Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

  1. #1
    God/dess Selina M's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Omicron Persei 8
    Posts
    4,508
    Thanks
    12,529
    Thanked 13,934 Times in 3,720 Posts

    Default Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Got a 2nd lovely letter this morning from a lawyer... a group of dancers from the Phx Christie's are suing the parent chain. They're asking for all their house fees and tip outs, plus minimum wage, plus any tips the club took that should have gone to dancers, and they want it all doubled to make up for "damages".
    They're going after the clubs in Phx, Tempe and Glendale, AZ, as well as the two in Ohio and one in NC.


    Methinks I'm staying out of this one. As much as I like to see Steve Cooper get some sort of karma coming back to him, I don't need participation in a lawsuit against a strip club coming up on a background check.
    "People jack off with the left hand and point with the right."

    "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

  2. #2
    Featured Member kaninchen's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,659
    Thanks
    930
    Thanked 5,550 Times in 1,321 Posts

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    I'm so torn about stuff like this. On the one hand, labor rights are beneficial and important, and I'm happy to see sex workers being treated seriously by the legal system.

    On the other, I feel that these lawsuits do very little to change existing structures in a positive way, in fact, don't they generally result in unnecessary and dumb policies being implemented?

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kaninchen For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    As always seems to be the case, the real world impact of these 'employee' dancer lawsuits seems to be ...

    - a marginally beneficial settlement payout to dancers who have worked for the club for a sustained time period

    - negative repercussions in regard to future earnings potential for dancers who will continue to work for the club as 'employees'

    - positive repercussions for attorneys, tax collectors, etc.

    Such lawsuits have often been referred to as 'retirement plans' for dancers ... because the only true beneficiaries are dancers who have worked as independent contractors for a lengthy period and who will not continue to work as 'employee dancers' in the future.


    I don't need participation in a lawsuit against a strip club coming up on a background check.
    Indeed this is a 'new wrinkle' worth considering. Being named as a party to such lawsuits as a matter of 'public record', in combination with today's database search capabilities, virtually guarantees that one's history of exotic dancing will be discovered by 'sensitive' straight job employers, by state professional licensing agencies, etc.

  5. #4
    God/dess SweetJulia's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Rolling in a BIG pile of money!
    Posts
    2,836
    Thanks
    21,633
    Thanked 6,196 Times in 1,978 Posts
    My Mood
    Yeehaw

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    There's actually three in Ohio. Anyway, this doesn't surprise me one bit and, yes-Steve Cooper creeped me out beyond belief in person.
    Twitter:
    Cam profile: *Fave me, it's good for my ego
    General Pics:
    "Experience is a brutal teacher, but you learn. My God, do you learn!"-C.S. Lewis
    Quote Originally Posted by xStacey View Post
    Close contact, for an hour, for $40? And I guess I'll have to make conversation with them too?

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SweetJulia For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    God/dess miss.a.p1600's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    16,440
    Thanks
    47,042
    Thanked 34,925 Times in 12,871 Posts
    My Mood
    Aggressive

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    As always seems to be the case, the real world impact of these 'employee' dancer lawsuits seems to be ...

    - a marginally beneficial settlement payout to dancers who have worked for the club for a sustained time period

    - negative repercussions in regard to future earnings potential for dancers who will continue to work for the club as 'employees'

    - positive repercussions for attorneys, tax collectors, etc.

    Such lawsuits have often been referred to as 'retirement plans' for dancers ... because the only true beneficiaries are dancers who have worked as independent contractors for a lengthy period and who will not continue to work as 'employee dancers' in the future.




    Indeed this is a 'new wrinkle' worth considering. Being named as a party to such lawsuits as a matter of 'public record', in combination with today's database search capabilities, virtually guarantees that one's history of exotic dancing will be discovered by 'sensitive' straight job employers, by state professional licensing agencies, etc.
    What do you mean negative repercussions on future earnings? Like if the dancer stayed and continued to work there they would make less money? So dancer employees make less money then why change the system?

