I'm not so sure I'd finger her pipes.  British hot.

She looks good for a Brit

That gal fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Wow, what a crappy place to work. Fees and penalties for missing songs. Pimps seem to have fairer rules.

She wasn't an employee. She was self employed and paying £65 a night to use the space under the club's conditions. The club never paid her a wage at all. There's nothing sad about it. If she doesn't like it she can find a different job.

/I hope her club had very dim lighting. British hot.

he heh... "organ"-ist

redsquid: Generation_D: I'm not so sure I'd finger her pipes.  British hot trap.

The club is called 'Stringfellows'.

So that's what Jan-Michael Vincent's been doing lately.

Snort: Wow, what a crappy place to work. Fees and penalties for missing songs. Pimps seem to have fairer rules.

"She said she would earn up to £1,265 a night..."

Yes... terrible place indeed.

The disturbing part of this is that the UK and the US as far as I know are both making more employees into contractors in order to avoid rights guaranteed to employees. I do not know much about the UK but in the US is so companies do not face as many costs and liabilities. Employers are paying politicians here to get away with as much as possible, in the UK I assume the same sort of issues.

/ I know that it is more about the stripper's lack of appeal to most of you than the rights of employees so sorry.

rev. dave: The disturbing part of this is that the UK and the US as far as I know are both making more employees into contractors in order to avoid rights guaranteed to employees. I do not know much about the UK but in the US is so companies do not face as many costs and liabilities. Employers are paying politicians here to get away with as much as possible, in the UK I assume the same sort of issues.

/ I know that it is more about the stripper's lack of appeal to most of you than the rights of employees so sorry.

I understand your point... however... if there was a "job" that ideally met all the criteria of being an "independent contractor"... it's being a stripper.

/and strippers do appeal to me.

In the garden of Eden, honey...

At least he didn't compare her to a bycicle.

rev. dave: making more employees into contractors in order to avoid rights guaranteed to employees.

I did that. I gave my 'former employees/new contractors" an 80% raise, but I no longer have to pay unemployment insurance, health insurance, and my BOP insurance went down almost 18%. All 34 of the 'former employees/new contractors' were ok with the new payscale and rules for being a contractor.

rev. dave: The disturbing part of this is that the UK and the US as far as I know are both making more employees into contractors in order to avoid rights guaranteed to employees. I do not know much about the UK but in the US is so companies do not face as many costs and liabilities. Employers are paying politicians here to get away with as much as possible, in the UK I assume the same sort of issues.

/ I know that it is more about the stripper's lack of appeal to most of you than the rights of employees so sorry.

In the US, to be considered a subcontractor, you must be available for jobs elsewhere not just one place. If a club told all the girls that work there they can't dance at other clubs, then the girls would be considered employees. As a subcontractor you have to pay your own taxes including the extra social security that an employer usually pays, so there's no ambiguity as to being an employee or subcontractor.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:

You don't get out much do you?
That's not a stripper. That's a housewife doing the fitness craze of pole conditioning.
Big differfence!

So wait -- The club wouldnt let people toss money at the ladies? They had to buy vouchers and toss the vouchers up and then the club would reimburse the dancer for the vouchers she collected?

Is this normal for strip clubs? Seems like its a bit sinister. Why do they need a middle man?

MarkEC: rev. dave: The disturbing part of this is that the UK and the US as far as I know are both making more employees into contractors in order to avoid rights guaranteed to employees. I do not know much about the UK but in the US is so companies do not face as many costs and liabilities. Employers are paying politicians here to get away with as much as possible, in the UK I assume the same sort of issues.

/ I know that it is more about the stripper's lack of appeal to most of you than the rights of employees so sorry.

In the US, to be considered a subcontractor, you must be available for jobs elsewhere not just one place. If a club told all the girls that work there they can't dance at other clubs, then the girls would be considered employees. As a subcontractor you have to pay your own taxes including the extra social security that an employer usually pays, so there's no ambiguity as to being an employee or subcontractor.

It's not that simple... and there is certainly ambiguity.

The IRS has a set of 20 or 30 "tests" to determine this and it's wall to wall "could"s, "might"s and "probably"s.

diaphoresis: rev. dave: making more employees into contractors in order to avoid rights guaranteed to employees.

I did that. I gave my 'former employees/new contractors" an 80% raise, but I no longer have to pay unemployment insurance, health insurance, and my BOP insurance went down almost 18%. All 34 of the 'former employees/new contractors' were ok with the new payscale and rules for being a contractor.

Did they realize they also have to deal with the little detail called "Self-employment Tax"? I've know more than I few folks who have been ...surprised by that. OTOH, at least in our industry, that level of raise would be about right. I gotta give you kudos for that. At lot of outfits make the change with only nominal increases for their people.

I've also known a handful of companies that ran afoul of the IRS for how they handled the change. They don't realize that the contractor thing is a two-way street. There's that whole, "Behavioral Control" that the IRS talks about, for instance.

Get over it biatch, you're a stripper, a independent contractor, and you sell your body for money, you're one step above giving 20 dollar blowjobs and anal sex behind a dumpster. The place where you work has not "employed" you at all. "Employed" means they are paying you a wage per hour to show up and work, you don't receive any hourly pay as a stripper from the owner of the building. You get tips, that's all.

