Is the horse industry stupid?

C

chekhov

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 October 2007
Messages
1,350
Visit site
Now I'm sure I've posted this in the wrong forum so take a breath and count to ten. I'm not trying to P1ss anyone off, but I'm quite sincere in my question:

Is the horse industry stupid?

Don't get me wrong. I've come a lot a fair amount of stupid industries in my time (elephant repellent powder targeted at the Scottish market springs to mind), and I'm aware of some strange and bizarre not to mention totally unreasonable working practices around the world (sweat-shop trainers anyone?).

We all know that textiles are often exported from China / far east because the terrible pay and conditions provided to the workers means that it costs almost nothing to create the goods that get sold. We know it's wrong, we know it's bad and whenever we remember to have a conscience about it we all feel bad.

I've thought for a long time that the equestrian industry was basically a "cottage-industry". With very small suppliers producing various niche products and services. Considering how many people ride and how many horses there are in this country alone, I've often wondered how these cottage-industries survive.

However, I've only just begun to realise the horror relating to employment within the horse industry. Specifically I'm talking about people that work with horses but not Yard Owners or internationally famous riders / course designers.

So how many of you work with horses? From what little I understand it appears that the picture is as follows:

An individual manages to achieve stage 3 / 4 as well as qualifying as an AI. Deciding to gain employment as a groom or a instructor / stable-manager they have a look at the job market.

At this point it looks like a Charles Dickens novel (Bleak House more than Great Expectations but take your pick...certainly not a Tale of Two Cities). A fully qualified and experienced AI is expected to work anything from 5 to 6 days per week, including weekends and "a late night". They are expected to be able to teach children, adults, stable-hands, manage the yard, school horses, oh and ideally they should have first-aid qualifications. If they are lucky (from the adverts I've seen) they'll earn the magnificent sum of £15k per year. No pension - unless they've managed to piggy-back on existing term of reference for a clerical post in a non-horsey environment). Annual leave appears to be something that's a dirty word, and is certainly never mentioned. I suspect it's unpaid, but if not I'm betting it won't be as much as 20 days per year.

Is this the case? Don't talk to me about special, lucky exceptions (there's a 120 year old man down the road who smokes 50 a day and drinks three bottles a whisky a night - exceptions exist within all walks of life) I'm talking in-general.

This is blooming stupid! What kind of mug would work for that? And why, on this green and pleasant land, hasn't a union been formed that actually addresses this ridiculous state of affairs?

I've known instructors at yards go off to work at petrol stations, supermarkets etc. in the past and I've always just assumed that they were fed up with horses and could stand them no more. I didn't realise that they could get paid more and have better conditions as a completely unskilled worker in an environment where getting physically damaged wasn't a daily (subject to the horses at the yard) possibility.

Really. This is complete tosh! Yard owners seem to expect a huge amount from staff yet are not prepared to give them the same benefits as unskilled workers. If the yards can not make enough money to pay people properly then they SHOULD go out of business. For some reason this stupid state of affairs is accepted in the horse-world. Why? For gods sake someone tell me why! Yes I know horses are a lifestyle choice for owners. But you'd have to have rocks in your head to work at a typical yard where your future is to manage the yard, teach and school horses all for £15k per year.

The reason this continues is because people put up with it. A man much wiser than me (I have the wisdom of a new born baby but am not nearly quite so appealing nor attractive) told me that people have as much authority over you as you let them have.

I have only one conclusion that I'm genuinely hoping is wrong:

If you work with horses. You're a mug.

Discuss
cool.gif
 
I think you are mad if you go into the horse industry for anything other than the love of horses.

We run a yard from home and have 2 full time plus several part time members of staff. They receive minimum wage, get holiday time and work a 5- 5 1/2 day week 8-6 every day. It's a lovely yard to work on and there's no expectation to do something they arent happy to do.

There's no way we could afford to pay more- do you know how expensive it is to run a yard? We just about break even.
 
To solve this problem there needs to be more very very rich people, so we can marry them and frolic around in the field with horses all day till our hearts content...and not have to lift a financial finger...wohooo...

ETA - Sorry, that's not a very intelligent answer.
 
I would be happy to work the long hours for that money in Cornwall
wink.gif
.
I would have satisfaction at the end of each day in teaching people how to ride etc...
Even better helping horses, horses are a passion of mine so getting paid about 15K a year would make it an even better passion/hobby!
tongue.gif
 
Someone once told me only mad men and fools have horses, I think its the same when it comes to working with them!

I work one day a week at my yard to help pay the rent, and its damn hard work, mucking out X number of stables, whilst turning out with one hand and tacking up with the other!

Its a love affair, where we are the mistress!
 
