Aging Casino Waitresses turn to the Union to Protect their Jobs from Younger and Sexier Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 9th, 2013

Week in Review

Sex sells.  Advertising is full of scantily clad women peddling some product.  Television executives push the envelope with racier content during the family hour.  And famous actresses often show their boobs in the movies for a bigger paycheck.  Because guys want to see famous actresses’ boobs.  Even Seth McFarlane sang a song about seeing these actresses’ boobs at the Oscars.  Something many of them were not amused at.  Yet they showed them.  Because sex sells.  Always has.  And always will.  Especially with attractive women.  Who can often increase their income by showing a little more flesh.  And do.  Until they age.  At which time they turn to the union to keep a job they got with their looks.  Such as waitressing in a casino (see Conn. casino cocktail waitresses fight shoe rules by Michael Melia, Associated Press, posted on Yahoo! News).

Cheryl Haase has been serving cocktails for more than two decades, and the 52-year-old waitress says she has a list of foot ailments to prove it.

The miles she has walked carrying trays of drinks through the Foxwoods Resort Casino in high heels have sent her over the years to chiropractors and podiatrists for injections to treat inflammation.

Now she and a union representing her fellow cocktail waitresses at the country’s largest casino are fighting for the servers to wear shoes of their own choosing. Many have worked at the casino since it opened in 1992, and some see proposed new requirements as a bid to push them out and make way for younger workers.

“Most of us girls have been here for 20 years, 15 years. This job has really done a number on our feet and they know it,” Haase said…

From Las Vegas to Atlantic City, footwear for cocktail waitresses has been a spiky issue as image-conscious casinos encourage dress codes to help attract customers. A coalition that formed more than a decade ago in Nevada challenged casinos with rallies against high heels. In New Jersey in the 1990s, female servers sued the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, which had waitresses it dubbed “Borgata Babes” wear high heels and cleavage-baring bustiers. The lawsuit was settled in 2008…

‘The higher the heel, the larger the tip…’

At Foxwoods, some cocktail waitresses sought out the union around 2009, partly because of their concerns that older workers were vulnerable…

Haase, who has 13-year-old triplets, said she makes only half of what she used to as the gaming slump has cut into her tip money, but she does not want to give up on a job where she enjoys seniority.

Prostituting yourself for tips is a young woman’s game.  Look, it’s no secret who’s spending money at casinos.  Old men with money who like looking at sexy waitresses.  Even your greasy diners will hire sexy waitresses to get old men who don’t cook to become regulars.  And these waitresses will flirt with these old coots, pinch their cheeks, call them sweetheart and show a lot of cleavage all day long.  Because these old coots will tip more when these sexy waitresses flirt with them.

It’s tough for a 52-year-old to wear spike heels and compete with younger waitresses.  But a woman who’s worked at a casino for 20 years no doubt took a job away from an older woman who could not wear sexy high heels or a bustier showing ample cleavage.  That was okay when they were getting a job when they were young and sexy.  But it’s wrong when the owner wants to do the same thing again.  Only with other women who are young and sexy.

You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t use your sexuality to get a job and make big tips.  Then complain about that same owner wanting to replace you because you’re not as sexy as you once were.  And these old coots are buying a drink or two less because of it.  No.  There’s a reason these old coots are staying in the casino a little longer even when they are losing.  Because some sexy waitress is calling them sweetheart while showing a lot of leg and cleavage.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #40: “Big Government is more efficient when old people die sooner.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 16th, 2010

Revenues Must be Greater than Costs in Both Private Business and Government

Private business must make a profit.  That means the costs of their business can NOT exceed their revenues.  There may be times when costs do exceed revenue.  Such as during a recession.  Or when another business offers the same goods or services for less.  If these periods last too long, a business must act.  Find ways to increase their revenues.  Or cut costs.

Apple continues to innovate and create new products that people want.  This keeps their revenues greater than their costs.  GM, on the other hand, has not.  Their costs have exceeded their revenues.  So they have cut back on production.  And laid off people.  But, in the end, they still needed a government bailout to survive.

Government can tax and print money.  And run perpetual deficits.  So they don’t hold themselves to the same standards as private business.  But if they tax too much or print too much money, it can push the economy into recession and/or inflation.  So they try to make their revenues (taxes) cover as much of their costs (government spending) as possible. 

A Growing Population Can Fund Social Security and Big Government

If you go back 100 years, there was no Social Security.  No Medicare.  No big federal government.  That’s the way the Founding Fathers wanted it.  They minimized the money and reach of the federal government.  Because they were students of history.  They knew governments tended to oppress their people when they had money and power.

In the first century or so of our nation, it was easier to keep the size of government small.  Our population was small.  A big federal budget would require huge per capita taxes.  But that changed as the population grew.  Soon, it was possible to have big federal budgets from modest federal taxes.

