|
THE correspondence regarding stable staff has become
increasingly emotive. This is, perhaps, unsurprising where people's lives are
concerned, but unfortunately, even allowing for Lord Donoughue's Stud and Stable
Staff Commission, there has not been anything like enough objective discussion.
Indeed, there is every possibility that a difficult situation could be made
worse by sniping and political point-scoring in the media when what is required
is constructive, rational thinking.
The attempt to depict a heroic workforce drawn from the original cast of
Emergency Ward 10 struggling to tend their charges under the iron heel of
trainers in the mould, if not of Atilla The Hun, then at least of Alan B'Stard
in The New Statesman, is far-fetched indeed. Even if life does indeed imitate
art, far more realistic parallels might be drawn from, respectively, the
cheerful but somewhat anarchic workers of Auf Wiedersehen Pet and irascible
doctor Becker!
My impression is that staff relations within racing have resolved themselves
fairly well overall within a relatively unregulated format over the last 30
years or so. Certainly, no objective observer can doubt that they have moved
right away from the unacceptable extreme of employers' absolutism and
blacklisting.
But, on the downside, there is now a pretty lax approach to horse care based on
staff shortages.
It would probably be fair to say that since longer apprenticeships were
foolishly abolished, wages have risen at roughly the same rate as standards of
horsemanship have fallen.
Despite the protests of various embittered letter writers, no groom who is even
half-capable and reliable would have the slightest difficulty obtaining a decent
job. On the contrary, the fact is that those with little or no idea of what they
are doing are receiving the same money as qualified lads.
Most aspects of racing have changed immeasurably in the past 25 years. A
mainstay, or even the driving force, of that change has been a relentless
expansion of the racing programme for the benefit of off-course betting
interests. That increase in racing has placed the single greatest strain on the
infrastructure of stables. Horse numbers have risen at the same time as the
number of trained staff has declined, and the discrepancy is growing wider by
the day.
FOR many employed in racing, the money may always have been less of an issue
than the way of life, even when wages were extremely low.
Now that time off, even at weekends, becomes an impossibility, and as even the
satisfaction of 'doing' their own three horses properly is scrapped in favour of
a production-line system, then the likelihood of retaining good staff decreases
daily.
Working towards more horses with ever less staff is a recipe for certain
disaster on every level. Staff relations, health and safety, and animal welfare
issues are all compromised.
Those who insist that off-course gambling pays the piper refuse to recognise
that the tune it calls has had serious implications for the lives of those
providing the extra betting opportunities. Such criticism applies primarily to
racing's decision-makers, but the BHB shows no sign of reconsidering its
position in the face of continual protest from trainers and staff.
The body set up to examine the staffing situation has been set an almost
impossible task given the expansionist policy.
Resolving this issue will prove a stern test for those entrusted with it. Apart
from the increasing workload, the fact that the strength and unpredictability of
racehorses make them both dangerous and vulnerable to untrained staff must
present special difficulties compared to other industries.
The board must accept the simple reality that with trained staff already scarce,
trainers simply cannot expend those with a degree of competence on training
beginners.
The situation has already deteriorated far beyond management's being able to
take the longer view. Simply getting through each day takes priority over
training for the future. Not only has a chronic shortage of staff propelled many
unskilled workers into the same wage bracket as skilled ones, but overstretched
quality staff are often obliged to lower their own standards in order to fit in.
If there is no possibility of reversing the dash for growth in the interest of
staff and horse welfare then serious consideration needs to be given to a
programme of more advanced training than the very basic current course at the
apprentice schools.
If there were more emphasis on practical tutoring to the level of someone who
had done a five-year apprenticeship in a good yard, rather than on non-racing
specific NVQs, then a competent core of personnel who might be able to lead by
example in the workplace could be created.
We might be able to attract grooms from other disciplines, who are already
competent in caring for horses, rather than relying on beginners, many of whom
quickly drop out.
|
