What is your definition of "Indy"?

[UncleBob]

SAM it reached its maturity back in may.

But Phil decided to revive this thread that he was considering Useless...
Phil revived it after a little issue that happend last week in a post in the 411 thead where Phil gave his explanation and this has been very well received by the people concerned in this thread... So why then add another layer here in a thread that was dead since May and useless for him?
I guess that even if only a couple of guys mistakened Jez & Gab as being with a new agency, he though that the whole community were confused?

I wonder why some people would do this mistake?

 

[Phil_W]

Hi Orange_Julep,

Number 1: ...(An Indy) has COMPLETE control over how her business is run.

Glad to see you agree with my previous posts on this interpretation and thank you for sharing your opinion.

Number 2: This is Revenu Québec’s definition of "self-employed person"

OMG, I hope Wolfie7 didn't read this one, Labor law is such an aphrodisiac, Lol!

I will certainly not discuss these points in detail or bring up case law. Nor will I try to see (or be interested in seeing) how actual Tax Law would apply to the business .

My post was intended to show the difference between a person that has the equivalent of an employment contract and those that do not.

Agency SP's do, to some extent at least.

Indy SP's do not.

Quebec Civil Code: 2085. A contract of employment is a contract by which a person, the employee, undertakes for a limited period to do work for remuneration, according to the instructions and under the direction or control of another person, the employer.
​

Regards, Phil.

 

[Phil_W]

UncleBob,

SAM it reached its maturity back in may.

But Phil decided to revive this thread that he was considering Useless...
Phil revived it after a little issue that happend last week in a post in the 411 thead where Phil gave his explanation and this has been very well received by the people concerned in this thread... So why then add another layer here in a thread that was dead since May and useless for him?
I guess that even if only a couple of guys mistakened Jez & Gab as being with a new agency, he though that the whole community were confused?

I wonder why some people would do this mistake?

Read the beginning of my post...

...it was brought to my attention that the independent status of SP’s who chose to hire a personal assistant was again questioned...

Someone decided to fire it up again (and no, not the gentlemen that posted in the 411 thread). Not me. I wanted to set the record straight once and for all. That's why.

Regards, Phil.

 

[Phil_W]

It is indeed inoffensive.

Not so inoffensive when it questions the fact some Indies are not "true Indies" or a "lighter shade" of Indy. It's demeaning and insulting.

Regards, Phil.

 

[Orange_Julep]

My post was intended to show the difference between a person that has the equivalent of an employment contract and those that do not.

Thanks, Phil. My point was just that let's not make pretend that agency escorts are self-employed. It's neither legally accurate nor a useful analogy.

As for tax law, :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Stroman]

SAM it reached its maturity back in may.

True!

But Phil decided to revive this thread that he was considering Useless...
Phil revived it after a little issue that happend last week in a post in the 411 thead where Phil gave his explanation and this has been very well received by the people concerned in this thread... So why then add another layer here in a thread that was dead since May and useless for him?

I understand why he did it.

Not so inoffensive when it questions the fact some Indies are not "true Indies" or a "lighter shade" of Indy. It's demeaning and insulting.

I didn't mean that part. I understand your point of view. In fact, I was kinda on your side even though I consider myself neutral.

Ah man! Why did I get myself involved?


Ah well, I should know better next time!

I should know I am a diplomat by nature

Lesson learned for me, never get involved, unless there is some kind of end of the world emergency.

 

[Phil_W]

As for tax law, :lol::lol::lol:

Glad you liked that one, Lol!

...let's not make pretend that agency escorts are self-employed. It's neither legally accurate nor a useful analogy.

As I said, I will not discuss the legal definition of the "Self-Employed" term. But let me just say that I beg to differ on this point: Agency SP's are to some extent de facto self-employed and employees at the same time. Please let's not call in a judge and jury! (yes I know, there are no juries in Tax courts, before someone jumps on that one! :lol

Independent SP's are NOT EMPLOYEES.