    I totally get not wanting to pay ridiculous ass fees (which dancers have no say in how said fees are being allocated) and being bound to schedules but if suing is not going to change anything for the better than what's the point? Just to get a few thousand dollars?

    So joining in on suing a club can show up on a background check? Is this for any lawsuit? And how low does that stay on your record? I don't think this would matter much to the dancers who have adult entertainment license (adult work is already in their background records) and they feel like it's worth it to get some sort of justice (suing and winning and collecting settlement money).
    “Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”

  8. #6
    God/dess SnuffleUffleGrass's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2009
    Location
    HearstCastle, Rosebud
    Posts
    8,848
    Thanks
    22,676
    Thanked 17,513 Times in 6,696 Posts
    My Mood
    Angelic

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    I feel like the SC industry has been dying out in a such a miserable fashion that these lawsuits matter so little.

  9. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Personally, I would rather pay a house fee and not have to deal with being on a schedule than get a paycheck and deal with a schedule.
    Indeed - and probably for more reasons than you have thought of. Under the ACA, 'employer' clubowners will be required to provide health insurance coverage to all 'employee' dancers who are considered to be full-time employees i.e. working 30 or more hours per week. To avoid this new cost, employer clubowners are likely to follow in the footsteps of major retailers, restaurants etc. and limit individual employee dancers to a maximum of 28 hours per week. This is likely to not only limit employee dancer income potentials via reduced hours ( i.e. only being allowed to work 3 shifts per week ), but is likely to also lead to major conflicts i.e. the DOL 'fairness' of the club allowing one dancer to work Friday, Saturday and one other shift per week, while forcing another dancer to only work weekdays. Remember as employees the DOL can enforce 'equal treatment' ... potentially leading to a rigid club schedule which allows employee dancers to work a Friday or a Saturday but not both, and also requiring the employee dancer to work two weekdays !!! What is the probable employee dancer earnings potential likely to be if she is only allowed to work Monday, Wednesday and Friday or Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday ?


    What do you mean negative repercussions on future earnings? Like if the dancer stayed and continued to work there they would make less money? So dancer employees make less money then why change the system?
    Follow the money ! Club customers will be bringing the same amount of dollars into the club. However, additional clubowner dollars will now need to go towards an IRS 'legal' payroll system, toward state unemployment and disability insurance premiums, toward paying 1/2 of the employee dancers social security tax, toward full time employee dancer health insurance premiums etc. Ultimately, these additional new costs to the clubowner are not going to come out of the clubowners current door cover charge revenues, bar revenues, dancer house fee revenues ( which become illegal for employee dancers ), etc. Instead they are going to have to come from a higher percentage 'split' being applied to employee dancer private dance and VIP sales etc., perhaps even from employee dancer tips ( = tip sharing ).

    Ironically, about the only source of employee dancer earnings which will escape a higher percentage 'split' with the club will be money paid directly by customers to dancers in exchange for extras in the privacy of the private dance area / VIP room.


    if suing is not going to change anything for the better than what's the point? Just to get a few thousand dollars?
    As I said earlier, the only dancers who really benefit from an employee dancer lawsuit are those dancers who have worked for the club as independent contractors for several years ( thus will receive a sizeable settlement ), and will NOT continue to work at the club as employees in the future !!!

    The 'powers that be' which actually have a vested interest in seeing dancers officially classified as employees are the IRS / state tax agencies ( automatic income reporting and withholding ), state unemployment and disability insurance funds ( a new source of additional insurance payments into these funds ), labor unions ( a source of new dues paying members ) etc.
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-27-2015 at 11:53 AM.

  10. #8
    God/dess miss.a.p1600's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    16,440
    Thanks
    47,042
    Thanked 34,925 Times in 12,871 Posts
    My Mood
    Aggressive

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Indeed - and probably for more reasons than you have thought of. Under the ACA, 'employer' clubowners will be required to provide health insurance coverage to all 'employee' dancers who are considered to be full-time employees i.e. working 30 or more hours per week. To avoid this new cost, employer clubowners are likely to follow in the footsteps of major retailers, restaurants etc. and limit individual employee dancers to a maximum of 28 hours per week. This is likely to not only limit employee dancer income potentials via reduced hours ( i.e. only being allowed to work 3 shifts per week ), but is likely to also lead to major conflicts i.e. the DOL 'fairness' of the club allowing one dancer to work Friday, Saturday and one other shift per week, while forcing another dancer to only work weekdays. Remember as employees the DOL can enforce 'equal treatment' ... potentially leading to a rigid club schedule which allows employee dancers to work a Friday or a Saturday but not both, and also requiring the employee dancer to work two weekdays !!! What is the probable employee dancer earnings potential likely to be if she is only allowed to work Monday, Wednesday and Friday or Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday ?




    Follow the money ! Club customers will be bringing the same amount of dollars into the club. However, additional clubowner dollars will now need to go towards an IRS 'legal' payroll system, toward state unemployment and disability insurance premiums, toward paying 1/2 of the employee dancers social security tax, toward full time employee dancer health insurance premiums etc. Ultimately, these additional new costs to the clubowner are not going to come out of the clubowners current door cover charge revenues, bar revenues, dancer house fee revenues ( which become illegal for employee dancers ), etc. Instead they are going to have to come from a higher percentage 'split' being applied to employee dancer private dance and VIP sales etc., perhaps even from employee dancer tips ( = tip sharing ).

    Ironically, about the only source of employee dancer earnings which will escape a higher percentage 'split' with the club will be money paid directly by customers to dancers in exchange for extras in the privacy of the private dance area / VIP room.




    As I said earlier, the only dancers who really benefit from an employee dancer lawsuit are those dancers who have worked for the club as independent contractors for several years ( thus will receive a sizeable settlement ), and will NOT continue to work at the club as employees in the future !!!

    The 'powers that be' which actually have a vested interest in seeing dancers officially classified as employees are the IRS / state tax agencies ( automatic income reporting and withholding ), state unemployment and disability insurance funds ( a new source of additional insurance payments into these funds ), labor unions ( a source of new dues paying members ) etc.
    Now I'm curious what type of back pay settlement a longtime dancer would get. Guess it pays to be veteran dancer at one of these clubs right now.
    “Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”

  11. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    ^^^ the largest actual settlement amount that I've ever heard of ( Manhattan club lawsuit ) was around $15,000 for a dancer who had worked for the same club for several years !!! Not bad for 'severance pay', but certainly nothing that would finance actual retirement.

    Remember that the tipped minimum wage pay scale is like $2.95 per hour, and was lower than that in the past. A full time dancer would thus receive 50 weeks * 40 hours * $2.95 = $5,900 per year maximum, minus the attorney's cut. The class action attorneys, of course, took 1/3rd of total settlement money off the top.

  12. #10
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    491
    Thanks
    2,517
    Thanked 1,320 Times in 344 Posts

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Quote Originally Posted by kaninchen View Post
    I'm so torn about stuff like this. On the one hand, labor rights are beneficial and important, and I'm happy to see sex workers being treated seriously by the legal system.

    On the other, I feel that these lawsuits do very little to change existing structures in a positive way, in fact, don't they generally result in unnecessary and dumb policies being implemented?
    What kind of policies?

  13. #11
    Newbie
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    What's the link between these lawsuits and clubs now hiring girls as employees instead of independent contractors? Is it not a sustainable thing to continue to hire girls as independent contractors and just do what they're supposed to do with that (no mandatory schedule or tipouts)?

