LMFAO! Nice one. Unfortunately terb has a lot of stuck up jaded old farts with 0 sense for humour. I loved it and very creative. :thumb:
MPA Union
- Thread starter EntertainmentMan2000
- Start date
This is hilarious.
Let's just assume this isn't a joke for a second, because it most definitely has to be.
How would this happen?
No existing Union would take them on. They wouldn't touch a group on this much of the fringe of legality with a ten foot poll.
So they would have to form their own Union.
OK. Who's going to manage this Union?
How are they going to enforce their demands? Strike?
How long will that last before they become too desperate to make money again, or will they get strike pay?
So now they need to collect Union dues. How's that going to be done? How are they going to enforce the payment? Send out a bunch of MPAs to break the fingers of other MPAs?
How are they going to enforce that no scabs start working in their place during a strike?
Are they going to start protesting outside the Parlors? That's really low key for a group of people that try to keep a low profile about their job.
And how are they going to enforce that the parlors only hire Union MPAs when MPAs are not employees of the Parlor, but are instead independent contractors.
This idea has more holes than the Titanic after an evening arctic cruise.
Let's just assume this isn't a joke for a second, because it most definitely has to be.
How would this happen?
No existing Union would take them on. They wouldn't touch a group on this much of the fringe of legality with a ten foot poll.
So they would have to form their own Union.
OK. Who's going to manage this Union?
How are they going to enforce their demands? Strike?
How long will that last before they become too desperate to make money again, or will they get strike pay?
So now they need to collect Union dues. How's that going to be done? How are they going to enforce the payment? Send out a bunch of MPAs to break the fingers of other MPAs?
How are they going to enforce that no scabs start working in their place during a strike?
Are they going to start protesting outside the Parlors? That's really low key for a group of people that try to keep a low profile about their job.
And how are they going to enforce that the parlors only hire Union MPAs when MPAs are not employees of the Parlor, but are instead independent contractors.
This idea has more holes than the Titanic after an evening arctic cruise.
Then on this fictional day we will see a huge turnover of MPAs.
Given the lack luster state of such in this city lately, I almost wish there was a June 31st.
I think those points hold no water: I was a member of a union of movie freelancers, started by a handful of unhappy folks who borrowed a hall. They were tired of being pushed around as single workers on short-term gigs without actual contracts or work rules. By time I joined later that year there were just over a hundred of us here in T.O.. We signed our first contract that year. Our first with an American studio a year later. A decade later we had working locals in the Maritimes the Prairies and BC, and reciprocity with a Québec union that had started about the same time.
We never had to strike. Employers appreciated the orderliness and professionalism that organized workers brought to their projects. Not to mention written contracts that they and our union could enforce. There's always someone who can manage, like there's always someone who doesn't pay willingly, but we never had real issues collecting from individuals or by check-offs. Besides the organized bargaining power, those dues bought dental and medical insurance we couldn't get on our own.
As an organization we could share our collective expertise and help each other become better workers, who more employers wanted to hire. Sometimes we did have to talk tough, tougher than any individual ever could (even bankable stars belong to a union). But having a known forum for talk made it work for booth sides. Which is howcum we wound up negotiating with a Producer's union in the end. And to this day most of the original founding members are still independent contractors and still union members.
People love Titanic similes and metaphors, but they're so distracted by the tragedy and melodrama they forget that the Titanic made ocean travel safer. Would the companies that cheaped out on lifeboats and watertight compartments ever have done the right thing on their own, without a push?
-------
PS; It isn't relevant to MPAs but if anyone cares: One by one, after years as independents all the locals but Vancouver decided to merge into the larger international unions that had tried and failed to crush them. Vancouver went with a large Canadian union, but still exists as one of its locals under the original name.
Speaking of original names, does anyone else remember the benefit night for the Canadian Union of Burlesque Entertainers at the Edwin, down the street from Jilly's? And BTW Uncharted, it is a six-year old thread you put all that wisdom of yours into.
They hold water when it is the MP industry of Toronto.
This is a legally grey market job that only exists due to government agencies looking the other way.
As are MPs on the whole really.
As such they have no legal support or standing.
No motivation for Spa owners to agree to their terms, especially if they can get people who will do the job without the demands, which they can.
And no way to force such people to agree to be part of their organization.
And if this "Union" actually does collect dues from MPs that are practicing FS on customers, which is the norm now in this city, the Union would be in violation of C36, as that would make the union basically one giant pimp.
Kinda takes the teeth out of a Union to enforce any agreement, when they have no recourse to the law because they are participating in illegal activity.
You can't really compare what was done in your legitimate industry to this legal grey area industry.
Six years old yet still showing up on the first page. So others are commenting on it still.
Am I not allowed to comment on a still active thread just because of when it was started?
Especially when others are.
My aren't you pompous.
Can't have a union if you have no employees. Basic fundamental fact that completely wipes out the rumor you heard.
Sorry but there is nothin about the licensed massage parlour industry and the workers in it that would prevent them from forming a union. Far from looking the other way, governments make money from the licenses, and actively inspect and regulate the business. They might well see a workers' collective as constructive, and useful in raising standards.
