-
Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Attention Gold Club (S.F.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/notice_of_class_action.htm
If you danced at the Gold Club in San Francisco Ca., know anyone that danced at the Gold Club, or can pass the word to others that would be a good thing! ;)
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Jeez, another lawsuit. How many is S.F. going to get this year? lol
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
I thought GC was owned by DejaVu, but its an LLC from the link? Is it somehow a subsidiary?
I really liked that place, but didn't work there. In Cali, they take so much $$$ from dances that perhaps it is best for the dancers to be considered employees and be eligible for benefits. Of course then they might have to pay back taxes too. Technically it is the dancer's faults for being dishonest with taxes, but its not like anyone in the club ever gives strippers tax assistance or recommendation. Cheating is the norm in the industry, and actually encouraged by many club's management teams.
I wish everyone luck.....
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
/:O I've just started at the Gold Club and this class action thing is kinda confusing.
As dancers, we have to sign the contract as an independent contractor. We don't recieve wages (we pay the house fee to work there).
I heard things were seedier at the Gold Club before Deja Vu took over. I'm not really sure what the deal is...
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Quote:
I've just started at the Gold Club and this class action thing is kinda confusing.
As dancers, we have to sign the contract as an independent contractor. We don't recieve wages (we pay the house fee to work there).
This latest lawsuit just keeps 'driving a wedge' between the way that California dancers and clubs WANT to be treated, and the way California law specifies that they MUST be treated. In other words, the fact that dancers sign a contract stating they are independent contractors doesn't mean diddly if state law states that all California dancers must be treated as (statutory) employees. The more litigation that occurs along these lines, the more likely it is that the California FTB (income tax agency) is going to start cracking down.
As (statutory) employes, California clubs are supposed to be paying the state of California insurance premiums for dancers' unemployment and worker's comp benefits. As (statutory) employees, California clubs are supposed to be running all customer money through the club's cash register and paying dancers their 'commissions' on private dances via the club's payroll system (and issuing a 1099 to each dancer for all of those 'commission' payouts at the end of the year). As (statutory) employees, any stage fees paid by the dancer to the club are NOT a legitimate business expense deduction, but instead considered a non-deductible charitable gift (since it is illegal for clubs to charge 'employees' stage fees).
All of this stuff has been slowly simmering for a couple of years now, which is the reason that my accountant basically forbid me to work in California clubs. According to my accountant, under current California law dancers are required to report all of their income to the clubs and running that money through the club's payroll system, which neither the dancers nor the clubs are actually doing. However, from a legal standpoint, it is the dancers who are at fault for not reporting their incomes, with the clubs being able to plead ignorance based on the amounts that dancers did actually report. This situation leaves dancers between a rock and a hard place because they now have no '100% legal' way of reporting tip earnings, direct customer cash transaction earnings etc., since by state law all of this money should have been run through the club's payroll system.
A further note --- this lawsuit is against the FORMER owners, not the current owners. So even if the class action lawsuit results in a ruling favoring the dancers, it's another matter altogether whether or not the former owners can be made to cough up settlement money.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrine
I thought GC was owned by DejaVu, but its an LLC from the link? Is it somehow a subsidiary?
I really liked that place, but didn't work there. In Cali, they take so much $$$ from dances that perhaps it is best for the dancers to be considered employees and be eligible for benefits. Of course then they might have to pay back taxes too. Technically it is the dancer's faults for being dishonest with taxes, but its not like anyone in the club ever gives strippers tax assistance or recommendation. Cheating is the norm in the industry, and actually encouraged by many club's management teams.
I wish everyone luck.....
All the clubs that Deja Vu owns are corporations. Example the SHOW GIRLS Broadway has Carouba as pres. Conti as Vice pres and of couse the front man for Mohney Forbes as secretary(However all land is on Forbes of Seattle
name.
Gold club has Carouba a pres and other people which are not part of the Italian mob (rthe word was chinese) so this is a separate deal for Caroba.
http://photobucket.com/albums/b209/W...JoeCarouba.jpgAndy Dunitz and Joe Carouba
To see who is the owner call the ABC and they will tell you over the phone.
