Just a Reminder that Agencies Aren’t Legal
- Thread starter Theredmilf
- Start date
It's not strange at all. She's BEEN charged before. She has a lengthy criminal record. That's the thing you don't seem to understand. She's a CRIMINAL. She isn't taking the fall for anyone. You're ASSUMING she's friends with other SP's. SP's can work together and NOT be friends. Many many are NOT friends. They just work with people. Are you friends with everyone at work? No? There you go.
Yes, Madeline, you are correct. The law you’re referring to was passed under Stephen Harper’s government in 2014 as the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA). Prior to 2014, Prostitution itself wasn’t illegal but many of the surrounding activities were illegal: brothels, pimping, and public solicitation. Both buying and selling sex were technically not criminalized, though enforcement focused on brothels and public solicitation. Most of the act focus's on the purchaser of sex following the 'nordic model'. It's horse shit. It is, in a large part, why street prostitution has essentially disappeared. The act put providers at great risk of harm as they could not hire security or even drivers legally as they would be 'living off the avails of prostitution'. It's legislation was designed by religious fundamentalists determined to return to puritan values and were/are zealously attempting to force their own values on the rest of society. The irony of modern day religious types, is that their parent church (the Catholic Church) owned, operated and was fully in favor of brothels during the medieval period in most of the western world as they recognized the value of sexual release.
Do you attend your coworkers birthdays...baby showers etc?
I think i know a little more than you on that. You may wanna sidestep on that sir if you don't know what you talking about.
I would say that they realized the PROFITS of those brothels, as well as the potential for blackmail, extortion, and espionage of the clients.
Not quite, if it were this simple all employers could get away with evading responsibility by not paying wages or other benefits and arranging payment terms so that the tail wags the dog. It’s actually the other way around, the onus is on the business to demonstrate their labourers are truly independent contractors.
“Ontario's government, through the 2017 passage of Bill 148, significantly altered the classification of workers, establishing a "reverse onus" that placed the burden on employers to prove a worker is an independent contractor, not an employee. This meant that after its 2017 implementation, if an employee's status was challenged, the employer had to provide evidence that the individual was indeed an independent contractor, rather than the worker proving they were an employee.”
Employee or Independent Contractor? The Effect of Bill 148 | Employment & Human Rights Law in Canada
Employees are generally determined by a four fold test:
- Degree of control dictating how, when, and where the work is done. An independent contractor has significant autonomy, they don’t have shifts for example. A contractor can sub in others to complete their work and cannot be fired.
- Ownership of Tools and Equipment.
- Chance of Profit and Risk of Loss. An employee is more economically dependent to the business, whereas an independent contractor receives revenues from a variety of sources.
- Integration: The worker's role is integral to the employer's business and often involves being part of the business's core operations. Whereas a contractor merely provides a service to the business.
No single factor determines this but by weighing all the factors to get a picture of whether the worker is in overall subordinate position to the employer.
It’s very easy to see who is an independent contractor versus an employee in the construction industry. If I’m a plumber running my own business, I have dozens, maybe even hundreds of clients which I source and choose myself. I bring my own tools to the job and I am paid for a service. I can decide what my schedule is to complete my contracts and I can sub in other individuals to complete the work. Most notably, I cannot be fired, I am not trained by those who contract me, and I decide how to carry out the work. Conversely, if I am a plumber working for an employer, I go to a job site designated by my employer, work mainly under their umbrella, for clients they source and am supplied the critical tools. I may be trained, can be hired and fired, have shifts or hours etc. I am in a subordinate and dependent relationship with my employer.
There are numerous cases where the government has found misclassification, for example, drivers, gig and construction workers, and in the arts. Workers rights form an important pillar of human rights in this country. And so you can’t just get cute with how you design your business to try to evade the responsibilities of an employer. Imagine the total erosion of rights that would take place were all sectors allowed to avoid being employers by simply calling the individuals they hire independent contractors.
Last edited:
Well stated! Thanks for the detailed analysis. Next question… to your knowledge have there been legal challenges to the conventional agency model? I feel like because of the nature of the business people like yourself are hesitant to pursue that(?) I just did a quick AI search and came up with the following:
“While specific cases of lawsuits against escort agencies for labor code violations aren't detailed, general information suggests such cases are rare due to Canada's sex work laws, which place sex workers in a legally ambiguous position rather than recognizing them as employees, thus preventing application of labor codes. Recent successes in small claims courts by sex workers against clients for non-payment, however, demonstrate an emerging recognition of sex work as a form of work that can involve contractual obligations, potentially opening doors for future labor-related claims against agencies if the legal framework evolves”
