Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: A Seriously BAD Precedent ...

  1. #1
    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 A Seriously BAD Precedent ...

    "Market Street Cinema class action lawsuit

    If you worked as a performer at the Market Street Cinema after December 31, 1998 to present and paid any monies to the operation for the purpose of maintaining employment as a performer, you may be eligible to join a class action lawsuit for recovery. You do not need to be a CA resident either currently or during the time of your performance "contract" with the Market Street Cinema.

    If you believe you may be eligible, contact the Exotic Dancers Alliance or a local SEIU office for more info.

    EDA: 415-995-4745
    SEIU Local Offices (San Fran is local 790):

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It appears that the dance club law enacted in California a couple of years ago has resulted in more than just the one isolated California incident of the Foxy Lady dancer's strike of a couple of months ago. The California powers that be are seemingly intent on creating a formal management/labor relationship between clubs and dancers. This also appears to have the covert support of the large clubowners.

    If you're not familiar, Market Street Cinema is one of the highest earning potential clubs in SF. It's also presently one of the highest contact clubs. This class action lawsuit will probably result in a few dollars being paid back to the dancers to cover stage fees the club continued to charge after January 1, 1999. This precedent will also probably be applied to any other clubs in California who also continued to charge stage fees, which will mean a few dollars being refunded to California dancers.

    On the flip side, it's highly likely that other provisions of the dance club law will now be strictly enforced i.e. dancers not being allowed to accept cash directly from customers, dancers' funny money tip cash-ins and dancers' private dance percentage payouts being 100% reported as income to the IRS and state tax authorities. California clubowners will also be able to strictly enforce posted employee rules just like "straight" employers in regard to missed work, tardiness, productivity, even physical appearance (based on the Disney precedent).

    This legal action IMHO plays right into the hands of the "chain clubs", which will finally allow them to treat their dancers as employees. This will mean unilaterally scheduled work shifts instead of flexible schedules. Because of "full time" employee benefit costs, this will also probably mean that dancers will only be allowed to work 24 "part time" hours or less per week so the clubs won't have to provide health insurance, pensions etc. This will mean less take-home income for the dancers and more for the clubs. This will mean that dancers who don't "produce" to some arbritrary earnings standard, dancers who don't maintain their physical appearance, dancers who decide not to show up for their scheduled shift or show up late can be subject to being fired.

    And to think that the Market Street Cinema dancers think they're actually going to come out ahead in this class action lawsuit by getting some of their stage fees refunded in exchange for all of these other changes! Welcome to dancing 2003.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    92
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: A Seriously BAD Precedent ...

    Wow, some interesting points and possible changes to think on. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

  3. #3
    God/dess Bridgette's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Gettin the fuck outta Dodge!
    Posts
    14,241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: A Seriously BAD Precedent ...

    Yep, exactly as I've said time and again, the only dancers who benefit from such actions are the ones who can't cut the mustard as hustlers and businesswomen. They want the 'security' of a 'steady' paycheck. We can all watch and see how this type of vision shortage among some dancers will negatively affect dancers as a whole in the long run. I say if a dancer wants a steady paycheck she's in the wrong business, period.

    Quote Originally Posted by pheno View Post
    When you lead a nontraditional life don't try to measure it with traditional milestones.

  4. #4
    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: A Seriously BAD Precedent ...

    Bridgette I couldn't agree more. Although I've been accused of being a spreader of unwarranted gloom and doom, I saw enough potential for abuse on the part of the "chain clubs" in this precedent to worry me to the point where I thought it should be shared. As the "chain clubs" are beginning to make inroads in many areas of the country besides just California, the effects of the California law could spread quickly to other states.

  5. #5
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: A Seriously BAD Precedent ...

    Hi Brigette. I disagree. I'm never a top earner, but usually in the top 10%. I like the security of a paycheck. The way we did it here was nice; dancers were casual employees, they collected $50.00 a shift (still paid Dj fees, so it might come out at $40.00) and made the rest of their money hustling. We were paid in cash, in little envelopes bearing our stage names. We kept all of our dance money, collected it directly. (I don't know how the club listed it's employees. Someone explained it to me once, but at time I was more interested in my end than theirs). Nobody had my SIN. Nobody collected my table dance money.

    That money doesn't stop anyone from working. It doesn't make you lazy or not care about making more. But if at the end of the week you definitely have 300 stupid dollars you don't feel as pressured. You don't feel you are working without a net, and you will never go home with less than you walked in with (and if you're me you could spend half your shift working on an english paper on a laptop in a corner of the vip and still know that you will not go home completely penniless). It makes the girls nicer to the customers and each other. It makes the club more fun, for the dancers and customers. It makes the girls less desperate and mercenary. Shifts were not unilateral and nothing terrible happened. You had the option to freelance if you wanted (work without pay, the advantage being that you set your own hours, worked when you wanted for how long you wanted and did fewer stage shows). This is not just "my idea of the best way to dancers to work is a way that works for all of us" - this is the way clubs were run here for years (Except the most popular downtown bars which only had freelancers, and no housegirls). I see Melonie's concerns about taxing and I would hate to not get my money directly from the customers. But I don't think that the women launching the lawsuit are the only ones with a vision shortage.

    And Melonie - everyone (including myself) always appreciates your information. But you must admit you are a little gloomy.

    (That was my first smiley. I am very proud of it)

    Jenny
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: A Seriously BAD Precedent ...

    If you want to be an employee, be an employee. Work for a paycheck, perhaps tips too like waitresses and bartenders do, but follow schedules and have taxes withheld and do what the boss says.

    Otherwise, be an independant contractor. Deal with your own taxes, be your own boss, don't let anyone tell you how or when to do your job.

    it's the clubs and dancers that can't decide which they want to be that drive me nuts. dancers that want to come and go as they please, but collect a shift pay. or clubs that want to collect stage fees (which I view as a space rental fee, which is fine - I can't afford to build my own club to do business in, so I pay a small fee to someone who has a club. just like renting a hairstyling station in a salon.) but then impose dress codes or fines for being late on shift or any number of other things that point to dancers as employees.

    personally, I'd rather be independant. but if the clubs are going to institute rules that make me more of an employee, damnit, I want to be an employee. pay me, withhold my taxes, and make me eligable for workman's comp when I sprain my ankle on the stage you won't repair.

    -Orchid, feeling kinda snarky tonight.

  7. #7
    God/dess britneyireland's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    2,568
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 602 Times in 340 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    My Mood
    Inspired

    Default Re: A Seriously BAD Precedent ...

    FYI, Market Street Cinema was NEVER considered one of the best money-making clubs in town. Yes, there is extremely high contact...but for low dollar amounts (literally, hj for $50; bj for $100) The dancers tended to be 3s and 4s on the SCORES scale, and the clientele was FAR from upscale. The club itself is in the middle of the ghetto: flanked by crack houses and homeless people waiting for spare change outside.

    The way it worked was that (on top of the nightly stage fee) the girl had to pay $20 to the house for every song that played while she was in the private booth. You could do whatever you wanted for whatever price inside that booth. Being SF, extras were necessary to turn a profit. So, if you sold a bj for $100, you'd make an $80 profit in one song....(and then try to charge another 100 for song 2 if he hadn't finished yet)

    Bridgette hit the nail on the head: the girls that work here are NOT talented hustlers or businesswomen. They are the streetwalkers of SF. Literally, there aren't many streetwalking hookers in SF because they can accomplish their business inside the "safety" of the club.

    When the tech market crashed, SF suffered the most. The market value of a bj went down, and I guess these girls figured that a steady paycheck was better than putting out for 50 bucks.

    Also, MSC is part of the Deja Vu chain, which adds another twist to the story: why aren't the dancers from the other SF DejaVu clubs (Centerfolds, Hustler, New Century, Boys Toys, Roaring 20s, etc) part of this lawsuit as well?
    Britney
    Rebecca Avalon







Similar Threads

  1. MAJOR Financial Precedent set by Greek Court ...
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-05-2011, 06:48 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 02:01 PM
  3. Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-06-2005, 08:30 AM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-11-2005, 08:33 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
  •