Gold club is Deja vu they try to keep things confusing!;)
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvbuniz
/:O I've just started at the Gold Club and this class action thing is kinda confusing.
As dancers, we have to sign the contract as an independent contractor. We don't recieve wages (we pay the house fee to work there).
I heard things were seedier at the Gold Club before Deja Vu took over. I'm not really sure what the deal is...
Look call the lawyers in the Class action suit. The contract is pure BS I talked with an attorney about that. If the law states you are employees. They can have you signing papers saying you were told not to do prostitution like they did at MBOT. hahahahahahahahah What a joke pure smoke and screens.
You want to know the law ask a lawyer. Not an owner who sees you as livestock and when your to old and fat they kick you to the curb!
No matter what an owner says they don't care about you all they care about is money.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Quote:
Originally Posted by Femmes Fatales
Look call the lawyers in the Class action suit. The contract is pure BS I talked with an attorney about that. If the law states you are employees. They can have you signing papers saying you were told not to do prostitution like they did at MBOT. hahahahahahahahah What a joke pure smoke and screens.
You want to know the law ask a lawyer. Not an owner who sees you as livestock and when your to old and fat they kick you to the curb!
No matter what an owner says they don't care about you all they care about is money.
THANKYOU !
Most of the contracts we dancers sign are B.S
these SF cases are important to watch as they will be the standard cases will be compared to in the courts in other cities and states in the future.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Privacy Worries Don't Shake Up Stripper Class Action
Pam Smith
The Recorder
06-14-2005
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1118666114674
Exotic dancers at the Gold Club aren't shy about much, but there are some things even they don't bare in public.
That would be their real names.
As the former bosses of the San Francisco establishment try to fend off a wage-and-hour class action, they're attempting to turn the dancers' penchant for privacy into a defense advantage.
Defense counsel Edi Thomas tried to persuade a San Francisco Superior Court judge last week that certifying a class in the case would wind up trampling on many dancers' privacy rights.
Many dancers are hard to contact -- often by design -- and moving ahead with a class action they don't know about would violate their right to due process, Thomas argued. Also, contacting them about the suit could compromise their privacy.
Though Judge James Warren went ahead and certified the class anyway, he seemed concerned about some of Thomas' points. And the defense lawyer, a solo with offices in Michigan and San Diego, said she expected to resurrect them.
"Because we think it's such an important issue, that will be raised again," Thomas said Thursday. "Dancers value their privacy, and I think it should be protected." The three class representatives, she's noted, filed their case under stage names.
Lead class counsel James Quadra called the due process argument irrelevant.
"It's a tactic," the San Francisco attorney said Thursday. "It's all about reducing the amount of money defendants pay out."
The case began more than a year ago, when three dancers known as Grace, Kili and Debra sued the current and former owners of the club. The dancers allege that the owners treated their entertainers as independent contractors when they should have been employees.
Calling it a "sham" arrangement, the women contend the club got the best of both worlds, controlling how the showgirls worked while eroding their tips with fees, and cheating them of hourly pay and other benefits.
Solid Gold, the company that owned the Howard Street club for nearly all of the four years covered by the suit, says the women are far from victims. Thomas, who represents Solid Gold, asserts in court papers that the showgirls could take home upward of $500 a day "under these lucrative contracts."
But merits aside, turning the trio's case into a class action would present "critical" due process problems, Thomas argued in briefs.
Exotic dancers are an itinerant and extremely private lot, she contended. Those traits would make it difficult to locate the class members, an estimated 300 to 600 dancers who performed at the club between 2000 and 2004.
"The recent history of dancer class actions bear[s] out that extremely few dancers ever receive notice, and fewer still participate -- ultimately resulting in dancers' having their due process rights trampled when their rights are adjudicated without their knowledge or meaningful consent," Thomas wrote.
Even if they're reached, Thomas argued dancers will be "seriously disinclined" to take part in a class action.
