-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Do gooder that doesn't know what s/he is doing.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Certain club practices requiire (legally) that they club treat them as Employees. In my considered opinion, clubs should give the dancers the choce of employee status or Independent Contractor status. If they are not employees, they should not be treated as such, or they should be sued. Even if by the state.
Why are these sketchy club operators allowed to gyp workers? Why are people, including club workers, earning money for working not legally paying taxes so I won't have to pay it for them?
I'm not going to be changing my taxation or worker unfairness opinions based on their popularity on SW, believe me.
http://www.stripperweb.com/wiki/User_talk:Threlayer
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into F
Quote:
Originally Posted by trainfinder22
I am shocked that dancers are dancing naked! no not that naked...
But club owners expect them to work off of tips alone and not even pays waitress wage. That means when a dancers gets hurt they are not covered by workmans comp or if they get fired they dont get unemployement insuarnce...Is this common? I talked to my state labor board and they are thinking of getting involeved to force club owners to pay them a wage and pay into Social Security
Dear, we do not actually "work" for the clubs. We work AT the clubs. I liken my house fees to having booth at the flea market. If I did have a booth at the flea market, I would have to pay a booth rental, which IMO is no different than paying a club to "sell my services" there.
I'm not sure where you live, but PLEASE don't go mucking things up for the rest of us.
I understand you have good intentions; but as they say "The road to Hell, is paved with good intentions.". That is what will happen with yuor line of thinking.
I personally like being able to only work around 24hrs a week. I like working if I wanna. I like being able to take a few days off that time of the month.
And personally I don't want that mussed up.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into F
Did Spoz/Nightrider/femmefatales whomever s/he is spawn another account?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trainfinder22
Privacy? Its a matter of socitty aceppting dancers as legit work and being proud of who you are. Everybody knows the Doctors in my town so why not all the strippers?
::)
Lemme guess, you live in San Francisco. ;D
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
A lot of people work as independent contractors. It is very common in the construction industry, where the trade subs will submit a bid to the general contractor for a certain price.
It is common for entertainers to work as independent contractors. Comedians and bands get paid a set amount for their work and are paid a lump sum without any withholdings. They are issued a 1099 for what they are paid.
If dancers become paid employees, then every dollar they make will be traced, and they will end up making far less than they do now after taxes. Clubs will make less too after taxes and additional business expenses. The only ones that would benefit would be the government because they would collect more taxes. Everyone else would lose out.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeDWinter
I like not paying taxes on my tips.
Say that a little louder, Paige, why don't you?
Let me clarify something here: I DO NOT want to remain an IC to avoid paying taxes. Also, because I DO pay my taxes, I will have social security, you moron, that's what that 15.3% is going towards. I would also encourage other dancers to do the same; if you do not file for a certain number of years you are at risk of losing SS benefits.
I would prefer that the clubs remove scheduling requirements and merchandise sales, and any other practices that could be used to claim we are employees. True independent contractor statues is better for us. If we were employees, clubs could try to pay everyone $30 an hour and make us do all the dances they wanted for that price, claiming that we were employees hired to do table dances.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into F
^^ you're absolutely correct that the 'plus side' of being an employee with mandatory benefits does not come without a cost to the employer. One way or another, the extra costs to the club of paying premiums on workmen's comp, unemployment insurance, and any other employee benefits i.e. health insurance, will have to be extracted from dancers' gross revenues. As Susan points out, there are many avenues open to the clubowners to accomplish this, from forcing dancers to do an unlimited number of private dances without extra pay (over and above their hourly paycheck), to the club paying 'commissions' to dancers amounting to perhaps 50% of the money spent by the customer on private dances (with the club keeping the other half).
In an employer/employee environment the club also has a huge incentive to limit the number of hours worked per dancer per week to 24 hours or less, in an effort to avoid the club having to provide and pay for 'full time' employee benefit levels vs 'part time'. This in turn must result in rigid dancer shift scheduling requirements.
When employee status comes into the picture, there are also new issues to be dealt with i.e. potential tip sharing requirements, choice of shift scheduling being based on seniority rather than 'hotness' etc.