BarkingUnicorn: In the U. S., several courts have ruled that strippers are employees and not independent contractors.  Here's one case showing the court's reasoning, in North Dakota.  Here's another case that went to the Kansas Court of Appeals.  And from Massachusetts, the case of Kayla Jenks v. The Golden Banana.

"Independent contractor" status for strippers is completely unsupportable under federal law.  Clubs get away with it only when strippers let them.  Here's an example the cost a chain of clubs $13 million.

Interesting reading.

BarkingUnicorn: Bit'O'Gristle: Get over it biatch, you're a stripper, a independent contractor, and you sell your body for money, you're one step above giving 20 dollar blowjobs and anal sex behind a dumpster. The place where you work has not "employed" you at all. "Employed" means they are paying you a wage per hour to show up and work, you don't receive any hourly pay as a stripper from the owner of the building. You get tips, that's all.

You really are ignorant of U. S. labor and tax laws.

/Or i could have just been trolling.  Thanks for playing.

I'd let her play with my organ.

BarkingUnicorn: "Dancer dollars" are a common alternative to cash in the U. S. The club charges a customer's credit card and gives him play money. Club collects a surcharge from the customer and takes a cut when the dancer cashes in the play money. Best part: dancer dollars expire after about two weeks, so spend them while they're still good.

I've never seen a club where cash wasn't good. But I wouldn't be surprised to find one.


K thanks -- I was wondering what would happen to the time honored tradition of chucking heavy coins at naked women we have here in Canada...

Bit'O'Gristle: /Or i could have just been trolling. Thanks for playing.

Nice save.

Bit'O'Gristle: BarkingUnicorn: Bit'O'Gristle: Get over it biatch, you're a stripper, a independent contractor, and you sell your body for money, you're one step above giving 20 dollar blowjobs and anal sex behind a dumpster. The place where you work has not "employed" you at all. "Employed" means they are paying you a wage per hour to show up and work, you don't receive any hourly pay as a stripper from the owner of the building. You get tips, that's all.

You really are ignorant of U. S. labor and tax laws.

/Or i could have just been trolling.  Thanks for playing.

Yes, you're just pretending to be an idiot. Makes for such interesting conversations.

She's okay

BarkingUnicorn: mikefinch: So wait -- The club wouldnt let people toss money at the ladies? They had to buy vouchers and toss the vouchers up and then the club would reimburse the dancer for the vouchers she collected?

Is this normal for strip clubs? Seems like its a bit sinister. Why do they need a middle man?

"Dancer dollars" are a common alternative to cash in the U. S.  The club charges a customer's credit card and gives him play money.  Club collects a surcharge from the customer and takes a cut when the dancer cashes in the play money.  Best part:  dancer dollars expire after about two weeks, so spend them while they're still good.

I've never seen a club where cash wasn't good.  But I wouldn't be surprised to find one.

I've been to a few strip clubs in my day and never once have I heard of "dancer dollars"!! "Making it Rain" just wont have the same affect with "dancer dollars"!!

wambu: Am I the only one who read that as "church orgiast"?

I read "Church Onanist".

//Which is also what it says on my criminal record.
///NTTAWWT

BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: BarkingUnicorn: In the U. S., several courts have ruled that strippers are employees and not independent contractors.  Here's one case showing the court's reasoning, in North Dakota.  Here's another case that went to the Kansas Court of Appeals.  And from Massachusetts, the case of Kayla Jenks v. The Golden Banana.

"Independent contractor" status for strippers is completely unsupportable under federal law.  Clubs get away with it only when strippers let them.  Here's an example the cost a chain of clubs $13 million.

Interesting reading.

Legality aside, independent contractor status has fans and foes among strippers.  Article includes notes on The Lusty Lady, a club that unionized in 1997 and later went employee-owned.

The clubs that I'm familiar with are truly independent contractor houses. The girls show up for work whenever they want and pay a house fee depending on what "options" they want. If they want to only work short, premium shifts and not dance on the main stage, the house fee is higher... but it's up to them.

It's not any different than a hair dresser that rents a booth at a salon. You can go cheap as possible... or pay the premium for the receptionist, an assistant... etc...

Pray 4 Mojo: MarkEC: rev. dave: The disturbing part of this is that the UK and the US as far as I know are both making more employees into contractors in order to avoid rights guaranteed to employees. I do not know much about the UK but in the US is so companies do not face as many costs and liabilities. Employers are paying politicians here to get away with as much as possible, in the UK I assume the same sort of issues.

/ I know that it is more about the stripper's lack of appeal to most of you than the rights of employees so sorry.

In the US, to be considered a subcontractor, you must be available for jobs elsewhere not just one place. If a club told all the girls that work there they can't dance at other clubs, then the girls would be considered employees. As a subcontractor you have to pay your own taxes including the extra social security that an employer usually pays, so there's no ambiguity as to being an employee or subcontractor.

It's not that simple... and there is certainly ambiguity.

The IRS has a set of 20 or 30 "tests" to determine this and it's wall to wall "could"s, "might"s and "probably"s.

They dropped that whole "test" thing a few years ago and, from reading their website, they did it to add some more ambiguity.