NYS court rules: exotic dancers are employees

[BaronArtz]

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/245349/move-sexy-appellate-court-rules-exotic-dancers-are-employees/

 

I found this bit of information over on the MSS website. Interesting! Will Adonis and Buffboys have to start paying unemployment insurance, worker's comp and withhold federal and state taxes on the wages and the 'commissions' paid to their exotic dancers? It would seem to me that there are some practical issues involved here.

 

What's next? Escorts are employees?

[+ quoththeraven]

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/245349/move-sexy-appellate-court-rules-exotic-dancers-are-employees/

 

I found this bit of information over on the MSS website. Interesting! Will Adonis and Buffboys have to start paying unemployment insurance, worker's comp and withhold federal and state taxes on the wages and the 'commissions' paid to their exotic dancers? It would seem to me that there are some practical issues involved here.

 

What's next? Escorts are employees?

 

No. Except in the exclusive kept boy situation, escorts are not employees. Also there are different legal considerations. Dancing without certain other activities is perfectly legal.

 

Your other observations are spot on, though.

[mattr]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out but I think the fact that Tim does not own clubs but merely sponsors events at different venues might be a mitigating factor. Also the fact that these dancers work at different venues for different promoters make make a difference. The 0nly place that may have an issue is Fairytail since they have dancers 7 nights a week. What may happen is some of the "regulars"may be not be able to perform as often.

[+ saminseattle]

No. Except in the exclusive kept boy situation, escorts are not employees.

 

Not disagreeing, but I wonder if the answer would be different if s/he worked for an agency? Especially if it had an extensive vetting process or imposed standards for the work.

 

Or, to extend things to an admittedly different situation, if you picture the stereotypical “house of ill-repute” from an old Western movie, wouldn’t the “madam” be an employer?

[mike carey]

Or, to extend things to an admittedly different situation, if you picture the stereotypical “house of ill-repute” from an old Western movie, wouldn’t the “madam” be an employer?

Probably wouldn't be but should be considered an employee. A casual employee perhaps (I can't see a way such a job could run to holiday and sick pay) but the employer should be obliged to deduct taxes and meet whatever retirement pay obligations an employer would normally have. I admit it is a little difficult when the underlying work is illegal or of questionable legality. I'm sure neither the employer nor the employee would be happy with that, but employment laws are there for the ultimate benefit of both parties (mainly the employee) not for their convenience.