Churchill Jockey Boycott

[HP]

This is an interesting story.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/60670.html

\"Earlier in the week, Sexton forwarded to the jockeys an offer from a local health-care provider that would have allowed them to purchase supplemental insurance coverage.

According to both Guidry and Asher, the insurance would have provided $300,000 to $500,000 in health coverage at premiums of about $200 a month, depending on the jockey\'s age.\"

My first reaction was to be sympathetic, but they don\'t want to pay $200 a month for supplemental insurance?  They have to be kidding.  $200?  What planet are these guys on?  I pay thousands a year in premiums for my family\'s health insurance and I\'m in a union as well and they are raising my premium another 12% this year plus my prescription drug plan and typical co-pay are up over 100% in the past year.  $200 a month additional is cheap!  They are getting some bad advice.  Welcome to America guys...  

HP

[Michael D.]

seems gary stevens and shane sellers might be being a bit selfish here. stevens didn\'t ride in the BC because he doesn\'t want to pay a monthly policy premium??? shane sellers complains that he can\'t ride because he can\'t afford a $500 a month policy??? if the end result is the industry focusing on the small time jocks and backstretch workers and their families, and their inability to afford decent coverage, then i give stevens and sellers credit. i hope that is their motive, i am not so sure though.

[OPM]

Once you go past the top 4 jocks at these smaller tracks, the money is very low and another $300/month is a lot of money for these guys.  There was an article on equidaily.com a couple of months ago.  Look at Gary Birzer, he was probably the 9th rated jockey at MNR but he was living in a trailer outside the track.  This is not someone who is raking it in and can afford an extra $300/month.  Also, this is probably a starting point and in a couple of months it goes up.  I think Stevens and Sellers are trying to stick up for the Smaller jocks.  Day and Bailey already have their millions and don\'t need anything else however, I am very surprised that Day is not part of this but it might be a good betting opportunity.

[OPM]

Also, I doubt it very much that this much coverage can be had for $300/month.  It\'s more likely $800/month.

[kev]

It also depends on how well they are spending their money. If he was at least bring in 25,000 a year he should be living better than that.

[asfufh]

It sounds like the $200 premium is for insurance over and above the $100,000 currently being provided by the track so the $200 amount may be reasonable for the supplemental piece(300,000-500,000). Any insurance agents out there?

[HP]

Asfufh is right based on what the article says.  The quote I provided from the article makes it pretty clear -- $200 a month for an extra $500k (apx.) in supplemental coverage.  

The track forwarded the offer from a local health care provider, and it is NOT $800 a month (as per OPM) -- it says $200.  Such plans are available when they combine a number of customers into a \"group\", which is what they would probably be able to do with the jockeys (my father has been in insurance for 40 years).  If the rich jockeys are worried about the little guys getting squeezed, maybe they should do what other organizations do and offer standardized insurance to ALL jockeys (the bigger the group, the lower the premium).  This way, the little guys would get a better \"minimum\" of coverage for a reasonable price and the rich guys could go ahead and buy all the extra coverage they want from supplemental suppliers.  

It seems like a problem that could be solved without the histrionics of a strike, etc.  

HP

[HP]

On second thought, what\'s probably going on is that the jocks want the tracks to pick up the tab.  Again, the reality of ALL business in America today is that companies are passing on the increasing costs of health care to their employees.  You can\'t really single out racetracks as the bad guys in this.  I work for a company that rakes in a billion dollars in profit a year and they are passing on more of the insurance costs to me every year, all the while whittling down my benefits.  A sad fact of life.  $200 a month ain\'t bad, and there are ways to spread the costs fairly.  

HP

[ezgoer89]

HP... I couldn\'t agree with you more.  I work in a managerial position for the biggest defense contractor on the planet and I pay $5000/yr for my family\'s health plan.

According to a 2002 article in the Louisville Courier-Journal a jockey\'s income breaks down as follows:

$35-$50 per mount based on purse
6% of purse for winning
1% of purse for placing
1/2% of purse for showing

Agents receive 25-30% of the purse
Valets receive 5-10% of the purse

In 2001, the jockey with the highest commissions took in $1.75 million before payouts.

The average jock makes $40,000 before payouts leaving him with $25,000 to $30,000 before taxes.