She filed declarations from four dancers who say they aren't interested in being part of the case. Signing her stage name, a dancer named "Autumn" wrote she wouldn't want to be considered an employee in this of all jobs. "I want to retain the freedom of choosing if, when and for whom I perform."
Unsolicited contact about the case, Thomas added in her briefs, would invade the dancers' privacy and could even endanger some of them.
In court Wednesday, Judge Warren seemed to leave the door open for more combat later, telling Thomas, "I think there are substantial, valid points there."
But he agreed with Quadra that they should be dealt with after certification.
"There are myriad ways" to get the word out to potential class members, and address the questions Thomas raised, Quadra said Thursday.
His firm, Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra, has pointed out in briefs that state court rules contemplate methods from newspapers and magazines to the radio, TV and the Internet. (Thomas apparently doesn't think the club's dancers share an interest in current events. In one brief she writes that, while publishing a notice in the Wall Street Journal may work in a securities fraud case, "What sort of publication could reliably reach 300-500 itinerant former exotic dancers?")
Though Thomas and Quadra's outfits were a study in contrasts last week, both are veterans of workplace battles at San Francisco's adult entertainment venues.
Last year Thomas, who wore a leopard-print jacket to court Wednesday, successfully defended the Hungry I against a wrongful termination suit by one exotic dancer. A jury found Tracey Buel, the activist more popularly known as Daisy Anarchy, was not an employee of the club.
The more conservatively garbed Quadra is also lead class counsel in a wage-and-hour case dancers have brought against the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
I can see the guys at California's Franchise Tax Board salivating already ... at the thought of a public record court document handing them the real names and addresses of 300-500 dancers who supposedly earned up to $500 a night for up to 5 years at the Gold Club. After a California state tax return computer database check for those names, how many priority tax audits do you suppose will quickly follow ? My guess is that each girl signing on to this lawsuit will probably receive a $1-$2,000 settlement from the club, quickly followed by a $20,000+ back tax bill from the California FTB, later followed by a $50,000+ back tax bill from the IRS !
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
^^ Agreed with mel. To say nothing of the longer term negative affects these lawsuits have historically had on dancers in CA...
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridgette
^^ Agreed with mel. To say nothing of the longer term negative affects these lawsuits have historically had on dancers in CA...
You really should educate yourselves Bridgette and Melonie!
You have no idea what is going on here is San Francisco.
Because one lawsuit did not do the job we should just crawl up and die?
That's not for us here in the city that started it all!8)
Please be more informed by reading what is going on at http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/::)
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
As has been mentioned before on this site, "education" usually involves a bit more than reading a "forum" where only one person is doing all the writing/posting. ::)
Also, history is a good educator. Working conditions DID get measurably worse for CA strippers after the previous round of lawsuits.
Repeatedly posting that link and telling people to "educate" themselves with it won't generate much positive response to what you're selling.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
I'm not sure what you think I'm selling. The one person you point out is a lie the articles and the COSW are not written by one poster but are many reporters.
So you see you are ignorant to what even is on the website and there are other posters too.
History? What history are you talking about how stage fees that started at MBOT climbed from $5 in 1988 to $450 today.
FYI the more money they take the more money the girls get back.
O'Farrell Settles With 500 Dancers
$2.85 million includes restitution, legal fees
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...10/MN11904.DTL
The new MBOT lawsuit will go back to this last lawsuit. The last one filed the lawsuit in March 1994 for a few years when the stage fees were $100 give or take.
The girls from that got several thousand dollars back of their own money.
This lawsuit will be for 7 years + and for stage fees in the $200 to $400 dollar range.
The laws have changed since that last settlement and is set to go to court soon. I doubt they will reach a tentative settlement out of court.
Because they have such a strong case, when one precedent is set is hard to stop it from being the same.
The could be a message sent in punitive damages ii the 100's of millions of dollars.
There is the GOLD CLUB MBOT and many other cases pending including a federal one.
As I say you don’t know what you’re talking about. You are ignorant to the things that have happened in the history of the story of San Francisco.
These cases may send a message and bring attention to what is going on in the country.
