Members of Strippers Are Workers (SAW), a workers’ rights organization for adult entertainers, declared victory in 2019 when they successfully passed House Bill (HB) 1765, which established the first safety law for dancers in Washington state. Now, they’re working to pass a bill that would provide dancers more agency in collecting their payments from customers and authorization to sell alcohol to customers.
Because of HB 1756, strip clubs in Washington are now required to have panic buttons in concealed areas, a blocklist for violent customers and training for dancers to understand their workers’ rights. The bill also created an advisory committee made up of 50% club owners and 50% dancers who have worked closely with the Department of Labor and Industries to strengthen the safety law.
SAW began in 2016 when a group of Washington-based dancers, fed up with the exploitative practices of the clubs they worked at, connected with the state department of Labor and Industries and local news publications to highlight the unsafe working conditions dancers are subjected to. Two years later, SAW approached Working Washington, a nonprofit workers advocacy organization, to officially create its own organization.
“There’s a history of prejudice against this work — and there’s this massive intersection of labor rights — but also having to justify why strippers should have labor rights,” said Madison Zack-Wu, a dancer and campaign manager for SAW. “We’re not starting from the same starting point as many other labor industries. We’re actually having to justify doing this work in the first place.”
Zack-Wu, who joined SAW in 2020, said workers are already in a difficult situation when wanting to participate in advocacy work, facing possible retaliation from the clubs they’re employed at. She shared that soon after the original group of dancers created the organization, they each coincidentally received a $5,000 fine — or “backrent,” as Zack-Wu defined it — which the dancers were required to pay in three days or be barred from employment at that club.
“Something that’s very interesting about this industry is that while we do work in clubs, especially in Washington, there is still a lot of resource scarcity and also just isolation,” Zack-Wu said. “You’re an independent contractor; you’re a salesman. So making connections and organizing is a little bit different and difficult. It’s almost like you’re competing.”
Financial predatory practices like backrent exemplify the ways in which the industry in Washington has cultivated an unviable system for dancers to build their income post-pandemic. Zack-Wu said that along with backrent, dancers in Washington are expected to pay to work at a club, with house fees ranging from $140 to $200 each night. But in states like Oregon, dancers pay as little as $5, according to Zack-Wu. In the eyes of club owners, it’s a system similar to booth rentals. Zack-Wu said that instead of dancers being able to have a say in what they can do, club owners instead place unrealistic expectations on dancers.
“[Club owners are] telling them this is when they want [a dancer] to start working; this is who I want you to work with. [They] have expectations on what you wear, how you carry yourself, what music you play and, on top of that, [are] charging other fees that don’t really make sense.” said Zack-Wu.
House fees also include charging dancers $20 if they leave the club to grab lunch or making them pay for drinks that weren’t sold that night. By the end of their shift, dancers often walk away owing more money to the club than they earned that night.
Strip clubs are still recovering from the pandemic, with only 11 clubs currently operating in Washington. However, Zack-Wu said the dancers take the biggest hit, left with having to pay DJs, security and other staff members any night they work.
To combat the financial burden, SAW introduced Senate Bill (SB) 6105 and its companion HB 2036, which would eliminate unnecessary fees for dancers by preventing state agencies and local governments from adopting regulations that limit an entertainer from collecting payment from others. If an establishment violates laws, the bills would prevent the Liquor and Cannabis Board from issuing a liquor license to that establishment and instead suspend its license.
The Liquor and Cannabis Board has the authority to allow alcohol in strip clubs. However, even if the Board gave a club a license, dancers wouldn’t be able to sell alcohol if the club does not enact any safety requirements and mandatory training for dancers and club staff members who would be handling alcohol around customers. This has been reason enough for the Board to restrict strip clubs the opportunity to sell liquor to customers.
