Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Sorry, when you come back with something obviously stupid, I don't want to play your games. This not remotely comparable to jockey riding horses and track depending on them for the racing product.
TTTH.
|
It's not stupid. It's a similar scenario.
The track depends on a lot of people to make racing go. Should they be responsible for the mortality coverage on the horses? The insurance for the trainers, grooms, hotwalkers, and exercise riders?
The way this normally works of course is that the employer pays for benefits such as health insurance, if they provide health insurance at all. The tracks aren't there employers. The jockeys are self-employed so in the normal world they would pay their own health insurance if they choose to carry it.
What must be happening is that they are signing liability waivers, reducing the cost to the track for its liability coverage, in exchange for providing some insurance coverage.
