Posted on 11/14/2004 6:38:47 PM PST by ml/nj
Intro:
You need to know that some of the top jockeys are boycotting Churchill Downs because they have just discovered that Churchill Downs will not agree to provide unlimited Medical coverage for jockeys injured while riding at Churchill.
With that in mind, this great post appeared on a board that I participate in, in response to this:
The jockey's who boycotted Churchill Downs are my kinda of people. Being a union man and union rep I can see where they are coming from. Big companies of any industry do not take action on anything until you finally lay the hammer down. Look what has happened. They say (the racing industry) will form a panel to investigate the problem, will it help I don't know but the issue is out of the bag for all of us to see and read about now. The issue has been brought forward by the actions of those jockey's. All the other riders should be gateful that this guy's had balls to stand up for their RIGHTS. I had one back surgery last year total cost $130,000 and I don't go out and risk my life and health everyday like jockey's do. $100,000 does not go far in the area of raising health care and the jockey's should be covered proberly and fairly.It was the Jockey's Guild that dropped the accidental coverage in favor of family health care, back in 2002 that caused this "crisis."
If unions ran American racing, jockeys' compensation would be based solely on seniority as would the order of finish, and the riders would receive unemployment benefits between races. Purse money would be outlawed, because the whole idea of anything based on merit or skill is just so repugnant. That portion of the take-out which had once gone toward purses would now go directly to the union as would any supplemental revenues from slot/video poker machines. Owners would be required to bet on their horses, and would have to pay the jockeys out of their gambling winnings after 50% is deducted for the unionized mutuel clerk who sold them the successful ticket. If they fell into arrears, their stables would be confiscated and sold to the Arabs. Proceeds to the union.
Foreign-born jockeys would stay in "apprentice" staus at half-pay with no weight allowance until they became fully naturalized US citizens.
Since jockeys would remain "independent contractors," they could still choose - from a union-approved list - which advertising to wear on their clothing. Proceeds to the union. Naturally, all clothing and tack would be provided by the owners and would have to be maufactured in US unionized shops. Foreign owned, bred or based horses would be subject to an import duty if they wanted to run here, and they'd have to be ridden by an American jockey in good standing with the union. Proceeds to the union.
Fines would be assessed on the owner of any unruly horse who happened to "throw" a rider. Repeat ofenders would be subject to suspension or expulsion from racing altogether. Proceeds to the union.
And, after all of that, the Guild representatives would still be in "negotiations" with the tracks over insurance, while its members continue to go uncovered.
ML/NJ
They were trying for a general strike but I guess they came up a little "short." (rimshot)
Champion of the "little guys", huh?
Robert Reich? Donna Shalala? Jockeys? Are all short people Socialists?
sounds like a spoof
Actually, no.
Jerry Bailey, who is still the best US money rider IMHO, made comments which would indicate to me that he does not support the boycott. Pat Day, who is no slouch, is still riding at Churchill.
ML/NJ
Yee-HAH!
What sounds like a spoof of what?
ML/NJ
"Jockey Boycott"
Well, I guess I can always wear Hanes or Fruit of the Loom.
bump for the morning.
You're going to stirrup a lot of bad puns with remarks like that.
Sorry that you or anyone else find this humorous.
The "union" mentality is part and parcel of the leftist mind. I thought the guy I quoted demonstrated the absurdity of this union mentality, and so I posted it here.
ML/NJ
You post cr&p that claims that jockeys will receive unemployment benefits between races, and you expect anyone to take it seriously? Your OP is so disjointed that all I could do is laugh.
Signed,
a racing fan
FYI:
I had a racetrack backround (excercise rider) before going in the Navy.
I remember the Jocks complaining about their medical coverage all the time, espcially when the wanted the excercise riders dropped from the group policy that covered all of us. The reasoning was never clear insofar as the 'pinheads'as we usually refffered to them as, weren't paying for any of the coverage. It's paid for by a per-stall surcharge to the treiners and owners. (as well as a $350/quarter charge to both) This kept the premiums down--and took a large financial load off a trainer or owner.
The jockeys wanted it all from themselves--despite that fact that exercise riders have fifty times the injury and death rate. (I know 23 Exercise riders that are paraplegics--and 5 more that are quads!)
To this day---the excercise rider community hates the jocks---esp. Jerry Bailey, who was the ringleader of the drive to remove us (which thankfully failed)
So forgive me, given this, that I saw screw the little prima-donnas.
If it's anything like pug racing, I'm all in favor of it.
So are we boycotting Boxers or Briefs ?
You post cr&p that claims that jockeys will receive unemployment benefits between races, and you expect anyone to take it seriously? Your OP is so disjointed that all I could do is laugh.
I guess you don't understand the concept of using absurdity to demonstrate absurdity. (I'll bet you find Rush "cr&ppy" too.)
And as for holding up your status as "racing fan," to me I suggest you check out my FR "About" page. It hasn't changed in years, but it's still true.
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.