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to killerbeez For This Useful Post:


  15. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Is it not a sustainable thing to continue to hire girls as independent contractors and just do what they're supposed to do with that (no mandatory schedule or tipouts)?
    On the legal side, the lawsuits / settlements officially decree that dancers are, and therefore must be treated as, 'employees'. If the clubowner were to continue to treat dancers as independent contractors after the judge's decision / settlement terms are made final, the clubowner could face a bunch of new charges from 'contempt of court' to 'repeat offender'.

    On the financial side, after things are legally finalized, the club cannot collect house fees from dancers. The clubowner must incur new costs, from paying out $3.00 per hour minimum wage to each dancer, to the associated 'employer' SSI tax bill, disability and unemployment insurance premiums, accounting and tax filing costs, etc. On a per shift basis, the combined effect of the loss of dancer house fee revenues and the new 'employer' costs could easily exceed $100 per dancer per night. No clubowner is going to be able to 'absorb' a $100+ dollar per dancer per night reduction in 'net' club earnings, without being pushed into the 'red'.

    The flip side of the lawsuits / settlements is that, legally speaking, the 'employee' dancers no longer own their own work product i.e. lap dances, VIP services etc. and must provide these services in exchange for their basic hourly pay plus tips ... with the customer's $20 per dance or $250 VIP charge now 100% legally belonging to the clubowner. Undoubtedly clubowners will recoup the $100+ per dancer per night reduction by retaining a significant percentage of customer private dance and VIP money ... thus paying a reduced percentage ( 50% ??? ) of the customer's private dance and VIP money to the dancer in the form of a 'sales commission'. The customer money retained by the clubowner will then be used to pay for the 'new' $3.00 per hour paychecks, the new 'employer' SSI tax, the new accounting and tax compliance costs, etc.

    But to answer your specific question about retaining open schedules, as an 'employer' the clubowner now incurs significant new costs for every hour an 'employee' dancer is working. At the basic level, this means paying out $3.00 per hour in minimum wage, plus paying the 7.65% 'employer' SSI tax on that employee minimum wage, plus paying someone to account for the hours worked by each dancer. The point of course is that, under the independent contractor open schedule system, an extra dancer walking in to work an extra night cost the clubowner nothing ... and probably provided additional club revenues in the form of the extra house fee the dancer would have paid. But if an 'employee' dancer walks in to work an extra night, the clubowner begins incurring additional payroll costs and SSI tax costs immediately.

    Furthermore, if an 'employee' dancer is allowed to work 30 or more hours per week, DOL, ACA and other employee 'rights' laws kick in because, at 30 hours per week, the 'employee' dancer is deemed to be a 'full time' employee. 'Full time' employee status triggers additional costs to the 'employer' clubowner, from state disability and unemployment insurance fund payments, to a potential $4,000 per dancer per year ACA tax penalty if the clubowner doesn't provide ACA qualified health insurance benefits for the 'full-time' employee dancers. Thus 'employer' clubowners have a STRONG financial motivation not to allow individual 'employee' dancers to work more than 28 hours per week.

    For these reasons, the transition from 'independent contractor' to 'employee' dancer status fundamentally changes the club's business model due to the mandatory financial changes affecting the clubowner's 'costs of doing business'. Where the 'independent contractor' business model's zero costs per hour and additional dancer house fee payments to the clubowner encouraged the club to allow as many dancers as possible to be working at any given time, the 'employee' dancer business model's significant costs per hour to the clubowner with zero dancer house fee revenues incentivizes clubowners to enact rigid schedules which will limit the number of dancers at any given time to the minimum number necessary to keep club customers 'happy', and to also limit the total working hours for individual dancers to 28 or fewer hours per week while still 'covering' all shifts with that minimum number of dancers.