It started at MBOT here and will end here and though out the nation. Mark my words
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Quote:
It started at MBOT here and will end here and though out the nation. Mark my words
That's EXACTLY what I'm worried about. Yes it would end clubs charging 'stage fees'. Yes it would mean unemployment and worker's comp benefits. It could also mean the institution of other sorts of 'employee' benefits such as seniority determining dancer's choice of shifts over 'hotness'.
But it would also very probably mean that dancers would be required to work set hours and set days, and be fired if they were late or didn't show. It would also very probably mean that every dollar spent by club customers for anything except stage tips would be run through the club's cash register, with a percentage 'commission' paid to the dancer via the club's payroll system with all taxes withheld and with every dollar reported to the IRS and state income tax agency. It could also mean the institution of 'tip sharing', or at least the inclusion of individual tips to the dancer's reported income. It would also very likely mean the abolishment of all 'business expense' tax deductions for dancers, except those that specifically are allowed for 'employees' i.e. constumes and shoes.
We've had previous discussions regarding 'employee' dancers, with the conclusion that it offers benefits to 'marginal' dancers. Those benefits often come at the direct expense of 'top shelf' dancers, who find that part of their own income is being redistributed.
As to my knowledge of SF clubs, admittedly I haven't worked at MSC since I heard about the last round of busts.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
How high did stage fees go after the clubs had to pay out those large settlements? Who do you think REALLY paid the money those girls "got back"? The girls dancing AFTER the settlements were reached, of course, in the form of higher stage fees than ever, among other things.
What you're selling, is that current/past dancers should join you in your lawsuit, and that it will somehow make things better for CA dancers. As we've seen in the past, it does NOT make things better for the GIRLS STILL DANCING after the dust settles.
FYI, the more money "the girls get back", the more money the clubs will take from remaining dancers after you get your settlement. But I guess the girls in the lawsuits who are retired or nearing it, don't care what happens to the girls left in the biz, as long as they get "theirs", huh?
Didn't CA already institute regs requiring all customer spending be run through the club registers, so all dances bought had to be paid for over the bar? I'm aware that's largely gone unenforced, but I do remember alot of girls complaining about it for a while. Prove that wasn't a result of the previous lawsuits. Clubowners won't take getting sued lying down - they'll damn sure find a way to offset the costs of your lawsuits - which always means taking it from the remaining dancers. Higher stage fees, higher club cuts on dances sold, etc.
We're not as stupid or uneducated outside of SF or CA as you might like to think.
No, no thanks. I want no part of such lawsuits. I want no part of being an "employee" stripper. I like being able to set my own schedule, come and go as I please, pick and choose my customers, deal with customers on my terms, collect my OWN tips and not have to give half my dance money (or more) to the club.
As far as your site: I didn't take the time to read it all because the design is way too distracting and all the articles are posted by one user - "violator". Most readers will leave a site within 30 seconds when they encounter that.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
The courts have ruled that dancers working in strip clubs are "employees", not "independent contractors". Therefore, management of a strip club is in violation of the law when using a "stage fee" to charge employees to work.
Local and state governments have been slow to enforce this law, its pretty much up to the private individual to file a lawsuit against the club. Until the majority of dancers raise legal hell with the strip club owners, management will continue to charge ridiculous stage fees. What would you expect from mobsters anyway ?
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
How high did stage fees go after the clubs had to pay out those large settlements? Who do you think REALLY paid the money those girls "got back"? The girls dancing AFTER the settlements were reached, of course, in the form of higher stage fees than ever, among other things.
Let me guess the dancers and customers? Who is going to pay for the next lawsuit when prostitution at MBOT at $450 a pop no one that’s who!
Yes as a penalty to punish the girls and make them fear filing lawsuits they raised the stage fees.
Did that work?
NO they are still filing and will continue to file.
What you're selling, is that current/past dancers should join you in your lawsuit, and that it will somehow make things better for CA dancers. As we've seen in the past, it does NOT make things better for the GIRLS STILL DANCING after the dust settles.
