Printable View
Visiting from Orlando and all I can say is WOW!! Mons Venus was the spot tonight. Beautiful girls, especially an ebony goddess who said she's from Vegas here for the summer. If anyone knows her name, please remind me. She got quite a few dances from me and it was worth it!
[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2896733]My understanding is that the way it works at most of these clubs, the girls basically pay a fee for the right to dance there.
Doesn't this make them more of an independent vendor that's renting space in the club, rather than an employee?
[URL]http://www.tbo.com/news/crime/dancers-sue-tampa-strip-club-for-unpaid-wages-20160428/[/URL][/QUOTE]That's certainly the way the clubs would like to have and keep it. But labor law is a little more strict. It's can be especially so if you own a brick & mortar business.
Be honest. Would you go to a strip club or stay long if there were no dancers there? Probably not. So if the club requires dancers to be there during business hours, the they can technically be considered employees and not independent contractors.
Scarlett's recently settled a similar lawsuit, reaching an agreement to essentially pay back pay to any dancers who worked at any of the Scarlett's clubs in a certain time frame. Suits like these are becoming commonplace. Uber is in a similar suit arguing whether their drivers are contractors or employees based on drivers not having any control over what they charge for a ride.
[QUOTE=Pacer317;2897593]That's certainly the way the clubs would like to have and keep it. But labor law is a little more strict. It's can be especially so if you own a brick & mortar business.
Be honest. Would you go to a strip club or stay long if there were no dancers there? Probably not. So if the club requires dancers to be there during business hours, the they can technically be considered employees and not independent contractors.
Scarlett's recently settled a similar lawsuit, reaching an agreement to essentially pay back pay to any dancers who worked at any of the Scarlett's clubs in a certain time frame. Suits like these are becoming commonplace. Uber is in a similar suit arguing whether their drivers are contractors or employees based on drivers not having any control over what they charge for a ride.[/QUOTE]Clubs should diversify, and also call their businesses dance studios giving girls some work skills. Pay the greedy chicks and then take it right back from them for dance classes. Most of them need dance lessons, pay the good dancers more to be instructors.
[QUOTE=Pacer317;2897593]That's certainly the way the clubs would like to have and keep it. But labor law is a little more strict. It's can be especially so if you own a brick & mortar business.
Be honest. Would you go to a strip club or stay long if there were no dancers there? Probably not. So if the club requires dancers to be there during business hours, the they can technically be considered employees and not independent contractors.
[/QUOTE]I understand where you're coming from, but I think that would come down to the courts interpretation of "required" to be present at work. Most dancers have told me they don't have to be there, it's just that there is a "fee" required in certain cases, for example showing up after a certain hour, then leaving before closing time. For example coming to work before 8 pm, leave early if you want with no penalty, but come after that and there's a fee for leaving before closing time.
I'm not sure that's any different than something like a hair salon renting out chairs to independent stylists who rent the chairs. The owner doesn't want a stylist to schedule a chair rental, then not show up, because they could have rented the chair to someone else that day. Not much different than canceling a routine dentist appointment with inadequate notice, the dentist might reserve the right to charge a fee because they lost money on the no-show. I'm not saying hair salons even usually rent that way (some do but I think weekly rental fee is more common), but some do.
In other words the purpose of the penalty is simply for scheduling sanity and to prevent the business owner from getting screwed on over/under scheduling issues by wacky ladies changing their mind too much or leaving early for takeout or whatever.
I guess a lawyer could spin that to sound the same as an employee / employer relationship, but with lawyers of equal skill on the side of the strip club, I think they would lose.
Then again put it in front of a judge who has a problem with strip clubs and would like to see them go away, and I suppose anything is possible.
Been going there for many years on and off when I am in town. Went back during a week night last week and met a cute ebony girl. Forget her name. No real contact but very sweet. Enjoyed the private dance. She seems to draw out the experience to encourage more dances. A guess.
Had a fun time in a private dance with a blond named Vicky (Down to earth and doesn't take herself too seriously which is great.
Saw a taller blond named Taylor (?) Attractive but I did not dance with her. Curious about her private performances.
Then there was a tattooed girl with thick blond streaked hair. Can't remember her name either. She had a sensual way about her but I did not get a chance to partake.
Will be going back a few more times in the next few weeks or months. Anyone have some reports on these fine girls or any recommendations would be appreciated. I do my own research but find that the players often change since the time they are posted about in the forum. Thanks.
[QUOTE=LazyBones;2899855]Been going there for many years on and off when I am in town. Went back during a week night last week and met a cute ebony girl. Forget her name. No real contact but very sweet. Enjoyed the private dance. She seems to draw out the experience to encourage more dances. A guess.
