So much has changed in Las Vegas, except for most of the unsung troupers who perform on its stages.

The recent debacle with "Tropical Passions" at the Sahara reminds us that performers often end up with little more than a nightly moment in the limelight and the sounds of applause.

This one seems so ridiculous against the backdrop of corporate consolidation and Wall Street accountability of the new Las Vegas. A first-time show producer told performers he was cutting their pay -- $1,000 per week or less for most of them -- in half as a "forced savings" account until the show could get on its feet and improve its cash flow problems.

That wasn't enough to keep the checks from bouncing. The band collectively resigned, thus closing the revue more than a week before the closing date that had been posted to comply with regulations protecting unionized stagehands.

"The union will get paid for sure. Once again, the nonunion cast will be screwed," said one of the few performers in the show who didn't come from Miami for the opportunity. "I wish the small guys like us would be protected. It just doesn't happen here. People won't stand up for themselves because they will be replaced."

It's an issue that doesn't get a lot of attention or sympathy. The position we usually describe as a "showgirl" has long gone from being a lucrative profession to a gig that's usually considered to be part time, or at least short-term.

"We are still low on the totem pole for being treated with respect and paid fairly for the service we provide," notes the performer. Chorus dancers in a traditional Las Vegas revue might make $625 per week, while chorus members of Actors Equity shows such as "Mamma Mia!" make more than $900.

A bigger potential mess was uncovered recently by comedian John Padon and his wife Dejah Juarez. Her dancing career ended after she injured her ankle in a boxing ring while doing a mandatory promotion as a cast member of the Aladdin's "X" revue.

Her attempt to file a worker's compensation claim turned into a year-plus process that ended with a ruling against them based on a state statute (NRS 616A.110), in which the definition of "employee" excludes "any person engaged as a theatrical or stage performer."

Apparently, the statute was written with touring shows and headliners in mind, not resident shows. But if the ruling holds up to a court challenge, "what's going to happen when every producer realizes they don't have to carry worker's comp?" Padon wonders.

It doesn't sound pretty. The next time you watch one of these shows, clap a little louder.

Mike Weatherford's entertainment column appears Thursdays and Sundays. Contact him at 383-0288 or e-mail him at mweatherford@reviewjournal.com.