No I put a notice up. You cannot join if you do not qualify. It’s not my lawsuit if you would read the articles you would find out it is the dancers of the Gold Clubs lawsuits and another notice to follow next month for MBOT (Mitchell Brother O’ffarrel Theater filed by the dancer of MBOT and any notice that helps any dancer get their money back or get retribution for the way dancers are mistreated. What ever it may be!
FYI, the more money "the girls get back", the more money the clubs will take from remaining dancers after you get your settlement. But I guess the girls in the lawsuits who are retired or nearing it, don't care what happens to the girls left in the biz, as long as they get "theirs", huh?
According to your opinion Bridgette you have suggested that lawsuits imply higher stage fees. These folks are correct, but the correlation is not obvious.
Most companies that engage in risky businesses buy lawsuit insurance. If a company with such insurance loses a lawsuit, then the monthly insurance premiums skyrocket.
Suppose that the company is a brothel masquerading as a high-class strip club. Well, the brothel raises stage fees to pay for the much higher monthly premiums.
Now, suppose that the company loses a second lawsuit in which the plaintiffs are awarded a multi-million-dollar settlement. In that case, the company risks becoming un-insurable. Very few insurance companies want to insure a losing proposition.
The brothel must face two hard choices: (1) shutdown or (2) drastically raise the stage fees in order to set aside some money (on the order of millions of dollars for the lawyers and the plaintiffs) for the 3rd lawsuit. Neither choice is appealing.
There is a 3rd choice: revert back to being a genuine strip club and pay the employees a minimum wage. This choice likely entails reduced monthly insurance premiums because the company would now be engaged in a less risky business. As well, several neck tied bouncers will be fired since the revenue stream of a genuine strip club is not sufficient to pay for the small army of bouncers needed by a house of prostitution. The only "problem" with the 3rd choice is that the owners of the company must swallow their pride and arrogance.
Didn't CA already institute regs requiring all customer spending be run through the club registers, so all dances bought had to be paid for over the bar? I'm aware that's largely gone unnforced, but I do remember alot of girls complaining about it for a while. Prove that wasn't a result of the previous lawsuits. Club owners won't take getting sued lying down - they'll damn sure find a way to offset the costs of your lawsuits - which always means taking it from the remaining dancers. Higher stage fees, higher club cuts on dances sold, etc.
No actually that was a scare tactic the Gold Club and other clubs used to stop the girls from filing lawsuits. There are no law enforcement regulation regarding “requiring all customer spending be run through the club registers, so all dances bought had to be paid for over the bar?”
That is an urban legend.
Laying down standing up they’re going to take it in the ass with no lubricant until they comply with the laws of California and federal IRS laws.(like it or not)
We're not as stupid or uneducated outside of SF or CA as you might like to think.
No one ever said anyone anywhere was stupid or uneducated anywhere. In fact a lot of dancers move from club to club or state to state dancers in cali don't think they are smarter or better in anyway but all part of a sisterhood.
No, no thanks. I want no part of such lawsuits. I want no part of being an "employee" stripper. I like being able to set my own schedule, come and go as I please, pick and choose my customers, deal with customers on my terms, collect my OWN tips and not have to give half my dance money (or more) to the club.
Bridgette you are entitled to your opinion as anyone else. Many dancers do not want stage fees. However the important thing to remember here it’s not about who wants what it’s about the law. This seems to keep getting lost in the struggle.
As far as your site: I didn't take the time to read it all because the design is way too distracting and all the articles are posted by one user - "violator". Most readers will leave a site within 30 seconds when they encounter that.
As far as your opinion of http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/ Bridgette you are entitled to your opinion as anyone else. It is untrue there is only on poster Violator and if you “because the design is way too distracting” you are the only one complaining and if you notice which I’m sure you didn’t there are plenty of people reading if you tell violator I’m sure Violator would more than happy to make it less distracting.
http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/ was created as a launch pad for helping dancers by chronicling the dancers story and taking it public.
IS there any other websites out there that have the story of the dancers in San Francisco?
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
The last lawsuit MBOT only was done under and old law. Since Ab2509 come into effect in 01/01/01 the law is much clearer on this issue.