Quote:
If dancers become paid employees, then every dollar they make will be traced, and they will end up making far less than they do now after taxes. Clubs will make less too after taxes and additional business expenses. The only ones that would benefit would be the government because they would collect more taxes. Everyone else would lose out.
this will absolutely be the case, and exactly what some state and local govt's are trying to achieve.
IMHO classifying dancers as employees always has the consequence of lowering the club's offerings to the 'lowest common denominator'. 'Hot' girls and girls who are true hustlers will NOT continue to work in an environment where a significant portion of the 'fruits of their labors' is being absorbed by the club to pay for benefits which are of questionable value (or subsidizing the benefits of other dancers who produce far less gross revenue for the club). In the end, like the Lusty Lady, you will eventually wind up with a club full of mediocre dancers and low budget customers, with a pay rate in the $15 per hour ballpark at best..
There is also a big 'employee dancer tax trap' waiting for girls who are working as 'employees' in clubs which will not allow them to report their tip incomes through the club's payroll system as required by law. Much more on this at
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Taxes? Actauly I like paying taxes...How else am I going the get the Bike path and the rec center and the schools and the Subway and the roads? Oh yeah and this Liabrary
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
^^Using the computer in the library? Then I bet you don't pay much in taxes. In fact, I bet you get a refund.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
what a load....libraries block this site. I'm a SW addict and I was without internet for awhile....so believe me, I know!
You can pay my taxes in you enjoy it so much. I'm tired of it, but I do it because I'm selfish and I like earning interest. The bike path is cool, but I'm more concerned about the jet fighters.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan Wayward
I would prefer that the clubs remove scheduling requirements and merchandise sales, and any other practices that could be used to claim we are employees. True independent contractor statues is better for us.
Word. This is the ticket - it's not that we don't acknowledge and dislike abuses in the system. We just don't want employee status. I work 3 hours every two weeks. I can't do that on employee status. Stop helping me right out of my damn job.
Quote:
If we were employees, clubs could try to pay everyone $30 an hour and make us do all the dances they wanted for that price, claiming that we were employees hired to do table dances.
I've heard this before. I doubt it would happen, for a number of reasons. The dancers have less incentive to be charming to the customers, and certinly less incentive to do "good" dances. (All the bluies would be out on the proverbial street). Also, it's not the way that clubs who pay the dancers work now. I mean, I'm not all over the idea of employee status, but I think this is an empty scare tactic.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into F
Quote:
I've heard this before. I doubt it would happen, for a number of reasons. The dancers have less incentive to be charming to the customers, and certinly less incentive to do "good" dances. (All the bluies would be out on the proverbial street). Also, it's not the way that clubs who pay the dancers work now. I mean, I'm not all over the idea of employee status, but I think this is an empty scare tactic.
Well, as long as 'employer' clubowners can get away with not reporting 'employee' dancer's tip incomes (and not having to pay the employer's share of SSI, medicare, unemployment, comp etc. on that tip incomes), then you're correct that this is probably an 'empty' threat. However it is clearly legally possible, and was implemented by the Lusty Lady at some point between the first bankruptcy (original owners) and the second brush with bankruptcy (employee owned). What is indeed a more likely scenario than say $30 an hour flat rate dancer wages and 0% of private dance money, would be $10 an hour flat rate dancer wages plus perhaps 50% of individual dancer's private dance money paid in the form of an 'employee sales commission' (with the club keeping the other 50% to subsidize hourly wages for marginal dancers, and to cover the costs of SSI, comp etc.).