Does anybody disagree with this?

Regards, Phil.

 

[Phil_W]

I didn't mean that part. I understand your point of view. In fact, I was kinda on your side even though I consider myself neutral.

Ah man! Why did I get myself involved?


Ah well, I should know next time!

I should know I am a diplomat by nature

Lesson learned for me, never get involved, unless there is some kind of end of the world emergency.

Hello Sam,

Please don't worry about it. I know you didn't mean to insult anyone. No offense taken my friend.

Regards, Phil.

 

[Stroman]

Good to know!

Let's high five on that!

Best regards,

S.A.M.

 

[Phil_W]

Hello Kitty,

I understand what you are talking about with ladies doing this line of work. They all have to perform a job that is not always easy.

I'm sorry if elaborating on your post made you feel bad. I just used it to help me get my point across. Not a personal attack.

Regards, Phil.

 

[Phil_W]

Good to know!

Let's high five on that!

Best regards,

S.A.M.

:thumb:

Regards, Phil.

 

[UncleBob]

It's demeaning and insulting.

Who insults who exactly?

...secretiveness and any conspiracies...

Where do you see "secretiveness and any conspiracies" in here?
Is it because of my opinon?
Because I'm not 100% agree but rather agree mostly at 99% with your saying except that for me one indy can be more indy than another in my very personnal opinion?
Well, I'm insulted too if you think I'm conspiring lol.

I certainly have no intents here to insult or demeaning anybody.
You are overracting for 1 guy over 70000 that is not thinking 100% but almost about your recent coming out (lenghty post) ...
Then, there is conspiracy now ? wtf...

Gab and Jez are independant, they are NOT employees, they are their own boss. They hired a booker as an employee... Fine. I got it. I got it before your lenghty post...
I said that for ME and only me that for exemple, there are shades in the independancy and this is demeaning your girls?
I also said that somehow, I understand why this pour guy in the 411 thread got mistaken. This is natural.

Well BIG sorry to the ladies if they feel demeaning or insulted. It was certainly not my intents.
But there is worst in life... This is a forum about escorting and most girls dont like and feels insulted by reviews... So for me it is very similar. You have to get over it.
Cause after all, I'm only one guy in 70000+...
So please, stop the Conspiration thing lol

Anyway... Whatever...

You got your point and this is what this useless thread is here for. Thank you for that.

 

[Phil_W]

Hello UncleBob,

If you wish, I can ask Gabrielle and Jezabelle if they are comfortable with the idea of being 99% indy in your book and 100% indy with the rest of the 70000 users.

Regards, Phil.

 

[Lou Simone]

Agencies and strip clubs let women believe they are self employed but on a legal stand point they are not.

By law, in Québec, "a travailleur autonome" has no subbordinate, he is a contractor, an equal to the person he contracts with. The Québec courts have had to judge on similar situations such as hairdressers who were treated by their cocontractor (read here hair salon owner) as employees while by the term of their contract, they were only renting a chair in the salon in order to work. Why did the judge ruled the contracts were not respected? Because the hair salon decided of their working schedule, did the advertisement for the hairdressers, set the services price, gave them all sort of rules and commands.

Strip club do the same.
Agencies do the the same.

If women decided to challenge the bar owners as the strippers did in United States (California and Nevada), the Québec bar owners would have to pay SHIT loads of money to the strippers. As many of you know, the strippers are charge a fee to work, often to take break, more often than not for the DJ, the bar tender and the doorman. Many time, if they can't go to work for whatever reason, they are charge a fine. In the meantime, they can't chose their working days and hours, they can't set the prices of the dances neither chose a preferred advertisement method, they can't leave the job when they wish to plus they are under many incredible rules that non of you would accept at work. They are totally subbordinated to the bar owners and managers. Because of that, they should be considered employees which means they should receive a salary and all benefits that come with it which they don't. The American strippers all wan their cases in Court where the criterias used by the judges to determine if a person is treated as a contractor or an employee are very similar as here.