See below
350. As used in this article, unless the context indicates
otherwise:
(a) "Employer" means every person engaged in any business or
enterprise in this state that has one or more persons in service
under any appointment, contract of hire, or apprenticeship, express
or implied, oral or written, irrespective of whether the person is
the owner of the business or is operating on a concessionaire or
other basis.
(b) "Employee" means every person, including aliens and minors,
rendering actual service in any business for an employer, whether
gratuitously or for wages or pay, whether the wages or pay are
measured by the standard of time, piece, task, commission, or other
method of calculation, and whether the service is rendered on a
commission, concessionaire, or other basis.
(c) "Employing" includes hiring, or in any way contracting for,
the services of an employee.
(d) "Agent" means every person other than the employer having the
authority to hire or discharge any employee or supervise, direct, or
control the acts of employees.
(e) "Gratuity" includes any tip, gratuity, money, or part thereof
that has been paid or given to or left for an employee by a patron of
a business over and above the actual amount due the business for
services rendered or for goods, food, drink, or articles sold or
served to the patron. Any amounts paid directly by a patron to a
dancer employed by an employer subject to Industrial Welfare
Commission Order No. 5 or 10 shall be deemed a gratuity.
(f) "Business" means any business establishment or enterprise,
regardless of where conducted.
351. No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any
gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an
employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee
on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the
amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of
the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is
hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees
to whom it was paid, given, or left for. An employer that permits
patrons to pay gratuities by credit card shall pay the employees the
full amount of the gratuity that the patron indicated on the credit
card slip, without any deductions for any credit card payment
processing fees or costs that may be charged to the employer by the
credit card company. Payment of gratuities made by patrons using
credit cards shall be made to the employees not later than the next
regular payday following the date the patron authorized the credit
card payment.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
I was just wondering something.... couldnt these lawsuits cause the club owners to really treat you as employee's? Wouldnt that be worse?
This is a racket business to begin with, everybody hustles everyone else (Yes even us Dj's) for our share of the pie. But lets just say you win your suit and become "employees" let me tell you what the clubs will do in retaliation. (I know a couple owners that already have this plan just in case)
Every performer would be paid the min. tipped employee hourly rate (per your state) in Ny's case it would be 2.90 /hr. Plus the club would set it up to take half or even more of every dance you do, you work for the club at this point so realistically they can make the customers pay the house and you do your dances for "tips only" <--- Not good. You are paid your 2.90/hr to do your dances (See where I am going with this?) Now on top of that, they will track your tips which you would have to declare (cause the club reports it) and it would be deducted from you paycheck each week...again not good. Lets just give you an example:
Dancer A, works a 40 hour week and gross is roughly 116.00 (sick) Ok, now lets say you made 500.00 in tips (which you are forced to claim) You would be left with about a 50 paycheck each week. (terrible, and yes i am just estimating) PLUS, you are required to work when THEY tell you, show up ONTIME work the whole shift...etc etc. They could even go as far as to pick your music for you and tell you what to dance to, what to wear...etc etc. At this point you are employees.
Its a no win situation, overall the clubs would win, then the girls would be doing dances for free and it would be a MAJOR tax problem. Do you really want to pay taxes on every dollar you make??? I doubt it.
Now I dont want to come across as defending the clubs here, cause im not I am just giving some food for thought at what the clubs would do if faced with having to make all entertainers "Employees", it would hurt you in the long run and overall you would be making as much money as a normal job. Can you imagine if you had to do 25 dances a night for free???? Club wouldnt have to give you a dime of that money. I just know how these guys think, and it would really hurt everyone in the end. This to me just sounds like someone (or a group) trying to make a fast buck. Hundereds of thousands of girls go to the IC clubs everyday, but there are advantages to being a IC also. Make your own schedule ,claim your own tips (thats a big one there)...etc etc.
Just some thoughts...