Even so, this is a far cry from the dancer keeping 100% of the private dance money she generates - particularly for 'hot' dancers and hustlers who generate a lot of private dance revenue. Top shelf 'high earners' are not going to be content handing over 50% of their earnings to the club in order to subsidize marginal dancers who are much less productive in terms of private dance sales, but who are still receiving the same base pay and benefits while sitting at the club's bar conserving energy. As more and more 'high earner' dancers decide to hit the proverbial road rather than give away 50% of their earnings to the club to subsidize other girls, the club's complement of dancers increasingly consists of dancers who are content to conserve energy and collect hourly pay. However, the catch 22 is that in some way or another the club's costs of providing those hourly wages plus SSI plus comp for its 'employee' dancers must be covered by some form of revenue. If the club has no 'hot' dancers remaining to cover a disproportionately high share of these costs, then the dancers conserving energy have nothing to subsidize them. As with the Lusty Lady, this situation will either force the club into bankruptcy or force the 'employee' dancers to accept a cut in their hourly base pay in order to make actual total customer spending in the club equal the cost of dancers' benefits plus the cost of their base pay plus the cost of income taxes, utilities, mortgage & property taxes for the club.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
^^^
Yes, but the Lusty Lady was a very particular case, as it was a peep show (which works a little different than a lap dance club) and it was employee owned. It was something that they agreed to in order to stay in business, not something that was forced upon them. It was a collective decision. This does make a difference.
Top Shelf dancers already give up 40-50% of their income to subsidize the club owner and relieve him of the necessity of paying his actual employees. Why, exactly, are they reluctant to do it for other dancers instead? Me, I just want to keep my fucking money, and I resent like hell every penny the club unfairly extorts from me, but I don't love subsidizing the owner over subsidizing other dancers. So what you are describing doesn't work well with my theories at all - because it seems like they are doing pretty much the same as they are now, except with a wage on top of it.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into F
bottom line ... there is no free lunch ! PS the Lusty Lady only became employee owned after the original owners found themselves in bankruptcy after having to institute hourly pay plus SSI, comp, unemployment etc. for the club's dancers. At that point, the dancers collectively agreed to take over as 'communal owners' of the club - and promptly discovered that they were also headed for bankruptcy unless they cut their own hourly pay rate to allow actual gross revenues from customers to match actual costs of hourly pay plus benefits plus necessities like club mortgage and utility payments and property tax payments to keep the doors open.
~
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Quote:
Originally Posted by trainfinder22
Taxes? Actauly I like paying taxes...How else am I going the get the Bike path and the rec center and the schools and the Subway and the roads? Oh yeah and this Liabrary
Your public services come from monies other than income taxes: Bike path, roads and subway/ public transportation is paid with fuel taxes. Libraries, parks, schools, and rec centers are paid from property taxes.
Income taxes pay for things like our military, politician's salaries, federally sponsored research programs (such as animal testing, FDA- you know the guys that approve deadly drugs for profit, and weapon's tests), and money to rebuild countries that we blew to smithereens in the first place with weapons purchased with tax payer dollars. Oh, and let's not forget that our income taxes are paying for all the salaries for federal government employees like the (inept) CIA, and the IRS.
Since you are spending so much time at the library, maybe you should do a little research on how the US government works. Start with the Constitution and it's amendments. Then look into where tax dollars actually go. If you are so happy to pay taxes, I believe that maybe you don't really know where your tax dollars are spent.
Do you ever stop to think about how much it costs taxpayers to put on a single dinner party at the White house?? I'm not talking a state dinner, I'm talking an everyday event. A state dinner would run into the Hundreds of THOUSANDS of dollars. Your everyday dinner party... tens of thousands of $$$. How many school computers can you buy for that amount of money? How about drugs for seniors?
So stop barking up the wrong tree. Get some education as to what your country is actually doing, and get out of our business!
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into F
Quote:
Top Shelf dancers already give up 40-50% of their income to subsidize the club owner and relieve him of the necessity of paying his actual employees
Actually, this is typically NOT the case, and in many super-upscale clubs the opposite is true. For example, the Manhattan 'show clubs' typically charge dancers a fixed stage fee ... with $200 being in the ballpark. Now in the case of a mediocre dancer wishing to try her luck in a Manhattan 'show club', she might gross $500 a night. If you subtract a $200 stage fee and a total of $100 in other tipouts, she leaves the club with $200 out of $500, having 'given away' 60% of her gross earnings. On the other hand, in the case of a 'hot' dancer who can hustle wishing to try her luck in a Manhattan 'show club', she might gross $1500 a night. If you subtract the same $200 stage fee and the same $100 in tipouts, she leaves the club with $1200 out of $1500, having 'given away' only 20% of her gross earnings. This financial setup clearly provides an incentive which attracts 'hot' dancers who can hustle, and which provides a dis-incentive for mediocre dancers.
Now imagine the same theoretical club with an 'employee' pay structure. A mediocre dancer working at the club grosses the same $500 in private dance/champ money as in the previous example - however under a $10 per hour plus 50% 'employee' pay structure the mediocre dancer now nets $250 + $80 (assuming 8 hour shift)= $330. Thus the mediocre dancer winds up giving away $170 out of $500 or 34% of her gross earnings. On the other hand a 'hot' hustling dancer in the same club grosses the same $1500 as in the previous example. She in turn now nets $750 + $80 = $830. Thus the 'hot' hustling dancer winds up giving away $670 out of $1500 or 45% of her gross earnings. This financial setup clearly provides a dis-incentive for 'hot' hustling dancers, who potentially have $350+ per night to lose by being classified as 'employees'. This financial setup however provides an incentive for mediocre dancers to stick around, as they potentially have $100+ per night to gain by being classified as 'employees'.
The unintended consequence of course is that the number of customers coming into a club, and the typical amount of money spent by those customers, is a function of the 'hotness' of the dancers working in the club ! If 'hot' hustling dancers relocate to other clubs in an attempt to retain more of their gross earnings, some portion of customers are going to follow the 'hot' dancers. This in turn cuts into the cash flow of the club, and to some degree cuts into the gross earnings of the mediocre dancers remaining at the club. However, with the fixed hourly pay costs and fixed SSI/comp/unemployment benefit costs for 'employee' dancers to the club being independent of actual customer spending or actual cash flow, when customers stop coming to the club or reduce their average spending levels it is the club whose profit margin is squeezed. As in the case of the Lusty Lady, when that profit margin gets squeezed down to zero ...
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
I wouldn't want to be an "employee." I'm in school, so I can only work certain nights, so I like being able to set my own schedule and work the nights that I want to, and have off whenever I want without having to ask first or find someone to work for me. I can leave early if I have an early class the next morning, and I can come in late if I have a class that runs late. I don't want to be told when I have to work and when I'm allowed to have off. I don't want to have my schedule made for me, and I don't want the club to be able to tell me that I can't travel to other clubs to work.
I pay all my taxes, so that isn't really an issue. The money issue is that if I was an "employee," rather than an independent contractor, the club could require me to do lap dances for no money, because I would be getting an hourly wage, and the lap dances would be considered a job requirement. Like when you work at mcdonalds, serving customers is a job requirement. This is the same thing. They could say it is in my job description, and I wouldn't get paid extra for it- my hourly wage would be the pay.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
I also don't care if I'm provided benefits from my club or not. I have a savings account that I put half of my earnings into in case I have to be out of work for some reason, and I have a retirement plan. I still get health insurance through my parents, since I'm still in school, but once I graduate, I will pay for my own insurance. Any dancer who doesn't plan ahead deserves what she gets once she's done dancing. We all know that stripping isn't something we can do for the rest of our lives, so everyone should have a plan for when they're done. I know that a lot of girls don't have a plan, and that's going to be their own problem to deal with once they retire from dancing. I don't want to be an "employee" just so that I can get benefits that I don't even need. I'm doing just fine the way things are. Every girl should just worry about herself. If one girl can't afford to pay for her own health insurance, then maybe she should find a different job where she can make more money. The only girls I ever hear complaining about money and about not being able to afford going to the doctor are the ones who shouldn't be dancing in the first place.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Quote:
We all know that stripping isn't something we can do for the rest of our lives, so everyone should have a plan for when they're done.
Well, ironically, this point is the unspoken focus of the 'employee' dancer argument ... and particularly so when followed up by the typical call for unionization which is the second priority of those advocating 'employee' dancer status. Being considered an 'employee' automatically brings into play labor law and DOL court precedents, and important among them is the concept of seniority. Thus in the reductium ad absurdio case, forcing dancers into 'employee' status, unionizing etc. provide a strong incentive for the following ...
