RE: Ask a Former Brothel Bartender
May 21, 2015 at 9:38 am
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2015 at 9:53 am by Crossless2.0.)
(May 21, 2015 at 9:26 am)Aractus Wrote: So what you're saying is this: 1. the brothel has an anti-drug policy, 2. if it appears one of their employees (yes that's what they are even if they're "independent contractors") is using drugs and may need help then they look they other way as long as the usage is what they deem "discrete", 3. if the problem was to persist to a point where it could embarrass the employer they would terminate their employee rather than get them the help they clearly need. Is that accurate? So essentially they've created and maintained an environment where their employees could develop a serious addition problem but they don't want to do anything about it by a. preventing it or b. early intervention?
Precisely. However, I take issue with your characterization of the ladies as "employees". Their independent contractor status was not fictional, and that was set up as such to the brothel owners' advantage. If they were employees, they would have had certain rights, as did those of us who were legitimately employees of the place, e.g., paid vacation, etc. Essentially, they were free to leave any time. However, if they did so with the intention of remaining in the business and operating under someone's license, they would find pretty much the same arrangement at any competing brothel they went to -- that or expose themselves to the risk of operating illegally, as many had done prior to working at a brothel. Most were at great pains not to leave the establishment at which I worked because it was generally known that the owner of that place provided more amenities and took better care of the women than was the case elsewhere. He was a relatively enlightened snake, even if it was enlightenment for personal gain. The horror stories that circulated concerning other establishments were legion.
