum wage but the club does not pay you, you paid the club. Then there was a lot of twisting convoluted fuckery as to cuts especially with credit cards. I think that place was only good money because of location location location otherwise I wouldn't have bothered with those fees if they were not worth it. I have heard California employee status in the clubs is worse for fucking you out of money, but have no personal experience.
Re: New York Ladies- S6699A/A8721A will bring the ABC test to your state
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Optimist
The upshot of this is there would be no more illegal immigrants to compete with. Women with substance abuse and mental issues will be less attractive to the club because they can't maintain a schedule. This can slow the race to the bottom we've seen. Women who are stable and respect the job and have long term plans, not short term plans to make money by any means necessary and leave the regulars to live with the aftermath of more LE scrutiny, more requests for extras etc.
A lot of guys actually stopped going to the strip clubs because of the drop in standards. The customer base has dropped in standards as well. The high class men want girls who can converse with them. They need real business people and not the typical sleazy club owners running these places. What’s so bad with getting and hourly wage and keeping your tips? And keeping a schedule is the best way to maintain regulars. I know a lot of California girls got screwed but it doesn’t have to be that way if you have the right people running things. Thanks for posting this optimist! I think it’s good for girls on here to see things from a different perspective, because that’s how real change is made. The clubs count on the girls being ignorant and complacent, so they can take advantage.