Of course the FS you mention is a criminal activity, not just a grey-area, and neither businesses or workers in licensed establishments participate in any such things as part of the massage industry. Certainly no such activities could ever be part of contractual relationships. Unless the laws were changed. But there are plenty of other things workers and owners could usefully deal with, and better communication in formal setting can improve the informal stuff too.
The other stuff you mentioned, getting owners to agree, people to sign on and such is part and parcel of any new union —or any new business. Always hard, seldom impossible. I was answering those same earlier points with my history, not comparing the movies to the massage business, even if they both pander to baser instincts at times.
It's a bit of an overstatement to say this ancient thread is "still showing up", when it just reappeared one day, after a half-dozen year hiatus. New arrivals get new comments; it is how the place works. Sometimes people don't notice the posting date, but no one suggested your comments weren't allowed, indeed I put a fair bit of effort in responding to them myself.
Without a need to add my personal opinion of their author.
The majority of the Licensed Massage Parlor industry in the GTA currently runs off of knowingly offering FS to Customers. Many parlors and chains of parlors are well known for doing such. I won't name names, but if you are a regular hobbyist in the MP industry you know that this is the case.
In fact it is openly discussed on certain massage review boards.
If it is openly discussed there, LE knows about them, as does government officials. Yet they are rarely inspected, and if they are, they are officially warned before it happens. So yes, Government agencies look away because they are making money from them.
The FS is not criminal. The fact that it is happening in a place that is making money off of such is what is illegal according to C36, as that makes the parlous a body house. The grey area comes in the fact that everyone knows this is happening in the lion's share of Parlous in the GTA, and the local Government agencies choose to ignore it.
It is also C36 that prevents a Union to be established in this industry, especially if Union dues are being collected. As knowingly making money off the avails of a sex worker is illegal. And it would be pretty hard to maintain that a Union didn't know, when the Union is comprised of people who are actively doing sex work as a standard part of the very industry the Union is for.
To make them part and parcel of a new Union a Union has to be able to negotiate from some position of strength. Due to the above, a new union in this industry would have none. No legal backup, no legitimate standing. As such what are they negotiating with? What do the Parlor owners gain from meeting the specific demands listed in the OP, and using the "Union" members instead of going with non "Union" MPAs with no such demands?
Without the ability to negotiate, the "Union" looses the ability to deliver what was promised to members, which makes it difficult to attract new membership, or even maintain what membership they initially had.
How is it an overstatement to say,
when the thread is currently still showing on the first page? And was there, with current posts, before I commented.
And if sarcasm was not the original intention, and you truly do believe that there is nothing wrong with putting effort into commenting on an older thread, then why bother making the comment;
It was obviously said as a way to be dismissive of my post and my viewpoint.
Just as you have shown your attempt to be dismissive by saying it's an "overstatement" to simply point out an objective fact.
As such, I believe adding my personal opinion of the author was warranted.
I can't see any new points here and I'm satisfied with the way I have already dealt with their earlier versions.
But your idea of why dues could not be collected from licensed attendants in licensed massage parlours was interestingly far-fetched. Your own outline makes it clear that it's in everyone's interest to maintain the legal fictions as they are now. Before your vision could become any sort of reality, someone would have to prove in court that all those attendants were sex-workers, that the parlours were bawdy-houses, and the so-called union was a money-making business, rather than a voluntary not-for-profit association. Lotta expensive wasted effort and expense for little purpose. Who would do that and why?
But even if someone did, nothing I know of prohibits independent sex-workers (it is the customers who commit crimes, not the workers) joining organizations to advocate on their behalf. Not to mention I know from my experience, that such associations can do effective bargaining and negotiate contracts long before they finish jumping through all the bureaucratic hoops that confer official union status.
I am sorry I didn't manage to point out the age of the thread without hurting your feelings. I don't think our posts and viewpoints are such personal matters, but I do value politeness. If you believe your response was warranted and an effective contribution, you needn't go on at even more length.
And this thread really wants to go back to sleep.
Correction.
It is in everyone's interest to keep their heads down and not draw undue attention to the status quo. And a Legally sanctioned Union would draw a lot of prying eyes to the current state of affairs of this industry, which would result in one of two things.
1. The rampant, willing participation in FS by both the MPs and the MPAs would be exposed, forcing municipal agencies to no longer look the other way, cracking down on MPs leaving the industry decimated. Thus meaning money lost for MPAs, MP owners, and the municipalities.
2. The preemptive self cleanup and elimination of FS by MPs themselves, so as to not get charged. Which would lead to a decline in industry business, which in the long term means money lost for MPAs, MP owners, and the municipalities.
Neither one of which is really wanted by any one of these parties, including the Municipal agencies.
Which is why in all likelihood, the legal sanctioning of a Union in such an industry would not be touched with a ten foot poll.
No player in this paradigm doesn't have some dirt on them.
No player in this paradigm wants to clean the dirt off themselves.
And no player in this paradigm wants to be exposed with dirt on them.
This is what makes the whole thing Grey area.
And to your point that there is nothing wrong with Sex workers joining an organization to advocate on their behalf. You're right. Unless that organization is collecting a portion of the money a sex worker is making selling sex in order to sustain itself. As that is no different than a brothel, and that organizations president is no different than a pimp as far as C36 is concerned, which is illegal.
Sounds to me like you just want this thread to go back to sleep.
As others had commented quite recently in it, it seems it was pretty awake before we even started debating.