Had a fun time in a private dance with a blond named Vicky (Down to earth and doesn't take herself too seriously which is great.
Saw a taller blond named Taylor (?) Attractive but I did not dance with her. Curious about her private performances.
Then there was a tattooed girl with thick blond streaked hair. Can't remember her name either. She had a sensual way about her but I did not get a chance to partake.
Will be going back a few more times in the next few weeks or months. Anyone have some reports on these fine girls or any recommendations would be appreciated. I do my own research but find that the players often change since the time they are posted about in the forum. Thanks.[/QUOTE]Taylor is a dud unless you want to pay her to sit there on your lap for the song. Tells me guys pay her to sit there and talk. Next!
Saw Vicky but never got a dance. Looks real cute and always pleasant and not pushy.
Kendra is a nice time. She's a Southern twang girl. Rosie is a redhead and usually a fun time but all business.
Karmen is a good time. She takes no sh! T. Cracks me up.
[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2897866]I understand where you're coming from, but I think that would come down to the courts interpretation of "required" to be present at work. Most dancers have told me they don't have to be there, it's just that there is a "fee" required in certain cases, for example showing up after a certain hour, then leaving before closing time. For example coming to work before 8 pm, leave early if you want with no penalty, but come after that and there's a fee for leaving before closing time.
I'm not sure that's any different than something like a hair salon renting out chairs to independent stylists who rent the chairs. The owner doesn't want a stylist to schedule a chair rental, then not show up, because they could have rented the chair to someone else that day. Not much different than canceling a routine dentist appointment with inadequate notice, the dentist might reserve the right to charge a fee because they lost money on the no-show. I'm not saying hair salons even usually rent that way (some do but I think weekly rental fee is more common), but some do.
In other words the purpose of the penalty is simply for scheduling sanity and to prevent the business owner from getting screwed on over/under scheduling issues by wacky ladies changing their mind too much or leaving early for takeout or whatever.
I guess a lawyer could spin that to sound the same as an employee / employer relationship, but with lawyers of equal skill on the side of the strip club, I think they would lose.
Then again put it in front of a judge who has a problem with strip clubs and would like to see them go away, and I suppose anything is possible.[/QUOTE]Your entire post is correct but the last sentence says it all. Despite the dancers qualifying as independent contractors, by any reasonable person's evaluation, ruling them as employees is the courts' way of eliminating strip clubs without the controversy of declaring them illegal. The employee status will end every club that has to do it as these girls can't follow a schedule or even imagine being told what to do.
While I'm not an attorney, I believe the fact that the girls are told when to get up on stage, when they can or can't take a break, and when they are allowed to leave (leave early or arrive late) despite paying the house fee or rent, squarely and accurately makes them employees.
[QUOTE=MikeWazowski;2900616]Your entire post is correct but the last sentence says it all. Despite the dancers qualifying as independent contractors, by any reasonable person's evaluation, ruling them as employees is the courts' way of eliminating strip clubs without the controversy of declaring them illegal. The employee status will end every club that has to do it as these girls can't follow a schedule or even imagine being told what to do.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LazyBones;2899855]Been going there for many years on and off when I am in town. Went back during a week night last week and met a cute ebony girl. Forget her name. No real contact but very sweet. Enjoyed the private dance. She seems to draw out the experience to encourage more dances. A guess.
Had a fun time in a private dance with a blond named Vicky (Down to earth and doesn't take herself too seriously which is great.
Saw a taller blond named Taylor (?) Attractive but I did not dance with her. Curious about her private performances.
Then there was a tattooed girl with thick blond streaked hair. Can't remember her name either. She had a sensual way about her but I did not get a chance to partake.
Will be going back a few more times in the next few weeks or months. Anyone have some reports on these fine girls or any recommendations would be appreciated. I do my own research but find that the players often change since the time they are posted about in the forum. Thanks.[/QUOTE]Taylor sucks. Avoid. Vicky is great.
[QUOTE=Wikip777;2901176]While I'm not an attorney, I believe the fact that the girls are told when to get up on stage, when they can or can't take a break, and when they are allowed to leave (leave early or arrive late) despite paying the house fee or rent, squarely and accurately makes them employees.[/QUOTE]I'm not an attorney either, but personally I can't see that one flying in court. In pretty much any industry I'm aware of, a 1099 independent contractor that does work for a corporation is subject to the exact same rules (often and then some) as the W2 employees of that company, including the business hours they operate under, computer and network policies, etc. Contractors are often held to a higher standard in some companies than what the standard employee handbook policies say. Just like employees, they may be required to show up for meetings in a conference room at a given time, etc. (analogous to the girls being required to get up on stage). Do they HAVE to? No, they can decide they don't want to do business with that client any more at any time. They can't be "fired" in the true sense (stripped of benefits etc) because they brought they fund their own benefits presumably, being independent contractors. But depending on the terms of contract they can be told their services are no longer needed, etc.
