Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Unionize Kansas

  1. #1
    Newbie belieflowr's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Unionize Kansas

    I've read that in some places, like vegas, the girls don't have to have a schedule because they are independant contractors, whereas us kansas/missouri girls often have to pay huge fines (like $100) if we miss a day, or a dollar a minute if we are late. anybody that's worked in enough clubs knows that a few bad moves and a greedy club owner can take half or more of your income a night. Or, if someone with influence in the club, like a manager or bouncer, decides he doesn't like you, they can just start fining you like crazy at the drop of a hat.

    we have to work in clubs where they turn up the music too loud, which probably damages our hearing (anything over 80 decibles in unsafe), or too cold. Try walking into a shack in the middle of a corn field and being told you have to be (un)dressed and ready before the heater kicks on in the dead of winter. We are talking cold!

    i think that enough is enough. if we here in kansas are independent contractors without pay or benefits, then we shouldn't be treated like children anymore. the truth is, we are being exploited, plain and simple. but, no one wants to stand up for themselves.

    i even took advantage of a free legal service, and under the conditions that we work in, if we went to court, we would be proven to be employees...unpaid employees...because of all the restrictions that are put on us. that means that the club owners would either have to pay us or stop exploiting us if they want to maintain the independant contractor relationship.

    bottom line, we can do something if we stand up for ourselves. i'm sick of greedy club owners. aren't you?

  2. #2
    242_fair
    Guest

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    The only way to get this thing started is to pool some $ with other girls (quietly, good luck!) and talk to a lawyer who specializes in employment law.

    Frankly you probably do not want to be independent contractors since being an employee gives you more rights, and this is well known. The problem here is not that there is a lack of statutory protection for your present employment situation. the problem is that you are not informed as to your rights and your employers obligations to you as a worker, and so you have not demanded your entitlements. You know very well that most men in this business will screw you around for every dime they can get, and any fair treatment you expect had better be written in law and referred to often so the bastard even does the minimum.

    Basically, what any lawyer will tell you is that your rights as employees probably protect you on both matters:

    A) Workers health and safety is protected udder Kansas laws. Ask someone to help you find the statute. It is not going to be in your local library, you will have to either go to Manhattan to the law school at K-State, or to Kansas City, or just pay a lawyer a few bucks to check easily for you instead. If you are at risk for injury or illness, they will send regulators to protect your rights and check up on things. BUT, do you want to involve a government agency at the club? Are you or others doing things that are illegal or break local bi-laws?

    B) the fining - there is probably state employment law which assures that the employee can't be fined. It varies from state to state but it is pretty standard. I.e.: Late for work? They don't have to pay you for when you weren't there (docked), but they cannot charge money or deduct from a paycheck.

    Now, I'm going to give you some advice, girlfriend. And please keep this in mind as you move forward: Many women have stood up for themselves in this business and won the battle, only to loose the war as they are fired on false pretenses a little later. Blacklisting is common, especially in a state like yours where the clubs are few and far between, and dancers tend to circulate on a circuit.

    If you raise your rights and your voice to the club, if you organize your colleagues and find representation, if you take this thing to the next level, they will eventually force you out of the club. Lets face it. They would not even need to fire you. The bartender could tell everyone you have AIDS and HERPES and wreck every night until you give up and quit. They will not change the system and loose money just for you, and if they do you'll be long gone anyway.

    Instead, figure out what rights are being violated, and then gather evidence of the conditions. Do this completely alone, do not involve another girl. Are there signs posted around that mention the fines? Take one! Steal it! Be creative and look for other evidence. Photograph a thermometer indicating the temperatures, record the date and time, keep records. Then, after a month or so, when you have all kinds of crap on them, take it back to the lawyer and SUE them for double what the lawyer thinks you can get.

    You'd probably get a good amount of money form the club, and you could move to somewhere that doesn't suck! Face it girl: Kansas is the bible belt and the money you make there isn't even worth stripping for usually. I had many a $90 night in Kansas clubs.

  3. #3
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    Kansas isnt ready for a union yet.

    I really hope the industry as a whole gets its shit together and does,but i think it will be a major chain that starts it first and not the small mom and pop operations.

    I know everyone bashes Deja Vu,but outside of 1-2 others,this is the way to go.

    If all the Vu girls decided not to work for a week or until they get a contract,not only would the club owners be willing to talk,but the investors on the stock market would also want resolutions quickly.

    Wanna set this industry on its ear,get a few thousand girls to walk out at the same time with one club chain from all across the country.

    People would shit!!lolololololol

    But entertainers would get the union.

  4. #4
    Featured Member tragic-beauty's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,150
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    we talked about that at the club i worked at.. but all of the girls chickened out

  5. #5
    Veteran Member livenudegirlsunite's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    506
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    I think it's so sad that no one is willing to stand up and fight. If I lived in Kansas I'd be with you. I'm just amazed at how much crap strippers put up with. It's going to take more than one or two people with backbone to stand up to these guys. You have to realize that the cops and politicians make a lot of money off of the labor violations of all of the women who pay into the independent contractor scam. Also realize that most of these soprano guys are doing other things and the independent contractor scam provides them with a "legit cover". No important people care enough about the people who are hurt by the scam to help those of us who actually need help. They are too busy shopping for their $1,000 ball gown to go to their $5,000 a plate save the whales charity ball.
    Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. - M Rivero

  6. #6
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    I don't think a union per se is the answer. Nor is getting the government to investigate and regulate. That's simply substituting one piss-poor master for another, and I wouldn't trust either one to do anything but take your money and make things worse. If a union can win a battle, it usually still loses the war. If the government comes in to clean up one aspect of owner abuse, it won't stop there; it's going to overdo its actions to the point that you'll be regulated right out of a job.

    Instead, the better answer might be to strengthen our role as the independent contractors that we're being labeled as. Fighting the good fight as business people more closely fits the political mood of the country now anyway. We're being called IC's; it's logical to use that as the springboard.

    Some professional organizing might be in order. Possibly along the business model of real estate agents who are usually independent contractors. They compete with each other for home sales, but they also cooperate with each other in combined business ventures like realty agencies and pooling their real estate listings in multiple listing services.

    Perhaps a national association of exotic dancers could form with several goals in mind. The first goal, and easiest to accomplish, would be putting information and training opportunities in the hands of dancers to improve their skills, invest their money, cope with tax law, find the best-run clubs, etc. The organization could also lobby legislators for more favorable laws. As the group got stronger, it could get more active, possibly establishing local resources in various cities, backing sympathetic political candidates, providing member legal support, lodging member complaints with authorities or the Better Business Bureau, etc. There could be a combination of a national association and locally organized professional groups helping dancers. Again, much like real estate agents who have local boards and a national association.

    The idea is scaleable, that is, it can start small yet expand. And membership would be voluntary, with the benefits of membership being the primary enticement to join. For that matter, the groups wouldn't have to be totally adversarial to club owners. It would probably affect more productive change if the groups viewed their mission as convincing owners that there are mutually beneficial ways to increase revenues for both parties. If done correctly, clubs would WANT to recruit from this pool of professionals for business reasons.

    Bottom line is that there are just too many of us working, yet we have no combined voice. That abundance makes it a "buyers market," driving down earnings for everyone and taking the business on a downhill slide. Meanwhile, the lack of unification and professional organization gives us no strength as a political or professional force. Yeah, no wonder no one takes us seriously.

    Again, I think professional groups could be formed to address these problems more effectively and with more control by dancers than labor unions, regulatory agencies or law enforcement. However, the primary hurdle to any of these unification efforts is, well, the lack of willingness to come out of the closet as a stripper. It's somewhat difficult to have a business luncheon if no one's willing to admit they're in the business. Well, okay, maybe business luncheons sound frickin' boring as hell. Gag, please, nothing that formal, it's gotta be fun while otherwise productive. Not like real estate agents then, but um, like building subcontractors over a beer at a strip club.

    -Ev

  7. #7
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by evan_essence
    Instead, the better answer might be to strengthen our role as the independent contractors that we're being labeled as.

    Some professional organizing might be in order.

    Perhaps a national association of exotic dancers could form with several goals in mind.

    -Ev



    Quote Originally Posted by Thorn
    What you are discribing is a professional guild association and is, probably, precisely the way dancers and dj's ought to be going.

    Bouncers, porters, parking lot and kitchen staffs might be better served by going the union route. There are already organized unions, most subdivisions of the AFL-CIO, particuarly in the case of porters and kitchen staffs, that could be approached to provide support for these workers.
    I believe what EE is referring to here is not quite a guild or union, but more along the lines of the AMA or SAE. Neither the AMA (Amreican medical assoc.) or SAE (society of automotive engineers) at present perform collective bargaining on behalf of members, nor do members have the power to strike. The AMA may be reclassifying itself soon as a guild/union. These organizations can and do lobby for legislation and provide a variety of member services, such as PR. This could be a useful first step, as the road to either employee-ownership or full fledged labor union status will be bumpy.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by evan_essence
    ...Instead, the better answer might be to strengthen our role as the independent contractors that we're being labeled as. Fighting the good fight as business people more closely fits the political mood of the country now anyway. We're being called IC's; it's logical to use that as the springboard....
    The advantages of dancer IC status for themselves are illusory, but are , however, quite real for club owners. As I explain in a related thread re:paying to be abused, in my opinion this phony IC status is itself a root cause for many abuses. In any event this issue has been decided by the courts: dancers should be classified as employees. On balance, this is a considerable gain, although it superficially feels as if witholding taxes are absorbing a sizable chunk of income. Remember, employees do not pay any house fees, tip out, or fines, (unlawfull payroll deductions) and yet IC's still owe nearly the same taxes. The net gain is significant, and all earnings are above board. The advantages of being covered under labor/employment law rather than under a coerced and/or ridiculous IC "contract" are innumerable. For a century workers and their unions have struggled to gain these various legal rights and protections. It would be wise to take advatage of them.

    Of course the cash is cool, softening the perception of the abuses. Unlawfull fines and payroll deductions (house fees and tipout) remain tolerated, and in many cases, actually increase. Assaults and harrassment increase. Working conditions decline, unabated.

    Maybe the cash isn't that cool after all...

  9. #9
    Member
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by belieflowr

    i think that enough is enough. if we here in kansas are independent contractors without pay or benefits, then we shouldn't be treated like children anymore. the truth is, we are being exploited, plain and simple. but, no one wants to stand up for themselves.

    bottom line, we can do something if we stand up for ourselves. i'm sick of greedy club owners. aren't you?
    AMEN!!! Belieflowr I agree with u 100% I work in MO. and am having issues at my club right now because they are scheduling us 5 days a week .If we miss a day we are suspended for a week unless we have a dr. note.I'm so upset because I paid my taxes as a IC and owe about $6700 and tipped out the club last year about 6000 THat's not counting what the club got for their cut of my lapdances. This is not a big club I do not make tons of money so to pay over $12000 to wrk there makes me so mad I don't feel like an IC I don't make my own schedule and now I'm told I will work 5 days a week!!

  10. #10
    Veteran Member livenudegirlsunite's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    506
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    babykitten - 12,000 a year is what you pay to work? That sounds horrible. You should see a tax attorney. There is no reason for you to pay taxes to a government which does not represent your interests.
    Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. - M Rivero

  11. #11
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    Being a Kansas resident and having been in some of the clubs BF is describing, just some random thoughts.

    I think the sentiment about dancer's forming a union/guild is wonderful here folks, and I totally agree that you girls are getting figuratively ass raped by the shady and often illegal practices of greedy club management BUT. I think those of you who are speaking in favor of this don't quite comprehend the cold ugly economic and political realities here.

    Much like any mainstream business, in order to survive a strip club has to make money for it’s owner. If the owner is subjected to some sort of regulatory burden like have to operate in compliance of employee labor laws (making sure everyone dancers staff and all, have earned a minimum wage plus having to pay the employer share of payroll taxes, etc.) where he cannot make money he essentially has three options.

    A.) lay off enough employees to where he is turning a profit again, or B.) raise prices, C.) Go out of business.

    With respect to option b, in order to make money he/she has to provide something that his customers will want to pay for, and at the right price. Since management cannot make people come in, pay a cover, buy drinks and dances at gunpoint, they often have no control over the amount of traffic they take in. The amount of traffic can in fact be stemmed by things like bad weather, bad economic conditions, or customers being stretched too thin by competing clubs.

    For those not familiar with the area, the Wichita area has a population of about 450,000. There are three viable clubs operating there. In Northeast Kansas, namely the Topeka-Lawrence area combined, there is only slightly more than half that many people, and nine clubs operating, although admittedly the high mileage environment in Lawrence draws some folks from the Kansas City area. Nonetheless, having been in many Northeast Kansas clubs over the past couple of years, one thing I will state that on a weeknight the dancer rotation is often fewer than a dozen as it is.

    If club owners had to put a cap on dancers in order to make money because traffic has been slow, you could conceivably see clubs running 5-6 girls, whereas most customers at that club were accustomed to before seeing 10-12. Some of these clubs are running $10 or 2 for $20 dances during their day shifts or slower weeknights. I can assure you that under an employee arrangement these prices would go up. And folks, Kansas is not the east coast or California. Standard of living is very low here and the ability to sell dances over $20 here isn't very good. Even at $20, girls practically need to allow full contact in order to make sales. In other words, you have a lot of people here owners and dancers alike fighting very hard for a very finite amount of money.

    I suppose my question for the unionization crowd would be, if clubs had to lay off staff in order to survive through a slow period, by which means would you recommend the staff be cut? At my job, if such a thing had to occur, it would be by seniority, which works out fine because in my line of work, physical attractiveness plays no role in my ability to do my job. Do you think employing the same thing would be good for business a strip club? Most guys that I know would much rather go a club to see a 23 year old with a firm body than a gal with stretch marks nearing 40 who only got to keep her job by virtue of the fact that she was there first. If you can't bring people in the door, neither the club nor the dancers can make money.

    Another thing to consider is that unlike mainstream businesses one purpose that many strip clubs serve for the people who own them is to wash money made from even more nefarious enterprises. Some of these guys are looking at serious prison time for tax evasion, racketeering, or worse if the feds wanted to bring the long arm of the law down on them. Breaking a few labor laws on top of that is small potatoes by comparison.. Many would rather close up shop than set up a system where the authorities are going to have a lot more documentation to find out just how much money is going through the club and to whom it is coming from/going through. In short here folks, when you elect to dance in a strip club, you're not exactly working for the local bakery.

    Then you have the nomadic nature of dancers themselves. Many of our gals on the site, like the idea of being able to travel/move from one place to another. Under an employee arrangement where clubs had to cap dancers, they might not have the freedom of movement that they do now. Many are also attracted to the idea of being able to bring home their bread every night and accrue some interest on it before they make their quarterly payments (this is assuming of course they are paying their taxes) as opposed to waiting for a check every 14 days minus withholding, Social Security, Medicare, etc..

    And up to this point, I haven’t even brought up the fact that regardless of what type of employment arrangement the club has in place, state/local politicians not happy about having an SOB in their backyard can ruin whatever financial viability a club has left by passing more laws, which can not only endanger the employment of dancers in that jurisdiction, but harm the earnings potential of those in neighboring jurisdictions. I assure you than if that draconian adult business law passes in the Missouri legislature, there is going to be a flood of dancers crossing the state line to clubs in Kansas that really don’t need them. Under what some of you are suggesting, these displaced dancers would be pretty much SOL.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  12. #12
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    I believe what EE is referring to here is not quite a guild or union, but more along the lines of the AMA or SAE. Neither the AMA (Amreican medical assoc.) or SAE (society of automotive engineers) at present perform collective bargaining on behalf of members, nor do members have the power to strike.
    Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Of course, looking back at that post today, I'm thinking, where the hell did all that optimism come from? I sometimes get lulled into fits of fantasy by the professionalism expressed by the members of this website, which may be far removed from translating into a majority movement in the real world.

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    The advantages of dancer IC status for themselves are illusory, but are , however, quite real for club owners. As I explain in a related thread re:paying to be abused, in my opinion this phony IC status is itself a root cause for many abuses.
    Alternatively, however, it seems just as valid to believe that the abuse is not inherent to the status, but rather, it's a product of the way certain club owners operate under the status. IC status works fine in other professions, why should it be any different if done properly here? Some club owners treat their ICs well; many don't. Some clubs come closer to operating near a true IC model than others. A greedy/corrupt/incompetent owner is merely going to alter his methods accordingly to heap just as much abuse on dancers under the employee system. Or as The Who sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Seems just as logical to me, or maybe just as futile, to lobby for true IC status as it does for a change into employee status.

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    In any event this issue has been decided by the courts: dancers should be classified as employees.
    I'm not a lawyer, but I assume you aren't either. I'm not totally convinced that conclusion is true. Courts have ruled in specific cases about specific situations. Perhaps one should not automatically conclude from those rulings that the same result would apply to somewhat different circumstances at a different club. (Plus, state law varies from state to state. California, for example, has much more specific laws spelling out exotic dancers as employees than elsewhere.) Whether or not I'm an IC could hinge on a very specific factor or set of factors unique to a particular club. A club might be able to alter one or two elements of its operation to address a court ruling and continue the IC model. In fact, some in California have done precisely that.

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    On balance, this is a considerable gain, although it superficially feels as if witholding taxes are absorbing a sizable chunk of income. Remember, employees do not pay any house fees, tip out, or fines, (unlawfull payroll deductions) and yet IC's still owe nearly the same taxes. The net gain is significant, and all earnings are above board.
    The contention that dancers would be better off makes for an interesting discussion, but I don't know how we can either assume or refute something so complex without economic research and actuarial studies, which obviously, neither of us have resources or time to accomplish. It seems logical to assume the result for each individual is going to vary, as has been expounded in other threads. It won't be an advantage to the ones earning less. Seems to me that your gain would depend on your individual circumstances and what you value.

    Regardless, I fail to see the source for any "considerable" gain. To be gain, there has to be more money to fund better wages and/or benefits. Where's that extra money beyond what dancers are making now going to come from? Fall from the heavens? At best, the change would be a "push" because there's the same amount of revenues from the customers coming into the club available to pay expenses. The club's expenses will go up because some expenses will shift from the dancer to the club, and as a result, the dancer compensation will go down to offset that. It wouldn't be reasonable to assume the employee model would cause new customers to flock to the clubs, resulting in increased profits. It'll be the same amount of money distributed differently, that's all. And I doubt you believe the owners are going to take a profit cut in order to free up new money for dancers.

    -Ev

    One final thought and a note to all those in favor of any sort of organizing and change: My over analysis frequently kills my own appetite for productive action, but please don't let it stop you.

  13. #13
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by evan_essence
    Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Of course, looking back at that post today, I'm thinking, where the hell did all that optimism come from? I sometimes get lulled into fits of fantasy by the professionalism expressed by the members of this website, which may be far removed from translating into a majority movement in the real world.
    Guess what, EE....this site is the foundation of exactly what you are describing. I've been WAITING for someone to point that out....lol
    Kudos, Pryce. EE, look up at the title of this page.

    Alternatively, however, it seems just as valid to believe that the abuse is not inherent to the status, but rather, it's a product of the way certain club owners operate under the status. IC status works fine in other professions, why should it be any different if done properly here? Some club owners treat their ICs well; many don't. Some clubs come closer to operating near a true IC model than others. A greedy/corrupt/incompetent owner is merely going to alter his methods accordingly to heap just as much abuse on dancers under the employee system. Or as The Who sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Seems just as logical to me, or maybe just as futile, to lobby for true IC status as it does for a change into employee status.
    This is the fundamental question, and extremely well articulated here. It deserves a more learned respose than I can give, but will address the second half: Payroll laws are strict as shit and enforced all the time. Contract obligations are not. Ask any SW member who owns a business with employees. Enforcement of payrolll gets the USG's nose up their ass, and bad smells start to get noticed.

    Courts have ruled in specific cases about specific situations. Perhaps one should not automatically conclude from those rulings that the same result would apply to somewhat different circumstances at a different club. (Plus, state law varies from state to state. California, for example, has much more specific laws spelling out exotic dancers as employees than elsewhere.) Whether or not I'm an IC could hinge on a very specific factor or set of factors unique to a particular club. A club might be able to alter one or two elements of its operation to address a court ruling and continue the IC model. In fact, some in California have done precisely that.
    "Case law" meaning a Court's interpretation of how laws (statutory, precedent, constitutional, public policy, equitable doctrine, etc.) apply to a given dispute's circumstances, is the operative law. The complexity of balancing how these various factors are applied to a dispute is what courts do. I agree with you that my assertions may be less than unbiased opinion.

    As I said in my post, I'm taking an advocacy position against IC's. I'm doing so frankly because I've smelled both, and this side stinks less. With all due respect, take a top down look at where this comes from and ask yourself whose interests are best being served.

    The contention that dancers would be better off makes for an interesting discussion, but I don't know how we can either assume or refute something so complex without economic research and actuarial studies, which obviously, neither of us have resources or time to accomplish. It seems logical to assume the result for each individual is going to vary, as has been expounded in other threads. It won't be an advantage to the ones earning less. Seems to me that your gain would depend on your individual circumstances and what you value.

    Regardless, I fail to see the source for any "considerable" gain. To be gain, there has to be more money to fund better wages and/or benefits. Where's that extra money beyond what dancers are making now going to come from? Fall from the heavens?
    Nothing great ever happened from someone acting upon an actuarial study.

    Great things happen when people know its the right thing to do. When they fight the good fight. The moment you consult an accountant to help make a decision if you should die for a cause, you are screwed.

    If you fail to see the contrast between a century of fights for labor rights and how such rights are systematically being denied to dancers, communicating the danger of this (regressive) paradigm shift will not be easy. Do you think the choice to be classified as an IC was the idea of a dancer? How and why did this come about? What about tipout and fines? Dancer idea? House fees? Do you sense a pattern? Is it even remotely possible that any of these changes were made to benefit you?

    Do you see the connection between the loss of employment law rights and the systematic workplace and wage abuses?

    Do we really need to ask who's getting screwed?

    At best, the change would be a "push" because there's the same amount of revenues from the customers coming into the club available to pay expenses. The club's expenses will go up because some expenses will shift from the dancer to the club, and as a result, the dancer compensation will go down to offset that. It wouldn't be reasonable to assume the employee model would cause new customers to flock to the clubs, resulting in increased profits. It'll be the same amount of money distributed differently, that's all. And I doubt you believe the owners are going to take a profit cut in order to free up new money for dancers.
    This is naive. It's really this simple: all the tax and witholding burden, as well as a significant portion of employee and management wages shifts to the dancers. Furthermore, the dancers have fines and fees deducted from wages, and receive no benefits, and no workplace legal protections.

    Do you really need a spreadsheet to see what's happening here?
    Last edited by stant; 02-07-2005 at 09:04 AM.

  14. #14
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    I had a few truly profund followup comments written, but I don't want to post them because most of it is repetitive, and I'm already sick of me at this point. Plus, I've already sounded like I'm raining on the parade, which is not my intent. I'm getting all "devil's in the details" analytical, but the main thing is we agree on the most important points. We agree crappy treatment and conditions need to change, and it's going to take some sort of unified effort to have an impact. So, vive la revolución.

    -Ev

  15. #15
    Newbie belieflowr's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    wow. i think there have been a lot of great responses to this post. so many smart women in this business and we get treated like this? there is a lot weighing on my mind right now, and most of those concerns have been expressed by others in this thread. i like the idea of a national organization, like the ama...

    i would also like to preserve the independant contractor status. there are still a few clubs around here where you can set your schedule every week, and i find the freedom in that absolutely amazing and invaluable due to the circumsances of my life at the moment. unfortunately, most of the clubs around here don't treat you well like that.

    however, once a club starts to abuse the independent contractor status in the form of fines, etc...well, at that point the nature of the abuses also violates the independent contractor status and defines us as employees, hence, any abuse of the relationship alters the definition of said relationship. once, you have reached that point, then all maintained elements of independent contractor status turn into labor violations.

    so i think that is is possible to protect our rights as independent contractors. beyond that, most clubs have employees(like the bouncers and waitresses), so issues like the cold, etc...can be adressed through labor laws regarding employees.

    i see it like this:
    we demand our rights on the basis that under present conditions, we are employees. then, the strip club owners will either have to pay us and treat us well, which as doc says, is out of the question for us, or lay off on the fines and draconian rules. if they lay off the fines and rules, then we are truly independent contractors and the abuses have ended, and we won.

    unfortunately, there is a lot of danger in standing up. we do have to be quiet about it. any media or press attention really could get us regulated out of a job. we face the danger of a conservative chrisian backlash and a renewed effort to get our clubs shut down. its a catch 22.

  16. #16
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Unionize Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorn
    Intelligence is incredibly sexy*, and I have to admit that while I don't always agree with what you say EE, your posts frequently give me a woody. [Sorry, I couldn't resist.]
    It is not my goal to post in a serious thread like this to get you stiff. Even if that's the result, I submit that we don't need to hear about it. You somehow have my role at the club confused with discussion here of professional objectives regarding that role. Next time you feel compelled to make a statement of turgidity in a topic or context devoid of similar gregariousness, please choose to resist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorn
    * And to your detractors [if you actually have any - for I know I am not one] no, I am not mistaking an ability to be edgy and sarcastic for intelligence. Beneath the occasional cynicism and cracking wise you can see you are, decidely, firing on all cylinders.
    If this is meant as a sign of respect, please spread it around because there are very few women here who aren't firing on all cylinders. Improving your appreciation for dancers' sentiments shouldn't be reserved for only the women whose use of language gives you a boner.

    -Ev

Similar Threads

  1. Hello from Kansas
    By onebadassbrunette in forum Coming Out
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 06:10 PM
  2. Hi from Kansas...
    By CollegeCutie21 in forum Coming Out
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-05-2007, 12:50 PM
  3. Kansas City MO?
    By 80olivia in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-19-2006, 01:03 PM
  4. Kansas Anyone !
    By CuriousJ in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-06-2006, 07:07 AM
  5. WHY CAN'T DANCERS UNIONIZE
    By chase6 in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-10-2004, 10:34 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
  •