    As long as we're on this topic, let me mention a different aspect ... 'follow the money'. From a basic economic standpoint, if the same number of club customer dollars are being spent, and some of those club customer dollars must now go towards new SSI taxes, toward new accounting and tax filing costs, toward new 'employee' insurance premiums etc., by definition this means that the 'employer' clubowner and/or the 'employee' dancers are going to wind up with lower net earnings. The easiest way for the perceived negative economic effect to be avoided is for the clubowner to reduce the number of dancers per shift by the same percentage that 'new' costs of doing business are siphoning away club customer money to accountants, attorneys, to the IRS etc. This reduction in dancer 'head count' allows the club's income level to remain the same, and also allows the remaining dancers' income level to remain the same. But it also requires the remaining dancers to work X% harder / do X% more private dances or VIP's in exchange for the same net earnings ... a fact that many dancers may not pick up on.

    There is 'no such thing as a free lunch'.
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-05-2015 at 08:32 AM.

  16. #13
    God/dess Selina M's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Omicron Persei 8
    Posts
    4,508
    Thanks
    12,529
    Thanked 13,934 Times in 3,720 Posts

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Quote Originally Posted by killerbeez View Post
    What's the link between these lawsuits and clubs now hiring girls as employees instead of independent contractors? Is it not a sustainable thing to continue to hire girls as independent contractors and just do what they're supposed to do with that (no mandatory schedule or tipouts)?
    I auditioned/got hired at a Christies after this happened. They are NOT hiring girls as employees, they are still calling them ICs, and the only difference is that there is a page in the fat packet of paperwork that you have to sign, stating that you're aware of the existing lawsuit and promise not to join it.

    The physical 'rule list' of minimum shift, gown requirements, etc. was struck off, but from my chat with the manager and house mom, I gathered that the rules all still exist under the thinly veiled guise of "We strongly SUGGEST you do blah blah... we can't MAKE you... but..." trailing off into that silence that says "We'll void your contract if you don't."

    They are still collecting house fees and doing absurd things like making girls get a permission slip from a manager to take a 10 minute timed smoke break I suspect they will keep doing that until they lose. I think it was supposed to go to trial pretty soon, I think August?

    Edit: I just realized the law firm representing these dancers is the same one that just handled (and won) the Scarlett's case... That looks bad for Christies.
    "People jack off with the left hand and point with the right."

    "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Selina M For This Useful Post:


  18. #14
    Featured Member kaninchen's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,659
    Thanks
    930
    Thanked 5,550 Times in 1,321 Posts

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Quote Originally Posted by NightGoddess View Post
    What kind of policies?
    Well, keep in mind that this is totally my personal, regional experience. But I have worked in clubs that were impacted by lawsuits, and the biggest changes were basically bureaucratic. Newer, longer contracts to sign, different fees to be paid at different times in lieu of outright house fees, new scheduling requirements, different funny money procedures. Nothing major. Just tiny pain-in-the-ass details.

    I feel like I must've read about other dancers having similar experiences when I wrote that first comment though.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kaninchen For This Useful Post:


  20. #15
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    252
    Thanks
    201
    Thanked 275 Times in 118 Posts

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    as a dancer with health issues, this employee stuff is NOT a good deal for me. first off, MANY jobs provide SHIT insurance. as in, limitations on what doctors you can see and a $5000 deductible that must be met before ANYTHING is covered. also, as an ic, i can write off my health expenses, including insurance premiums. this saves me quite a bit of money every year. i would have to be an idiot to not want to be an ic. melonie is also right on limits of hours per week and stricter scheduling, which would NOT work for someone like me who has quite a few appointments that change when my docs are available. having limits as to how many hours per week i can work would be harmful when i would like to pick up extra shifts and my health is doing good to make up for missed work in previous weeks.

    the 'timed smoke break' needs to go though at christies. i smoke to keep myself from being a grade a bitch. thank god i can light up when i want at my place!

    ETA: some clubs DO treat their dancers like employees. there's one that gives you a schedule- even if one isn't able to work those days because of another job/children/school. they fire girls if they can't come in. that's unreasonable, imo. my place is not like that and very laid back, as long as you do your job and don't abuse the privilege.
    Last edited by alice_island; 07-05-2015 at 01:20 PM.