I tend to agree with you, but here are a few of the IRS's 20 criteria for defining an independent contractor that seem to feel differently.
1. A worker who is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how he or she must work is usually an employee.
2. If a worker's services are integrated into business operations, this tends to show that the worker is subject to direction and control and is thus an employee. This is the case particularly when a business's success or continuation depends to a large extent on the performance of certain services.
3. If a worker's services must be rendered personally, there is a presumption that the employer is interested in the methods by which the services are accomplished as well as in the result, making the worker an employee.
4. A continuing relationship between a worker and an employer, even at irregular intervals, tends to show an employer-employee relationship.
5. An employer who sets specific hours of work for a worker exhibits control over the worker, indicating that the worker is an employee.
6. If a worker is working substantially full-time for an employer, the worker is presumably not free to do work for other employers and is therefore an employee.
7. Work performed on an employer's premises suggests the employer's control over a worker, making the worker an employee. If a worker is required to perform services in an order or sequence set by an employer, the employer has control over the worker that demonstrates an employer-employee relationship.
8. An employer's right to discharge a worker tends to show that the worker is an employee.
[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2901899]I'm not an attorney either, but personally I can't see that one flying in court. In pretty much any industry I'm aware of, a 1099 independent contractor that does work for a corporation is subject to the exact same rules (often and then some) as the W2 employees of that company, including the business hours they operate under, computer and network policies, etc. Contractors are often held to a higher standard in some companies than what the standard employee handbook policies say. Just like employees, they may be required to show up for meetings in a conference room at a given time, etc. (analogous to the girls being required to get up on stage). Do they HAVE to? No, they can decide they don't want to do business with that client any more at any time. They can't be "fired" in the true sense (stripped of benefits etc) because they brought they fund their own benefits presumably, being independent contractors. But depending on the terms of contract they can be told their services are no longer needed, etc.[/QUOTE]
The issue I see however is that the IRS rules are designed for one purpose only, to determine taxation. A case like this would more likely be subject to scrutiny by the US Dept. Of Labor or Florida specific labor laws, not the IRS. Unless something about the class action lawsuit came up that involved sketchy / faulty payment of taxes, the IRS would have zero skin in this game.
At this link are the Florida classification rules that would most likely be used: [URL]http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/rt_employee.html[/URL].
If I look at those items 1-10, subjectively I feel that the typical stripper arrangement is more like that of an independent contractor. Objectively, even without being a lawyer, I could do a pretty good job of rationalizing how a stripper meets the criteria for an independent contractor, in or out of a courtroom. A real attorney or more convincing speaker might beat me in court, but my point is there is a great deal of ambiguity.
For example:
"(5) Whether the employer or the worker supplies the instrumentalities (for example: equipment, vehicle, materials), tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work. Independent contractors are generally expected to provide or purchase everything they need to do the job. Employees are not expected to provide their own workplace, materials, tools, and supplies, or to otherwise invest their own money in the business. ".
Well I think most dancers pay for their own breast implants, outfits, shoes and panties, the rest of their "supplies" are their natural assets that they own, they are not property of the hiring business. But then another lawyer might come along and say they need a stage or a pole or the music of a DJ to do what they do. Its important to think about what that rule is really designed to do... it's not designed to nitpick over pre-existing written contracts and classification of contractor vs employee, it's designed to keep businesses from taking advantage of those who are clearly employees by forcing them to purchase their own business equipment (holding them hostage, i.e. "buy your own laptop for work or you're fired"... that sort of thing).
It could be debated ad infinitum, but at the end of it all the rules say it's going to come down to whatever written agreement was decided between the parties, unless it is decided that the written agreement is too contradictory to the basic classification rules. That's the way it works in most states, the written contract the girls signed will generally take precedence unless someone can really prove that it flew directly in the face of existing laws, and I think reading through those 1-10 items, one could agree that's going to be a real challenge as long as the lawyers the strip club hires are reasonably competent.
[QUOTE=Wikip777;2902647]I tend to agree with you, but here are a few of the IRS's 20 criteria for defining an independent contractor that seem to feel differently.
1. A worker who is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how he or she must work is usually an employee.
2. If a worker's services are integrated into business operations, this tends to show that the worker is subject to direction and control and is thus an employee. This is the case particularly when a business's success or continuation depends to a large extent on the performance of certain services.