We saw the growth of Big Government beginning around the turn of the 20th century.  First it was Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives.  Then came FDR.  He gave us Social Security.  Which was basically a Ponzi Scheme.  It worked at first as all Ponzi Schemes do.  As long as more people are entering into the scheme than collecting benefits, Social Security was sound as a pound.

Population Growth Rate and Big Government Peak and Crash in the 1970s

A growing population means a growing tax base.  The more babies are born, the more future taxpayers there will be.  And when FDR gave us Social Security, it wasn’t uncommon for a family to have 10 or more children.  That’s a lot of future federal taxes they could count on.

Then came LBJ.  He saw what FDR did.  Liked it.  Then tried to outdo him.  He gave us his Great Society (to end poverty and racial injustice).  And Medicare (health care for those 65 and older).  And other stuff.  But these programs were very, very expensive.  So he raised taxes.  A lot.

Then it all crashed in the 1970s.  The increase in taxes to pay for all that government spending stalled the economy.  When they tried to stimulate it with monetary policy, they unleashed inflation.  The U.S. dollar was convertible to gold then.  Which is a bad thing when you’re printing money.  For when you depreciate your currency, you increase the value of gold as measured by your currency; it takes a lot more devalued dollars to buy the same amount of gold.

Well, foreign governments exchanged their dollars for gold.  So much so that Nixon suspended the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971.   Without the gold restraint on printing money, they printed even more.  We had both recession and inflation.  Stagflation.   Double digit inflation, interest rates and unemployment.  This malaise made Carter a one-term president.

Birth Control and Abortion – The Death Knell of Big Government

So what happened?  Where did it go all wrong?  It goes back to the number of taxpayers.  Something happened between FDR and the 1970s.  We weren’t having as many babies.

Instead of 10 or more children in families, many families were having only 2 or 3 kids.  Widespread use of birth control and abortion drastically reduced the population growth rate of the country.  Fewer taxpayers were being born than before.  Which meant that more people would be entering retirement than there would be new taxpayers entering the work force to pay for these retirees.

This is how Ponzi Schemes fail.  When there are more people drawing benefits than paying into the scheme, the whole house of cards collapses.  And this is a big problem for government.  To support their massive spending, they need more, not fewer, people entering the work force.

How can Government Save Social Security and Medicare?  Old People Just Need to Hurry Up and Die.

Well, there’s a couple of ways to address this problem.  First there’s the revenue side.  They can increase the taxes they collect.  By raising tax rates on individuals.  Or by simply creating more individuals to tax.  Such as amnesty for illegal aliens.  But both of these options are difficult to do without hurting your chances at getting reelected.

Then there’s the cost side.  They can cut benefits.  Increase the Social Security retirement age.  But these, too, have political consequences.  Because these old coots tend to vote more than any other demographic.  Which can make them a real pain in the behind.

Of course, if they would jut die before reaching retirement age, the government doesn’t have to pay them or their survivors.  And if they’re dead, they won’t be consuming any Medicare benefits.  You see, not only are they the most vocal group at election time, but they are also the most costly when it comes to government benefits.  The government could kill two birds with one stone if these old codgers would just hurry up and die.

One Way for Big Government to Cut Health Care Costs:  Death Panels

The government doesn’t see your mother or grandmother.  They’re looking at numbers in columns.  They are having trouble increasing the numbers in one column (tax revenue).  And are having trouble keeping the numbers in the other column from growing (benefits).  Because of old people.  Who don’t work anymore.  Or pay much in income taxes.  But they consume the lion’s share of the benefits.  They’re the biggest thorn in the government’s side.  If it wasn’t for them, their programs wouldn’t forever be facing bankruptcy.  You can see why they aren’t the government’s favorite people.

So they increase the retirement age.  In hopes more will die before reaching retirement.  And those who do reach retirement age, well, they’ll have fewer years left to enjoy their benefits.  And they make cuts in the Medicare program.  Disallow some reimbursements.  Maybe prod a few seniors to an earlier death.  Why?  Because these kinds of cost savings are the only cost savings that will have any impact in a government-managed system.

Then there’s the holy grail of Big Government.  Government-managed universal health care.  Obamacare, in its latest manifestation.  And, of course, it will end up just like Social Security and Medicare.  For the same reasons Social Security and Medicare ended up the way they did.  But Obamacare will have a new twist.

Government panels will determine who gets medical treatment.  And who doesn’t.  Based on a ‘return on investment’ analysis used to manage and optimize health care costs.  Will medical treatment result in more taxpaying years for the patient?  If yes, treatment approved.  If not, treatment not approved.  If anything, the government’s death panels will be a model of efficiency.  On paper.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,