Originally, SAW introduced a version of SB 5614 in January 2023 that would have allowed alcohol to be sold in strip clubs, but the bill was voted down, with legislators questioning how much revenue selling alcohol would provide. Legislators argued that existing laws around alcohol are already too lenient and that the consumption of alcohol by customers within a strip club would endanger an entertainer’s life, as previously reported by The Stranger.
However, legislators — apart from the Regulated Substances and Gaming committee — didn’t hold a hearing for members of SAW and other adult entertainer advocacy organizations to explain why alcohol being sold in clubs is a safer alternative and financially beneficial for both parties.
Beyond the revenue and income debacles of SB 5614, there have also been concerns regarding worker safety. Jeri Moomaw, founder and director of Innovations Human Trafficking Collaborative, is worried that selling alcohol to customers could create an unsafe work environment for entertainers.
“I believe entertainers will be under increased pressure and coercion from the customers and the club. This will put an increased risk of violence and undercuts the intention of the safety measures,” Moomaw said.
Zack-Wu argues that other dancers have witnessed that serving alcohol in clubs is safer and healthier for both parties. SB 6105 would lower the high expectation of an entertainer to provide a service to a customer and alleviate the pressure put on dancers to make money only by performing.
“We also know that criminalizing our work only makes us more vulnerable to assault and harm, not less,” Zack-Wu said.
Additionally, Zack-Wu said SB 6105 would initiate protective measures for workers, such as more security presence at clubs, and eliminate backrent, house and other fees, then there needs to be a flow of income that isn’t solely provided by entertainers.
“If we’re creating more costs for the clubs without a revenue source in a time and place where customers aren’t attending and everyone is struggling to get by, we could potentially shut down these clubs if we only do workers protection without an alternative,” Zack-Wu said. “We’re really banking on getting these necessary workers protection in the hopes that it will make clubs eligible for the revenue source, because if we put everyone out of work things will just get worse and unsafe.”
One potential shortcoming of the bill Moomaw cited is that it would ban any state and local government agencies from regulating the proximity between a dancer and customer as long as there is no sexual contact.
“I find this very problematic because that would leave the rules of proximity activity and so forth up to the club owners. Strippers Are Workers, other current dancers, some of our clients and myself know that the clubs are exploitative,” Moomaw said. “It will not increase safety. That will cause a melting pot for exploitation that is not [outlined] specifically in the law.”
However, Zack-Wu believes that if the state or local government were to pass an ordinance that would further restrict proximity between an entertainer and a customer, then club owners would still take advantage of that. The possibility of an entertainer’s credibility being questioned when reporting a case could increase, and their resources could become even more limited due to the restrictions of such an ordinance. Zack-Wu added the financial instability entertainers go through would still create a high risk of that individual being harmed or in a trafficking situation.
“Club owners are already easily able to exploit dancers because already your standard night of work is criminalized as soon as you dance on stage,” Zack-Wu said. “From there, as a dancer, you know that you don’t have power in that situation.”
According to a study by Yale Global Health Justice Partnership, the criminalization of sex work places dancers in isolating and harmful situations and makes it even more difficult to report abusive clients.
SB 6105 would not only offer entertainers the full control of their salaries but also provide training focused on reducing unprofessional behavior, preventing sexual harassment, enacting conflict de-escalation and providing first-aid. It would also allow other employees to aid dancers during times of conflict. The requirements of this bill won’t fully support entertainers in feeling safe in their work, but SAW believes it will be a first step in rebuilding a viable workforce that has taken hits after hits in recent years.
As of Jan. 29, SB 6105 is under review by the Senate Committee on Labor and Commerce, which will determine whether or not the bill will move forward to a potential vote on the Senate floor.
“When we do have options, we do have rights [and] we have protection from retaliation. That means we’re more confident in advocating for ourselves,” Zack-Wu said.
“We have a lot more power in those situations through this bill to get away from it, prevent it or stop it.”
Marian Mohamed is the associate editor of Real Change. She oversees our weekly features. Contact her at [email protected].
Read more of the Jan. 31–Feb. 6, 2024 issue.