'hot' dancers leave 'employee' clubs for greener pastures in an effort to retain more of their own earnings. Upscale club customers (or at least some of them) follow the 'hot' dancers to different clubs. Based on the mediocre dancers who remain at the 'employee' club, and based on the remaining not-so-upscale customers at the 'employee' club, there is a gross revenue shortfall. When faced with a vote to either retain all dancers with every dancer taking a pay cut, versus voting to 'lay off' a couple of remaining dancers to make club revenues equal dancer hourly paychecks, benefit costs, costs of club operation etc. , the majority of dancers are likely to vote against taking a pay cut themselves. And what criteria should be used to decide which dancers keep their jobs versus which dancers get pink slips ? Well, by labor law and DOL court precedent, the likely criteria would be relative seniority. Thus one can envision an 'employee' club where the entire complement of remaining 'employee' dancers is in their 30's and 40's, very much like other unionized industries which have experienced a fall in gross revenues !
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Quote:
If we were employees, clubs could try to pay everyone $30 an hour and make us do all the dances they wanted for that price, claiming that we were employees hired to do table dances
Quote:
I've heard this before. I doubt it would happen, for a number of reasons. The dancers have less incentive to be charming to the customers, and certinly less incentive to do "good" dances. (All the bluies would be out on the proverbial street). Also, it's not the way that clubs who pay the dancers work now. I mean, I'm not all over the idea of employee status, but I think this is an empty scare tactic.
What WOULD happen, IMO, is that THe girl who can't stand to be bored and hustles her ass off (me) would make the same money in ah hour as the girl who sits on her ass and drinks all night. How is that fair? I spend more tha the other gils I work with on constumes, training, cosmetics, shoes, and every other thing related to this job. I am also bettr thaqn most of them. I deserbe to be compensated accordingly, and as far as I see it, IC status is the only way to go.
BTW, I worked as a waitress for a little while. NO health insurance, NO LTD insurance, NO 401 K, NO benefits of any kind. What I did get was a check tha amounted to abuot $1 an hour after ALL taxes were taken out, including 8% on my estimated tips, a strict schedule, and a bunch of rules. Oh, yeah, we had mandatory tip-outs to the bus-boy, too.
As for the doctor anaolgy, trainfinder22, many Doctors are IC's too. Even many of the ones who work in hospitals.
No, thanks. I like my life the way it is. Please don't mess with it. Thanks.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Well, ironically, this point is the unspoken focus of the 'employee' dancer argument ... and particularly so when followed up by the typical call for unionization which is the second priority of those advocating 'employee' dancer status.
Maybe unionization is really the First priority, but they need to get us into employee status first. It occurs to me that all these *ahem* individuals who have no interest in us otherwise, maybe want to start and profit from a union.
I have little or no respect for unions, myself. My dad-in-law lost his pension in the Jimmy Hoffa/Vegas scandal and is still working at 80 years old. My husband has worked in varoius union shops all his life, and they always seem to be unfair and operating contrary to the employees' interests, jsut the opposite of what a union should be doing.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into F
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Actually, this is typically NOT the case, and in many super-upscale clubs the opposite is true. For example, the Manhattan 'show clubs' typically charge dancers a fixed stage fee ... with $200 being in the ballpark.
So in Manhattan the club doesn't take ANY of your dances or VIPs? That's great. That is not the case in a great deal of the country - there are numerous threads on Deja Vu, for example. When I was in Guam I gave the club 1/2. In Montana I gave them 20%. In most clubs in the US the club takes portion in addition to the fee, as I'm sure you know.
Quote:
Now imagine the same theoretical club with an 'employee' pay structure.
Or we could imagine a theoretical club that may be closer to most women's experience - which is one that charges a stage fee AND takes a portion of the dances. Which means that under your model of employee status, in which women receive a low hourly wage but give back a portion of their earnings to club will be in much the same position as they are now - give or take a few percent. Like I said, I don't even like the idea of employee status. But your objections don't make sense.
Quote:
As in the case of the Lusty Lady, when that profit margin gets squeezed down to zero ...
Well, the reason I keep pointing out that the Lusty Lady is peepshow, not a lapdance club is because I'm pretty sure that you are comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps the Lusty Lady was simply not an environment particularly conducive to turning a profit without exploiting the dancers (you might ask if that means it is better off closed. Maybe. I wouldn't work there). It is not a bar or a club, but a peepshow. It's profits and business plan/design are not the same.
Also - your fears about seniority etc., are based on faulty assumptions. At the Lusty Lady they made a conscious decision to grant seniority, etc. I can promise you that in most places (including NY, by the way) in certain kinds of jobs a certain appearance is considered a bona fide job requirement. In other words, even with employee status, you could be fired for getting too old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by colleen
What WOULD happen, IMO, is that THe girl who can't stand to be bored and hustles her ass off (me) would make the same money in ah hour as the girl who sits on her ass and drinks all night.
Okay, I can promise you that doesn't happen. How do I know? Because I've worked in bars that pay you. Some girls still make more than others, and the bar doesn't simply instruct to grind away on guys all night. You still sell your own dances, and you still keep your own money. It just doesn't happen. And, honestly, you could already be making LESS than a girl that sits on her ass drinking all night. There has been many a night in which I have out earned the poor little-engine-that-could by sitting on my ass, drinking, taking it easy and goofing off. That is the beauty of the system. It is not a meritocracy. And again - I am in favour of indie status. But I can't get behind a sound and fury that signifies nothing - and I think claims that employee status will relegate us to a low hourly wage in which we will be forced into free dance after free dance are of the fear mongering-knee jerking variety.
Quote:
How is that fair? I spend more tha the other gils I work with on constumes, training, cosmetics, shoes, and every other thing related to this job. I am also bettr thaqn most of them. I deserbe to be compensated accordingly, and as far as I see it, IC status is the only way to go.
Of course you do - however, I must point out again that you buying more shoes and trying harder doesn't translate into you deserving more money. The only measure of "deserving" that we have is what you clear at the end of the night - in other words, if you have it you deserve it. Shoes and cosmetics are not the point.
In any case, I am not getting the connection. Melonie suggested that dancers, if they became employees, would be paid a low hourly wage (I believe she suggested $10 an hour) and have to give a portion of their dance income to the club (she suggested 40-50%). So you would make more than the other girls (assuming that you do now).
Now, offhand, I don't see how this changes MOST girls position significantly. Most girls already give a portion to the club (in fact the bouncers that some of the girls here insist should be tipped as insurance are, half the time, employed mainly to count your dances to make sure that you are paying the appropriate percentage to the club). So, most girls would be in a position similar to what they are now, except they make an extra $10 an hour (since most girls have to adhere to a schedule, and most girls have to work a certain number of days a week, etc.). This is not terrifying to me. The fact that most women in the industry would have so little to actually lose if they were put on employee status should throw up some red flags - am I the only one that thinks that?
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into F
Quote:
Originally Posted by colleen
...I have little or no respect for unions, myself. My dad-in-law lost his pension in the Jimmy Hoffa/Vegas scandal and is still working at 80 years old. My husband has worked in varoius union shops all his life, and they always seem to be unfair and operating contrary to the employees' interests, jsut the opposite of what a union should be doing.
Having been shaken down by a corrupt union asshole in Detroit when I was a kid, I tend to agree.
My dad was smart enough to just pay him the damed 100$ bribe so I could get back to work.
In principle, unions are a great idea, but I'd hate to see what would happen if they got a toehold in an industry already laden with corruption and despicable power-hungry jerkoffs.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Call me crazy, but I like being able to set my own schedule, pick and choose who I dance for, how many dances I do in a night, etc. As a regular employee in a regular job, such as the restaurant business, you don't get to pick and choose your customers, and management doesn't really appreciate it if you yell at the asshole at your table that just grabbed your ass.
I like the flexibility of being an independent contractor, what can I say? I've got my own health insurance and I pay my taxes, so I don't worry about any of that stuff when I dance. I come in, do my thing, grab my money, and leave. Simple, effective, and way better than punching a clock and everything else that goes along with being a regular employee.
-
Re: Dancers should be bona-fide employees not Ind. Contraters so employer pays into FICA
Quote:
Originally Posted by trainfinder22
Actauly I like paying taxes
Bitchin, TF22. $23.5K payable to Uncle Sam should cover me this time. I'm much abliged to your generosity, kind sir.
Independant Contractor? Uhhhh yeah.... that's it. *picks up envelope full of cash*. See ya later...boss... *wink*