Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 126

Thread: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers/Taxis to be paid..........

  1. #21
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    If nothing else, it's poor news management to announce a change, without announcing the accompanying benefits that are expected to accompany it.
    I expect it's a really obvious reason that they didn't think worth stating. Like someone in an office somewhere doesn't already have enough forms to fill in so they want more.

  2. #22
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    It just means you can start from one step beyond the "how can they be so stupid as not to realise that a lot of taxi-dancers aren't going to like being employees" (if that is the case) - because they probably do realise it.
    Sure. Only problem is, I don't really see anyone's posted anything like that. I see some questions about how it will work and what it means, and some taxi-dancers have said they're unhappy with it. JonD has said it opens a can of worms, and I think he's right. But he certainly doesn't say Ceroc are being stupid. The closest in tone to your post is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducasi
    I'd suggest it's a good way to lose the goodwill and the services of good people.
    but even he doesn't say Ceroc are being stupid.

    Basically, I think the discussion here has been entirely reasonable. Yes, people are dwelling on the -ve side, and worrying about what it means for them. But that's what people do. It's got nothing to do with assuming the people at Ceroc are idiots. If anything, it's to do with assuming the people at Ceroc will put their business interests ahead of the interests of the taxi-dancers; and of course, in general, in business, that's the way to bet.

  3. #23
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynn View Post
    Because no-one ever makes bad decisions in business. And we all know nothing about what its like on the ground at venues.
    Yes, the Ceroc battlefield (er, sorry, dance floor) - all those high muckity-muck management types in their smart suits and fancy cars, in their corner high-rise offices, they have no idea what it's really like to have to dance with beginners! Do they not understand the pain, the sweat and the suffering we're forced to go through down here at the bottom of the infinitely tall Ceroc management ladder? Are they so blinkered in their ivory towers? There's only one answer, comerades! We taxi-dancers must unionise! Divided we fall! United we will survive!

  4. #24
    Registered User Lynn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    8,925
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    (As you say, in this case, I strongly suspect it has been decided it's required to comply with legislation. Which is a really strong argument in Ceroc's favour, if they'd only explain it...)
    I got the impression this was a franchise decision, rather than 'Ceroc' - if the latter, or if your reason is correct, then it will need to be applied across the board.

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    Strictly, all benefits in kind should be declared on your tax return. Do you, Lynn, put down your free entry to Ceroc venues? Or are you deliberately under-declaring your income, and risking being the subject of lengthy enquiries from a junior spark at HMRC who's keen to make a name for himself?
    *sigh* OK. Firstly, I'm not self employed. And if I was then yes I could declare it but then the transportation costs etc would almost certainly outweigh any taxable amount I was due on the 'benefit' of free entry.

    If employed, I believe you need to be earning over £8,500 from your employer before 'benefit in kind' (such as a company car, phone, golf club membership etc) is taxable, and the employer also has to pay NIC on the 'benefit'.

    Now can we get back to discussing the actual issues?

  5. #25
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    but even he doesn't say Ceroc are being stupid.
    That's not how you read what he wrote?

  6. #26
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    "how can they be so stupid ..."
    Has anybody actually put it in these terms?
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

  7. #27
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynn View Post
    *sigh* OK. Firstly, I'm not self employed. And if I was then yes I could declare it but then the transportation costs etc would almost certainly outweigh any taxable amount I was due on the 'benefit' of free entry.
    (*sigh*? what's that all about?) Your self-employed status is irrelevant, as are NI contributions, NI lower limits, and the rest.

    You're required to declare all your earnings, period. That includes benefits in kind. There's even a section on your tax return for it: Q.13: "Did you receive any other income which you have not already entered elsewhere in your Tax Return?"

    The £8500 limit applies to NI contributions on the benefit, not Income Tax.
    Last edited by El Salsero Gringo; 17th-November-2006 at 12:35 PM.

  8. #28
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    That's not how you read what he wrote?
    No. Tell you what, Let's try to take a giant leap forward in terms of Forum discussions!

    Why don't we respond to what people actually said in their posts, instead of wildly exaggerating their positions ("how can they be so stupid [...]") and responding to that instead.

  9. #29
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    There's only one answer, comerades!
    That's two spelling mistakes in 1 week. Who's stolen your ID?

  10. #30
    Basically lazy robd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nr Cambridge
    Posts
    3,696
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Is there now be an <OCA> </OCA> presence on the forum in the vein of Gus's ODA ?

    And if taxi dancers are now classed as workers surely Ceroc Central need to install internet access into all their venues. After all, what else is work for if not to browse the forum?

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tarbrax
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    That's not how you read what he wrote?
    I certainly didn't.

    I'd be happy to swap 'benefits' for cash payment, being as it will probably work out at the same 'rate', assuming minimum wage.

    Restrictions on choice of venue to dance in my own time would probably be the reason why I would think twice about whether I would continue as a taxi.

  12. #32
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    That's not how you read what he wrote?
    Oh, so you actually think it was me who said "how can they be so stupid ..."?

    I think this is just another example of you putting words into other people's mouths and then attacking them for saying something that they never said.