It is very easy to determine if a person is self employed or not.

Escorts who hire assistant, driver, or whatever they want to help them accomplish their work are totally independent, no matter how many ways some of you guys would like to twist it around.

There is nothing more adorable than reading men discust their knowledge of sex work, so charming, I love it!

Your gullibility is beyond shocking.

 

[rollingstone]

Wow this thread blew up quickly. I think an independent who uses a booker or assistant still is an indy. I know a few SPs who have assistants they do not disclose publicly. In their case, their assistants can read their e-mails and organize their schedule, but do not respond to e-mails. I have heard (but don't know for sure) of assistants who respond using the SPs email and pretend to be her.

Regardless, I can say that while an indy SP using a booker or assistant to interface with clients is not my favorite arrangement. Being able to discuss my expectations and establish a rapport with an SP over e-mail is one of the key advantages of booking an indy. As such I might not be as eager to book them, or I might book them with same frequency I do agency providers. But that is just a matter of personal preference.

The real litmus test of indy/not indy for me would be this hypothetical. I book an indy through her assistant, I have a great time and before she leaves I say I would like to see her tomorrow. If she says I have to call her assistant and book through him, then she is not an indy.

 

[Orange_Julep]

The Québec courts have had to judge on similar situations such as hairdressers who were treated by their cocontractor (read here hair salon owner) as employees while by the term of their contract, they were only renting a chair in the salon in order to work. Why did the judge ruled the contracts were not respected? Because the hair salon decided of their working schedule, did the advertisement for the hairdressers, set the services price, gave them all sort of rules and commands.

Strip club do the same.
Agencies do the the same.

Thanks for providing this very relevant example. But you know, as some like to say, jurisprudence, shmurisprudence. In any case, agencies are so special that they aren't comparable to any real world business

 

[Orange_Julep]

...there are shades in the independancy...

If she says I have to call her assistant and book through him, then she is not an indy.

I wonder if we can agree on the concept of "not an independent I'd book with" instead of "not an indy", or "not a completely opaque indy" (as opposed to "shade of indy").

(50 Shades of Independency has a catchy ring to it. Could see that as a best-seller in the near future, right above How I became Half-Pregnant: My True Story on the top-ten list.)

 

[ezekiel]

The problem Orange_Julep, it is the fact that some people claim they are independant and from the client side it look like independant

But... As you know more the person and you get some detail on how the indy operate (yes it is not the business of client) you can

clearly see that the SP is not as independant as you may have thought at first.


This why I agree that there is diffrent levels of independency or shades..

 

[Orange_Julep]

But... As you know more the person and you get some detail on how the indy operate (yes it is not the business of client) you can clearly see that the SP is not as independant as you may have thought at first.

Ok, so how does the capacity to hire someone negate or "limit" one's "independent status"? You see, where I come from the capacity to make business decisions regarding your own business is nothing but a confirmation of that status.

I understand the idea that some clients prefer interacting with the escort directly rather than through a third party she hired, and that has been my own business model as I enjoy that interaction myself. But I'll keep arguing about this until someone admits what's at stake here is not the definition of "indy escort" but rather client preferences regarding specific business models. Indy with no booker = one model. Indy with booker = another model. Neither escort can be distinguished on the basis of how "independent" she is. The only thing that distinguishes them is a personal business decision.

Guys, seriously, when you come up with arguments about how we run our business, please consider applying your logic to the real world. Does it mesh? No? Probably doesn't apply.

 

[rollingstone]

Way to only quote a fragment of what I said. An Indy who insists that I have to contact her assistant for a repeat session while I am already with her indicates to me that I must seek his approval first for the repeat meeting. This would be versus her saying she would check with her assistant and if there its possible she will direct him to contact me. The two situations clearly differentiate who is the boss and employee in that relationship.