3. If a worker's services must be rendered personally, there is a presumption that the employer is interested in the methods by which the services are accomplished as well as in the result, making the worker an employee.
4. A continuing relationship between a worker and an employer, even at irregular intervals, tends to show an employer-employee relationship.
5. An employer who sets specific hours of work for a worker exhibits control over the worker, indicating that the worker is an employee.
6. If a worker is working substantially full-time for an employer, the worker is presumably not free to do work for other employers and is therefore an employee.
7. Work performed on an employer's premises suggests the employer's control over a worker, making the worker an employee. If a worker is required to perform services in an order or sequence set by an employer, the employer has control over the worker that demonstrates an employer-employee relationship.
8. An employer's right to discharge a worker tends to show that the worker is an employee.[/QUOTE]
Very good points, JeezLizard. It's nice to have some civilized discourse on the internet. Hard to come by lately. Cheers.
[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2903233]The issue I see however is that the IRS rules are designed for one purpose only, to determine taxation. A case like this would more likely be subject to scrutiny by the US Dept. Of Labor or Florida specific labor laws, not the IRS. Unless something about the class action lawsuit came up that involved sketchy / faulty payment of taxes, the IRS would have zero skin in this game.
At this link are the Florida classification rules that would most likely be used: [URL]http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/rt_employee.html[/URL].
If I look at those items 1-10, subjectively I feel that the typical stripper arrangement is more like that of an independent contractor. Objectively, even without being a lawyer, I could do a pretty good job of rationalizing how a stripper meets the criteria for an independent contractor, in or out of a courtroom. A real attorney or more convincing speaker might beat me in court, but my point is there is a great deal of ambiguity.
For example:
"(5) Whether the employer or the worker supplies the instrumentalities (for example: equipment, vehicle, materials), tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work. Independent contractors are generally expected to provide or purchase everything they need to do the job. Employees are not expected to provide their own workplace, materials, tools, and supplies, or to otherwise invest their own money in the business. ".
Well I think most dancers pay for their own breast implants, outfits, shoes and panties, the rest of their "supplies" are their natural assets that they own, they are not property of the hiring business. But then another lawyer might come along and say they need a stage or a pole or the music of a DJ to do what they do. Its important to think about what that rule is really designed to do... it's not designed to nitpick over pre-existing written contracts and classification of contractor vs employee, it's designed to keep businesses from taking advantage of those who are clearly employees by forcing them to purchase their own business equipment (holding them hostage, i.e. "buy your own laptop for work or you're fired"... that sort of thing).
It could be debated ad infinitum, but at the end of it all the rules say it's going to come down to whatever written agreement was decided between the parties, unless it is decided that the written agreement is too contradictory to the basic classification rules. That's the way it works in most states, the written contract the girls signed will generally take precedence unless someone can really prove that it flew directly in the face of existing laws, and I think reading through those 1-10 items, one could agree that's going to be a real challenge as long as the lawyers the strip club hires are reasonably competent.[/QUOTE]
In an industry I am involved in, where all of the workers were independent contractors for workmans comp issues, it was the IRS that went after businesses to switch them to employees. Easy to write off against self employment tax, hard to avoid withholding.
[QUOTE=ParkerAve;2904713]In an industry I am involved in, where all of the workers were independent contractors for workmans comp issues, it was the IRS that went after businesses to switch them to employees. Easy to write off against self employment tax, hard to avoid withholding.[/QUOTE]I'm not saying the IRS wouldn't do it in cases where there's an opportunity for them to increase their tax collection opportunities. I'm just saying in this particular case the dancers have formed a class action lawsuit that doesn't really seem to benefit the IRS as far as I can see, so the IRS would be disinclined to lift a finger in this case.
Because of the risks of coming out of this with nothing, I'm actually surprised a lawyer would take this case on unless trading pro-bono for pro-boner. LOL. Legal services for free hummers.
One of those broads is 46 years old, do you think maybe she's figured out she's done as a dancer and would like to milk the cow for what she can? That's how I would look at it if I were a judge (but yes, it's probably a good thing that not all judges are chauvinistic like me...).
Part of the lawsuit said something about wanting $280 k for using their photos without authorization. They might have a valid case there, for all I know. That will probably come down to how many photos they can prove were lifted without authorization, and how much they evidence they can provide of prior per-photo payment for their modeling services (or some other quantifiable metric). But there's another part of the case that brings into question the classification of independent contractor status vs. employee status, and in my opinion they have a better chance at winning the lottery, meanwhile some crusty lawyer somewhere is probably getting service-for-service quid-pro-quo action from some has-been dancers that have overvalued themselves.