Grooms to get a share of winnings

Neigh, I think you have once again missed the point. This was NOT our idea. This comes from Government. The trainers( those who went. None from Ashburton) were told that there is no option and we have asked that the1% be split between everyone( Owners, Jockeys and Trainers and not only owners) Did you know that? Most trainers at our meeting are already paying more than the 1% to the grooms and they(the grooms here) know what they should get and would complain/strike if they did not get their percentage. Once again did you know that the grooms choose their horses as they come in and keep those horses until the end of their careers unless something goes really wrong as in they are dismissed or leave? Did you know that? As I said in my earlier post, this is OVER and above the presents given already. Also, as I said earlier, this money is split EQUALLY between all the grooms in the stable. Now who was in too much of a hurry to have a go at me? All I was doing was explaining what was happening as I was at the meeting and heard what we had been instructed to do?

Craig if you read the article in the Sporting Post there was no talk of dividing anything, this 1 % would come out of the winning stake monies. In other words the owners share would be less.
The point I am making is very simple. You employ someone, not me, as your client why should I be held to ransom over his pay ? Why should I as an owner have anything to do with your employees ?
In my and every other industry it is the employers responsiblity to adhear to government regulation on minimum wage not their clients. This is passed on with your pricing.
If the industry is not happy with the minimum wage "settings" by government it is fine to increase as they see fit. (blanket increase) I am all for this, but again it has nothing to do with me as your client. Normaly you will have unions (grooms) and your bargaining council (trainers) involved in this decision making, not your client.
Craig is the allocation of horses to grooms done randomly or do the senior grooms get first choice ?
As per usual Craig you are the one defending the decision making and from my side absolutely nothing personal towards you bud. I feel this is a matter that needs to be debated and resolved as all owners suck the hind tit in this industry of ours.
Last but not least where were us owners represented in these meetings if we are directly involved ?

Neigh, we had nothing to do with it. We just got told that this is what we are instructed to do and we must open a new bank account for this reason. Our Trainers association called a meeting on Friday( after Sporting Post article I am sure) and we have asked for the charges so it is split over everyone and not just the owners. I am confident this will happen as everyone( Jockeys, Trainers and Owners) should contribute if we are forced to by government and not just the owner. That is what has been asked for by our Trainers association. As the horses come into the yards I have worked for, the grooms normally choose themselves and as no one can predict whether they can run it is normally left to them. I am not sure who was at the meetings with Government except them and the operators who were told what was wanted.

Thanks Craig, I wasnt aware of your meeting and to that we were talking in cross purposes. Dont you think it would be so much easier just to increase the minimum wage ?

Neigh I think they want to be able to come and check that this has been paid to the grooms.

Craig I must say that there are a few trainers such as yourself Duncan Howell's Mike Bass, Dom Zak, Louis Goosen and a few others that are transparent when it comes to the horses that are entered for the day. I hate taking my hard earned sweat to pay for my keep at least with you transparent trainers you guys give the information so we can take a little punt and pay our keep. I firmly believe horse racing is a business and if your horses are not performing move them or get rid of them. Throwing good money after bad is a no no to me. As I have to perform for my client the trainers has perform as well because we are the people that are paying them.

Craig Eudey wrote: Neigh I think they want to be able to come and check that this has been paid to the grooms.

Craig if this is a Government decision then I wonder if the trainers will be responsible for the admin work and potential extra bank charges the trainers might have to carry? I support any increase in grooms salaries as I think only grooms and punters can close down racing(punters more so) - If all the grooms strike local racing will close down(If people do not believe this then they should only look at the impact the Postal Strike had on the Post Office). For me I think another option is to take a % off Jockey riding fees (if they get R700 a ride then maybe R25 a ride? ) or take a % of betting Tax to give to the grooms or build a % into the funds paid to the Racing Trust. If you ask for an increase in training fees you will drive smaller owners out of the game and thereby grooms will lose jobs. Unless the wage of a groom is a living one you will always have problems and always attract unskilled labor.
Wisdom of Solomon is needed to sort this out and I think ultimately perhaps punting should fund the increase... i really don't know but I have talked about this problem for 10 years or more and fear one day it will be too late.

As an aside - Grooms see everything in Racing - Therefore they have "INSIDER KNOWLEDGE" - Now if Racing was the crooked game that certain people say it is then surely the grooms would be the most successful punters around as they would have the stable graft.