Based on the pay per mount structure of $35-$50, I don\'t understand how the average yearly income is $40,000 unless you are taking into account bottom barrel guys who are getting 200 mounts/year. I went to the current Equibase leading riders list. There are guys on there I have never heard of (Rodney Prescott, JD Acosta, etc) who have or will have over 1,500 mounts by the end of the year.  At a ballpark average $40/mount they\'ve earned at least $60,000 without winning a race.

These guys are not poor, and if they are not getting the mounts and are not good at what they do, then they should get another job.  Asking for a jock to pay $200/month to get supplemental insurance of several hundred thousand is really not much... it\'s no more than one day\'s worth of mounts without even coming in the money.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

The difference of course is that we are not talking office health insurance. We are talking catastrophic injuries which are inherent in the workplace. This is their concern. Shatter a lung or break a neck and see how far 100k or even 300k gets you. The jockeys assume the risk to some extent, but it is a workplace injury. Its covered everywhere else. Its not the same as some out of shape office worker needing heart bypass.

By the way ezgoer89. I luv your nick.

CtC

[HP]

Chuckles,

\"Shatter a lung or break a neck and see how far 100k or even 300k gets you. The jockeys assume the risk to some extent, but it is a workplace injury. Its covered everywhere else.\"

Chuckles, I don\'t know how it is in the Clown Union but....

Catastrophic injuries are NOT covered by standard insurance.  You have to opt for long-term disability and PAY EXTRA for it.  Even then, it runs out (as do conventional hospital benefits -- I know a guy who made about $100K in claims one year and his insurance RAN OUT and he was still in bed -- it does happen).  You can also opt for various specific catastrophic injuries (loss of an arm or a leg for example) and you....pay extra by the limb (they quote prices for each injury covered).
 
Of course the jockeys could BUY extra coverage individually, but the bottom rung guys get hurt a little more proportionately by this type of arrangement.

Why doesn\'t the Jockey Guild (?) or some other jockey organization form a group and get standard insurance with higher payouts for all riders?  If they went with a sliding scale, the high-end riders would pay more of the premiums (since they would probably opt for more coverage) and this would enable the insurance carrier to spread the risk and give the bottom-rung guys more coverage.  The group of jockeys in the United States HAS to be big enough where there is an insurance carrier that would love to have them as a customer.  The more I read about this, the more I think these guys must be getting bad advice.  

HP

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

HP wrote:

> Chuckles,
>
> \"Shatter a lung or break a neck and see how far 100k or even
> 300k gets you. The jockeys assume the risk to some extent, but
> it is a workplace injury. Its covered everywhere else.\"
>

HP if your job at the office required you to use a ladder to reach the books on the top shelf and you slipped and fell breaking your neck my understanding is the business insurance would cover the medical costs. Additionally, you\'d be set up for workman\'s compensation. What does a Jockey get? He gets none of the above in Kentucky. Churchill wants to tell the jocks they are not employees when it comes to insurance and workmans compensation and tell them they are employees when they don\'t want to ride. Which is it?

I agree with you this should be worked out as a group thing, but my hunch is theres thousands of jockeys that really can\'t afford it. My guess is the number of broken necks is not prevalent enough to dissuade insurers. So I agree with you to a great extent. How is Rick Wilson doing? I lost track of his spill.



Post Edited (11-11-04 12:24)

[HP]

Chuckles,

That\'s why I say these guys are getting bad advice -- these guys are most emphatically NOT EMPLOYEES of the track!  There really is no anology to my coverage as an employee.  They need to form their own nationwide group to get the kind of coverage they need.  

HP

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

HP wrote:

> Chuckles,
>
> That\'s why I say these guys are getting bad advice -- these

These are jockeys not brain surgeons and I think they may be getting bad advice. But, there are other states where jockeys are covered under workmens compensation laws. Just last year didn\'t a track try and deny jockeys the ability to wear advertising? Why did they do that? Was it to retain a monopoly on the site advertising rights? This year Churchill says they are not employees and then bans them from riding without the jockeys having been found guilty of an infraction by the stewards or the State pari mutual wagering agency. How do you ban a truly independant contractor? If the jockeys are getting bad advice, the track is playing inconsistent hardball. Theres bad blood on both sides.

CtC



Post Edited (11-11-04 13:01)

[asfufh]

I would guess that Churchill banned these jockeys because they threatened to refuse to honor their rides for the day whenever they deemed it beneficial to their cause....a situation that Churchill felt it couldn\'t live with.
I think more facts are needed before any firm conclusions can be made on this situation. Asfufh