  21. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to alice_island For This Useful Post:


  22. #16
    God/dess Selina M's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Omicron Persei 8
    Posts
    4,508
    Thanks
    12,529
    Thanked 13,934 Times in 3,720 Posts

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    Quote Originally Posted by alice_island View Post

    the 'timed smoke break' needs to go though at christies. i smoke to keep myself from being a grade a bitch. thank god i can light up when i want at my place!
    Right, I tried to imagine them implementing that at my club. The expressions on the girls faces in my imagination were hilarious and along the lines of "Um, EXCUSE me? *finger snaps* Nuh uh!"
    "People jack off with the left hand and point with the right."

    "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

  23. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Another chain lawsuit - Christie's Cabaret

    some clubs DO treat their dancers like employees. there's one that gives you a schedule- even if one isn't able to work those days because of another job/children/school. they fire girls if they can't come in. that's unreasonable, imo
    Indeed there are such 'employee' dancer clubs !!! I was working at a New York club which was one of the first to receive a final court ruling that it must treat dancers as 'employees'. The immediate changes obviously involved virtually all club customer money having to be routed through the club's cash register, rigid dancer schedules, the club increasing it's 'cut' of club customer money to 50%, dropping house fees but charging 'locker rent', etc. On the advice of my accountant, I quit working at that club the day after the final court ruling was issued ... so that I could avoid having my personal details entered into the club's employee file and avoid receiving a W2 at the end of the year.


    I tried to imagine them implementing that at my club. The expressions on the girls faces in my imagination were hilarious and along the lines of "Um, EXCUSE me? *finger snaps* Nuh uh!"
    'Nuh uh' is a realistic response as long as there are other clubs in the area which A. are still legally able to use the independent contractor business model, and B. are willing to hire 'displaced' dancers.

    Going back to the 'history lesson', so far the 'employee' dancer rulings have been confined to individual clubs. However, as more and more of these 'employee' dancer lawsuits involve 'corporate chain' clubs, questions are being raised in regard to the 'incongruity' of one branch clubs being ruled to be acting as an 'employer' while other branch clubs are still allowed to operate under the independent contractor business model. And, arguably, a 'critical mass' is starting to build ... i.e. 'employee' clubs no longer being rare isolated cases, but every large city starting to have more than one club which has been forced to operate under the 'employee' dancer business model. There have also already been a couple of lawsuits filed by clubs who were already forced to operate under the 'employee' dancer business model ... claiming they are victims of 'unfair competition' because the 'club across the street' is still allowed to operate as before.

    Keep in mind that the state and local gov'ts have a 'vested interest' in seeing dancers treated as employees ... specifically, the increased reporting of dancer incomes thus increased collection of dancer income taxes, the increased collection of state unemployment and disability insurance premium money, etc. As 'critical mass' builds, it's not impossible that ... at some future point ... state legislators / DOL's may issue an edict that all dancers in the state must be treated as 'statutory employees'.

    Curiously, there are also a couple of efforts underway to try to enact statewide exotic dancer's licensing requirements ( most notably Pennsylvania ). Were such a requirement to become law, an indirect effect would be that the PA state gov't would know how many dancers were potentially working statewide ... and by some cross-check math to state / city income tax records, how many dancers are working as 'employees' versus independent contractors ( or not filing tax returns ).
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-05-2015 at 06:39 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Christie's Cabaret - Tempe, AZ
    By ASU_Racer in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-08-2013, 05:06 PM
  2. Christie's Cabaret?
    By mistybayside in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 02:19 AM
  3. Christie's Cabaret
    By mintyfresh1 in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 10:40 AM
  4. Christie's Cabaret in Phoenix
    By kittykat1971 in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-09-2005, 01:45 AM
  5. Christie's Cabaret
    By ASU_Racer in forum Junkie Club Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-18-2003, 12:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •