Suppose after taking a look at club records, that with the loss of stage fee revenue and the added business expenses (employer share of FICA taxes, etc.), management concludes that they can only run 20 girls on the night shift. This means the other 20 girls will have to be laid off.
Now the question comes down to how does the club decide who has to leave (or at least be forcibly changed to a less desirable shift), and who gets to stay. If this cut is based on a seniority system, it means the club's longest tenured dancers, (ot neccesarily their best ones), will get to keep their jobs.
Of course, it could possibly be argued the gals who get cut might be the lucky ones (assuming they can find work elsewhere). When customers coming in to the new "employee" club discover:
1. That there are now half as many gals working (less quantity).
2. That many of the better dancers are now gone since they didn't have seniority or left on their own because they knew the new system would be to their detriment (less quality).
3. Many of the dancers who are remaining don't seem to motivated to entertain. Why should a gal sell lap dances for a 40-50% commission (that she'll have to wait 2-3 weeks to get via paycheck, minus payroll deductions) when she can make almost as much money sitting on her bum.
4. That an increase in cover, drink, and dance prices may have to be instituted to help pay for this new system (greater expense for a lesser product).
...then they'll stop going to that club altogether. And unless part of this plan involves forcing men off the street at gunpoint to come in and spend money, there's not much that can be done about that.
The club notices the cash register ringing less and less, and you guessed it, decides they're going to have to lay off even more dancers off to stay in the black, and the downward spiral continues, until the situation is so grave that the club is eventually forced out of business. Now, in the interest of giving dancers "protection", everyone is out of a job.
Bookmarks