MekongMouse wrote:Look, it is pretty clear we have different definitions of abuse. The difference is that the overwhelming majority of the democratic world agrees with mine. You can try to dress up abuse all you want, but this is just one more example of why the prostitution industry needs to be legalized and regulated. Then we wouldn't have to just hope that every pimp, er, bar owner was an honest individual and argue morality... but you wouldn't want that, would you? That might put a dent in your friend's fee racket, huh?

The overwhelming majority of the democratic world does not agree with you, as much of the so called "democratic world" wishes to make prostitution illegal rather than "legalise and regulate", for example:

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW)

1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.

2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.

3. Legalization does not control the sex industry. It expands it.

4. Legalization increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.

5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution.

6. Legalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.

7. Legalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.

8. Legalization of prostitution does not promote women’s health.

9. Legalization of prostitution does not enhance women’s choice.

10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want prostitution legalized.

http://www.isha.org.il/eng/docs/p180/

Personally I don't agree with the above discourse, but would go for decriminalisation not legalisation, and as I mentioned in my last post legislation is already being implemented to protect sexworker rights in Cambodia. Of this legislation Yoshiteru Uramoto, ILO Regional Director for Asia-Pacific said "Cambodia’s efforts are ground-breaking, reaching into a sector where most governments fail to provide adequate protection."
http://ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/new ... /index.htm

General Mackevili wrote: I also see no problem with docking pay for girls who leave the bar.

They know the rules. I don't care if they were docked $500 each time. They know the rules. They have freewill to decide if leaving is worth it. If talking on their phone is worth it. Etc....

They leave the bar as in quit? So, then a "debt" is created and it begins. Once the fines exceed the wages earned, what happens in your world?

So there is no confusion, the fines can exceed the wage in said industry. The figure of $10.usd was mentioned. I seriously doubt the "salary" is $300.usd a month.

wackyjacky wrote:I always thought the "long time barfine scam" was when the bg gets a call at 4am & she tells you that she has to go because - mama sick, brudda crash motocy, water buffalo die, sister forget her apt key etc etc etc........

That's a paid barfine, you thought long time overnight, she knew of course, short time or leaving at bedtime(hers). Some bars trotted out the "short time only before midnight" nonsense for a while but as you indicate, finding staff is difficult enough and they have now resorted to hiring agencies with "coyote" dancers many of whom don't go on barfines at all. Only hostess's you can buy drinks for, not topless or nude, not take out.

The scam in the OP refers to buying her out of the "bar" aka "steady" or "permanent" barfine. The sales pitch can vary, but suffice to say, the girls participation can also vary from full to none. It's a wicked game, the members are now aware of its existence and hopefully won't condone it in PNH should/when it appears there.

NokTang wrote:

wackyjacky wrote:I always thought the "long time barfine scam" was when the bg gets a call at 4am & she tells you that she has to go because - mama sick, brudda crash motocy, water buffalo die, sister forget her apt key etc etc etc........

That's a paid barfine, you thought long time overnight, she knew of course, short time or leaving at bedtime(hers). Some bars trotted out the "short time only before midnight" nonsense for a while but as you indicate, finding staff is difficult enough and they have now resorted to hiring agencies with "coyote" dancers many of whom don't go on barfines at all. Only hostess's you can buy drinks for, not topless or nude, not take out.

The scam in the OP refers to buying her out of the "bar" aka "steady" or "permanent" barfine. The sales pitch can vary, but suffice to say, the girls participation can also vary from full to none. It's a wicked game, the members are now aware of its existence and hopefully won't condone it in PNH should/when it appears there.

I'm quite aware of what you're saying. I've read the whole thread. IMO, there need be no 'sin sot' paid to the bar owner if she quits after collecting her salary for the month. Wait 'till then.

phuketrichard wrote: BTW;
i have heard of a sales pitch in Pattaya ( an it seems only Pattaya) for long time buy out for really stupid Farangs. Seems for a certain amount the girl can pay an she can always come back to work there rather than quit.
why any one do that when there are hundreds of bars to work for I have no idea

It exist in Bangkok as well. Rampant in Angeles City, Philippines until the last year or so, after the first "bar owner" was arrested and charged with human trafficking for attempting same via extortion.

The sales pitch also includes the barang/farang thinking he doesn't have to pay the barfine when he returns next year. Of course, bars change hands like barbie dolls so it becomes a joke on him. Getting the money paid is the goal, after that all bets and deals are off unless some miracle occurs.

General Mackevili wrote:

NokTang wrote:

They leave the bar as in quit? So, then a "debt" is created and it begins. Once the fines exceed the wages earned, what happens in your world?

I'm guessing they have the CHOICE of either settling up with the bar and keep working there or just leave.

I seriously doubt anyone is going after these girls to settle up after they have quite.

Are you suggesting they do?

Yes, I'm suggesting in the cases outlined, where she has found a barang willing to support her, and she quits, some bars will pressure her to get the farang/barang to not only pay her existing fines but a "steady" barfine of some months barfines. They will and have told the farang he isn't welcome in the bar and the mamasan's will often threaten the girls indicating they will contact her family and of course friends in the bar will also be impacted, in essence cause her a "loss of face" if she doesn't get the barang/farang to buy her out. I have even heard of relatives such as a cousin or sister being told her wages would be garnished if she didn't get the lucky lady to pay. I'm not making this stuff up. You might think it's all a ghost story but it isn't. These are facts and real life experiences I've witnessed as well as first hand stories. Often in the past I've been asked to give advice on how to handle the matters. You read it here first, and I hope it doesn't come to Cambodia's "hostess" bar scene. Please understand we aren't talking about indentured servitude. That's another discussion for another place. Warmest regards and have your guard up mates!

IMO, if the girl pressures you on this, it's a pretty good sign that you should find another.

General Mackevili wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:I don't know why you're all ganging up on NT here. Anyone who thinks you can dock pay for talking on their phone is fucked.

I don't see any problem with that at all. There job is not to be on the phone. Why should they get paid to not do their job?

I doubt anyone here can expect to show up for their job, NOT do what they're paid for and expect to get paid.

I also see no problem with docking pay for girls who leave the bar.

They know the rules. I don't care if they were docked $500 each time. They know the rules. They have freewill to decide if leaving is worth it. If talking on their phone is worth it. Etc....

Nobody should sign up for a job that they don't like the rules for. I don't feel the policies are abusive at all.

They are clearly making so much money by leaving the bar that they happily accept the docked wages.

Would they prefer to be able to leave AND not get docked? Of course. I wish I made $1,000,000 a month and didn't have to do the work I signed up for, but it's a ridiculous thought.

Because employment is a contract. The state is supposed to be the neutral party. They determine justice. The reason employers aren't allowed to dock pay is because when it is your word vs theirs, they will always win. You cannot turn to the state for protection. If you're really such a bad employee, they can always fire you.

And I'm not talking about the bar fine. Bar fines are normal and acceptable. What I'm talking about are all the fines bargirls can be hit with when they try to leave employment. Again, I'm not attacking your friend. I have no idea how he runs his business, but if he's docking pay out of their monthly income over texting on their cells or hitting them with fines when they try to leave, he's a fucking prick and that's all there is to it. Bar managers can always just fire bad employees, but then they wouldn't get to have their cake and eat it too.