    I didn't say they were stupid, I just think there will be consequences they will regret. (EDIT: if they tried to restrict their employee's freedom.)
    Last edited by ducasi; 17th-November-2006 at 12:41 PM.
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

  13. #33
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    I've been thinking about this for a while now. Currently most crew are expected to undertake their duties on a given night. Of course they get in for free that night as they are effectively working as volunteers. As far as I can see, you can use volunteers: they are not classed as employees and you do not have to give them employment contracts. The section of the HMGov website that advises on this is here

    The problem comes when you give free entry on nights that people are not volunteering. You are giving a benefit in kind (there, I've said it ). As soon as you give a benefit in kind you must record it as a transaction in your accounts. You can not hide behind the fact that this is a barter and no money has changed hands. You should record all barter type transactions in your accounts and give them a value so that you can be taxed on them. So, in giving free entry, you have, effectively, paid somebody for their work - therefore they have become an employee with all the rights and requirements of employment law. And, you need to issue a contract to ensure that the rights the employee has are the ones you've chosen rather than the ones given to the employee by HMGov. And, you need to have employee liability insurance as a very minimum.

    I see that Ceroc, and any other MJ organisation has two options. The first is to stop giving away free entry to Taxi Dancers on nights they are not on duty - that way they are simply volunteers and do not need an employment contract. The other option is that they continue to give free entry to taxi dancers when they are not on duty and make their taxi dancers employees. Scary stuff as it will affect the whole of MJ. After all, if you go to the expense of staying legal and your competitor does not, you are at a competitive disadvantage - unless you, from the comfortable place of knowing that you're legal, blow the whistle on the competition
    Last edited by Andy McGregor; 17th-November-2006 at 12:45 PM.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tarbrax
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Would anyone care to speculate whether this would also apply to demos?

  15. #35
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynn View Post
    I got the impression this was a franchise decision, rather than 'Ceroc' - if the latter, or if your reason is correct, then it will need to be applied across the board.
    I was intentionally being vague about what 'Ceroc' meant, because I wanted to talk about the general situation as well as the particular.

    My guess would be that the taxi-dancer issue has shown up on the radar of the inland revenue (or possibly whoever deals with employment law). Whether that's happened to this particular franchise, or whether it's happened to Ceroc as a whole, I don't know. In particular, many rules only seem to kick in if you have a certain number of employees, turnover, etc. For a franchised organisation, I have no idea whether number of employees would be for the franchise or the whole of Ceroc. But I can certainly envisage that Ceroc is essentially being a victim of their own success here - everyone else is small enough that the IR is prepared to turn a blind eye. (N.B. of course, if my initial guess is wrong, then this whole paragrah is junk, of course...)

  16. #36
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    No. Tell you what, Let's try to take a giant leap forward in terms of Forum discussions!

    Why don't we respond to what people actually said in their posts, instead of wildly exaggerating their positions ("how can they be so stupid [...]") and responding to that instead.
    OK. Here are all the "how can they be so stupid" comments, as I hear them.
    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    Is this so that in the contract of employment they can tell you you are not allowed to work for competitors? Maybe even not allowed to attend competing events?
    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    I'd suggest it's a good way to lose the goodwill and the services of good people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynn
    I prefer taxi-ing as it is, on a 'voluntary' basis.
    Quote Originally Posted by JonD View Post
    I would give up coaching if I was obliged to enter into any kind of formal employment relationship. It's just not worth the candle. In my view, any attempt to "regularise" the relationship between an MJ event organiser and those that help out (as opposed to those who receive pay for their services) would be opening a can of worms. Where is the benefit of doing so?
    These are just knee-jerk I haven't got a clue what it's about, but whatever it is I'm against it comments. And don't bore me with "selective quotation" comments. I've tried to match the tenor of each post.

  17. #37
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    I didn't say they were stupid, I just think there will be consequences they will regret. (EDIT: if they tried to restrict their employee's freedom.)
    In other words, I didn't say they were stupid, but I have a paranoid fear that they're doing it for a stupid reason which would be stupid.

    As I said.

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tarbrax
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    OK. Here are all the "how can they be so stupid" comments, as I hear them.These are just knee-jerk I haven't got a clue what it's about, but whatever it is I'm against it comments. And don't bore me with "selective quotation" comments. I've tried to match the tenor of each post.
    All I have read so far as a response is that these people are looking for further information because they would like a clue what it's about so they can form an opinion.

    Maybe now isn't yet the time for answers....but hopefully they will be forthcoming soon!
    Last edited by Aleks; 17th-November-2006 at 12:56 PM.

  19. #39
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    As I said.
    How come this thread has, so soon, started to debate who said what and what they actually meant? Can we stay on topic for another couple of pages as I'm hoping somebody might come up with something we can actually do.

  20. #40
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Formal employment of Taxi Dancers

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo View Post
    In other words, I didn't say they were stupid, but I have a paranoid fear that they're doing it for a stupid reason which would be stupid.
    Hey, I've got yet another great idea for improving discussion on the forum. How about you use people's own words, instead of helpfully 'rephrasing' things for them?

    Edit: Well actually, it's pretty much the same as my last idea, but you didn't seem to listen...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Taxi dancers: Minimum Necessary Criteria (MNC) training
    By David Bailey in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 4th-July-2006, 11:20 AM
  2. Taxi Dancers
    By TiggsTours in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 15th-August-2005, 10:25 AM
  3. The role of the Taxi dancer
    By stewart38 in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 29th-April-2005, 07:40 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •