“In what other profession do you need panic buttons?”
I’m just gonna look awkwardly at bank tellers, convenience store clerks, and so many other front-line customer service jobs that either have or would greatly benefit from a panic button to deal with dangerous customer interactions or outright robbery.
Absolutely. I worked as a bouncer in clubs where Bartenders and DJs had alarm and panic buttons.
Even lab environments have emergency shutdown buttons, though for safety not security reasons.
Humans work a lot of dangerous jobs and very often the danger is human.
I used to work in a hospital laboratory. You bet your butt we have panic buttons that call security to our spot when needed. And notice I said when and not if, that’s because they do get used once in a blue moon.
Uh how is that a world first? Those rights are already granted for workers in Australia and sex work is legal, ergo they get them.
Just because sex work is legal doesn’t mean they get workers benefits. I don’t know how it works in Australia, but at least here in Germany prostitutes are only allowed to be self-employed to ensure they aren’t getting “pimped”, and being self employed means you do not get any paid maternity leave or pension
Anyone can apply for Paid Parental Leave in Australia, and as long as you meet the requirements it doesn’t matter if you’re self employed or not. You’re supported.
Sex workers can also legally work individually or with a business (Who will also be paying parental leave).
but at least here in Germany prostitutes are only allowed to be self-employed to ensure they aren’t getting “pimped”
Nope. The reason so many are self-employed is because the employment laws favour employees much more than usual. You can order a baker to knead bread at the penalty of firing, can’t order a sex worker to serve a client on penalty of firing.
The laws about pimping – in particular, holding women in financial dependence – existed way before legalisation and didn’t actually change. It was always legal to offer things such as bodyguard services and also to exchange money for sex, contracts were non-enforcable and you couldn’t have dedicated business spaces for the trade. As such the workers themselves were already plenty used to being freelancers which is probably another reason why so many are self-employed: Cultural inertia.
The change in Germany wasn’t much more about making it a regular trade, not decriminalising it because strictly speaking it has never been illegal.
I’m pretty sure that the same is true for German sex workers under the normal employment laws.
They usually aren’t “employed” though, as far as I know, as in having employment contracts. That’s the new thing they’re doing in Belgium, they’re now entitled to a contract that guarantees adherence to labour laws.
That most sex workers are self-employed in Germany is a result of the strict employment laws, in particular, if you employ a baker and tell them to knead bread and they refuse then you can fire them. Can’t do that with a sex worker as they can refuse to serve any client for any or no reason.
It’s not like there’s no employed sex workers but the more usual model is that a brothel provides a room, security, and a lobby and sex workers pay for the use of those with money they make off their clients. Just like running a business in a mall, but a particular kind of business in a particular kind of mall.
That’s disgusting, those kind of malls, which one though, where, just so I can avoid them.
Haha very funny. Try google and definitely come sober, freshly showered and in a fresh set of clothes.
Well it’s a IASIP reference, ofc it’s funny.
My sample size of one prostitute I know was actually employed in a bordello. She loved her job but quit when she entered a monogamous relationship.
they’re now entitled to a contract that guarantees adherence to labour laws.
Sounds like they’re “entitled” to have to find a boss to work for in order to benefit from this law, unless the government provides maternity pay for freelancers?
It would be if they were employees, but they’re always self-employed.
All I could think seeing this article was “I sure hope that’s a picture of a Belgian sex worker!”
It is
“I could have pointed the finger at my madam [employer] and said: ‘You’re violating these terms and this is how you should treat me.’ I would have been legally protected.”
Interesting. It was another woman forcing her to do oral without protection? I am confused though, is the employer in the room with them or watching on a camera or something? And what was the legality of prostitution hitherto in Belgium?
In fact, Victoria says she was raped by a client who had become obsessed with her. She went to a police station, where she says the female officer was “so hard” on her. "She told me sex workers can’t be raped. She made me feel it was my fault, because I did that job.” Victoria left the station crying.
This is very similar to male judges being hardest on fathers in family court, with mothers getting custody more often than not and men being forced to pay alimony + child-support in the U.S. As of 2013 things have been better:
The incidence of sole mother custody has decreased over the last decades and children increasingly alternate between the households of the mother and the father after divorce. The incidence of sole father custody has remained low.
Though I haven’t had time to dig into the exact numbers.
It was another woman forcing her to do oral without protection?
What exactly is so curious about this?
This is very similar to male judges being hardest on fathers in family court
A rape victim being told to fuck off because she “can’t be raped” is similar to dads being forced to pay alimony? Am I reading this right?
This is very similar to male judges being hardest on fathers in family court, with mothers getting custody more often than not and men being forced to pay alimony + child-support in the U.S.
A rape victim being told to fuck off because she “can’t be raped” is similar to dads being forced to pay alimony? Am I reading this right?
Do you want lemmy to become twitter? Please tell me you don’t want lemmy to become twitter.
I did ask if I was reading this right. Which you may have read. Which might say something about your own reading comprehension, but I don’t know what.
long-winded good-faith interpretation of the original
A female sex worker was complaining about a female police officer being harsh with her. This was compared to male judges being harsh to fathers in custody hearings.
The intended meaning was “Gender A is harsh to gender A, gender B to gender B, provably/hypothetically the A and B pairings are less harsh with each other”. Provably in the custody case, hypothetically in the sex worker reporting a crime case. (We only have an anecdote about that, the officer might simply have generally been an asshole. Could be tested with an implicit bias questionnaire on a larger population or such ask a social scientist not a stemlord like me)
None of it was about comparing rape to custody, that’s a waffle. Rule of thumb: If it sounds like someone implied something completely outrageous do a triple take you probably missed what they said.
Which might say something about your own reading comprehension, but I don’t know what.
Have you ever considered whether such a question can be considered an accusation. “Am I reading this right” cannot only be understood as a simple question, but “Retract that at once”. For that reason throwing such things out willy-nilly is toxic to conversation, it’s the exact opposite of “assume good faith”, two or three such comments in a row and you have a spiral and then you have twitter.
Whether I could read your mind as to which of the meanings you intended is irrelevant to the fact that it needed calling out to prevent a spiral. If you really simply want to ask whether you’ve missed something, “I don’t believe this is what you meant to say but I’m completely lost” or such would be a safe way to go about it.
And it’s always beneficial to try to find a good-faith interpretation, btw, even if you’re for sure dealing with an abhorrent commentor, or a random troll: Replying to the good-faith interpretation instead of what they meant to say is ludicrously disarming. They don’t know how to deal with it. Their hate goes unheard, the conversation becomes positive, it’s ultimate verbal aikido. (And just for the record no I’m not claiming I’m always doing it).
Nah, you got the general sentiment right, I was/am obviously doubting your intentions and giving you opportunity to explain yourself in the event that I am misunderstanding.
Thank you.
Removed by mod