Capt
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Yes Cap. I can't imagine why any REAL strippers would want to be classified and treated as employees. The consequences that go with that are much worse than having to pay stage fees IMO.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
In any struggle for justice, a minority will support the cause. Another minority will oppose it. The majority will be indifferent but is suspectible to being swayed in both directions.
At brothels masquerading as high-class stripclubs, some "dancers" (i.e. prostitutes) pressured their own kid sisters to join them in prostitution. Such "dancers" are viciously opposed to the just cause represented by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit against certain stripclubs and brothels masquerading as high-class stripclubs. If justice prevails, such "dancers" will experience a dramatic loss in revenue and may even go to jail. A "dancer" with the gumption to pressure her own sister into prostitution is likely arrogant enough to break the law in many ways.
Such "dancers" give even (small-time) criminals a bad name. There are few things more loathsome than pressuring one's own sister into prostitution.
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
That's EXACTLY what I'm worried about. Yes it would end clubs charging 'stage fees'. Yes it would mean unemployment and worker's comp benefits. It could also mean the institution of other sorts of 'employee' benefits such as seniority determining dancer's choice of shifts over 'hotness'.
But it would also very probably mean that dancers would be required to work set hours and set days, and be fired if they were late or didn't show. It would also very probably mean that every dollar spent by club customers for anything except stage tips would be run through the club's cash register, with a percentage 'commission' paid to the dancer via the club's payroll system with all taxes withheld and with every dollar reported to the IRS and state income tax agency. It could also mean the institution of 'tip sharing', or at least the inclusion of individual tips to the dancer's reported income. It would also very likely mean the abolishment of all 'business expense' tax deductions for dancers, except those that specifically are allowed for 'employees' i.e. constumes and shoes.
We've had previous discussions regarding 'employee' dancers, with the conclusion that it offers benefits to 'marginal' dancers. Those benefits often come at the direct expense of 'top shelf' dancers, who find that part of their own income is being redistributed.
As to my knowledge of SF clubs, admittedly I haven't worked at MSC since I heard about the last round of busts.
Melonie that’s all the club owner’s want is the IRS around when most these clubs are just money laundering operations.http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2..._1979/rofl.gif
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
What does prostitution have to do with the lawsuit? I though this was about Employee Vs. IC definitions...Prostitution is illegal and yes it does exist in our industry. But you get bad apples in every bunch. IMO this issue is not represented by the "minority", in fact lets just take the owners and clubs out of it for a moment. The majority of performers could care less about being designated an "employee", most like the independence that they get with being an IC. Employees are controled by the company, IC's are controlled by themselves.
I am still trying to figure out why a bunch of dancers would have brought this action in the first place?? Becuase the club has fees? Or takes a cut of the dances?? This action seems to me like a bitter attack on a club for someones ego (or ego's) getting bruised...Why go through all this trouble, when really there is nothing to gain. Are they just trying to bring this club down? If this action really did set the "standard" for all clubs nationally, it would be a disaster for dancers nationally. The clubs would work around the new laws and make it harder on performers (especially with a bitter taste in their mouths).
Of course it makes sense that this would only happen in CA. A state full of liberal judges that would hear a case on these merits. I would also beware of a counter action, whatever you may win in the settlement (if that even happens) you would pay in back taxes after the club in retaliation drops your personal information into the hands of the IRS. Dangerous game you all are playing.
Capt
-
Re: Attention Gold Club (s.f.) Dancers Notice Of Class Action
Dj Captain Rob
Wow! You don't know much about this industry. What has prostitution have to do with IC Vs employee?
Once again go to http://www.exoticdancerslib.com/ and read the article written quoting the problems that come about because of it.
I have lots of things to do and I can’t explain every detail to you. So go there and read the reports posted with links when available.
Next how did you determine what millions of women want? Did you stick your thumb up your ass and pull out a #.
There are no numbers given for who wants what.
Once again apparently you did not even read the post I put here. IT’S ABOUT THE LAW AND JUSTICE AND DON’T THINK THIS WILL NOT BE A NATIONAL LAW BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DETERMINES WHAT AN IC AND EMPLOYEE ARE.
The dancers want protection under labor laws like anyone else who goes to work!