The horse world rely's on people that are happy to work for a small wage, live in a caravan and treat the boss's horses as if they were made of gold. Been there and dune it, for 15 yrs.
Would never do it again.
I now have 2 horses at DIY and do them all day!
FANTASTIC.
(A rich man may have helped things a long!!)
blush.gif
 
I appreciate that running a yard is expensive. But the bottom-line is that people should really be able to earn more than the bare minimum when they have genuine skills and they have to work hard. It seems wrong to me that someone at a supermarket can earn more, get more benefits and have zero skills or knowledge.

There is something wrong. If there is not enough profit in the horse industry to sustain all the yards that exist then there really is (from an economics perspective) only one option.

What about when people are too old to keep working on a yard? Being paid the bare minimum they can't really put much aside for a pension or investments. They don't build up any assets to sell when they get old.
 
Until horse owners stop wanting YOs, farriers, vets and feed merchants to subsidise their hobby, then wages in the industry will continue to be awful.

I would love to have a horsey job, but I do not have a man or family to be able to fork out for the important things whilst I play ponies.
 
I'm not a fan of unions. But I really think they would do a lot of good in this area. I think a two-week strike by all grooms, instructors and yard workers would solve the problem. Either they would end up with decent pay and benefits commensurate with their skills and effort, or yards would close down driving up consumer demand and enabling surviving yards to charge more and pay staff better.

That's very much over-simplifying it. But surely something has got to happen to change this.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Until horse owners stop wanting YOs, farriers, vets and feed merchants to subsidise their hobby, then wages in the industry will continue to be awful.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry - I'm a tad thick. Can you explain that to me in words of one syllable?
 
[ QUOTE ]

There is something wrong. If there is not enough profit in the horse industry to sustain all the yards that exist then there really is (from an economics perspective) only one option.


[/ QUOTE ]

Go on then, whats that option?!

Because for every 6/7 horses you need another member of staff so you cancel out extra earnings with extra outgoings.....
 
I work on a (certain...) yard part-time around my degree. I get min wage, work 8am-6pm, if I have to work past 6pm because we are expected to do a ridiculous amount of work in a very short space of time (which is fairly often) then I don't get paid for any extra hours. Some of the reasons I work there are: 1) I love every single one of those horses to bits, and 2) sometimes, just sometimes, I get a smile and a thank you from my boss, 3) my working hours are very flexible and my boss always tries to help, etc.
It does irritate me though that people insist on paying their skilled (and sometimes irreplaceable) staff a pittance, but still see fit to run nine of their own horses, pay a huge amount on competition fees...
confused.gif

I am finishing my degree next month and I am looking for a non-horsey job. I just could not live on that wage and amount of hours.
 
sadly, yards that can't make enough money will have to close down. It may be the personal ambitions of yard owners to run their own yard , but how do the yard workers survive when they get ill or retire (assuming that any of them can ever afford to retire)?

If there isn't any money in a business - it folds.

At the moment yard owners (and I apologise for the following words if they cause a negative emotive response response - it is not my intention to offend) take advantage of people who actively want to work with horses to sustain their business. It's really not fair.
 
Fact is often the trainees that don't have their AI etc get paid and treated the same as those that do.

This is why I trained myself, didn't work as a working pupil, have never and will never work in a riding school and solely do freelance. I am lucky with my home life that if I have a "bad" week it doesn't effect us too much, but I couldn't work in a RS. I constantly have them on the phone looking for instructors and the answer as soon as I know who it is, is "no, I don't need to work in a RS". It might be arrogant, but it's true. They'd pay me like £5/6 per hour! No thank you. Freelance I get 4 times that!

They moan about staff turnover, but there is good reason for it IMO!
 
[ QUOTE ]
sadly, yards that can't make enough money will have to close down. It may be the personal ambitions of yard owners to run their own yard , but how do the yard workers survive when they get ill or retire (assuming that any of them can ever afford to retire)?

If there isn't any money in a business - it folds.

At the moment yard owners (and I apologise for the following words if they cause a negative emotive response response - it is not my intention to offend) take advantage of people who actively want to work with horses to sustain their business. It's really not fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do the horse owners put their horses? Becuase the yards which will make money are those that cut corners. Those that pay LESS than minimum wage, who keep on an army of working pupils with more of the working than the pupil. Yards where horses are given stingy beds, kept in less than perfect stables, on overstocked land. Trust me, I've seen a few livery businesses which are making money and several of them are for the above reasons (not all, I accept that)

A YO who genuinely takes care and pride over her client's horses and who gives their staff a nice working environment ultimately makes less money because their is a limit to how much horse owners will pay for livery.

Therefore, to have happy staff you need nice environment, nice boss, nice people= not much money!!!!! (oh yeah, unless YO is filthy rich and can afford it)
 
[ QUOTE ]
Is the horse industry stupid?
<font color="blue">Right, I'm going to give you my perspective whether you want it or not
grin.gif
</font>
Don't get me wrong. I've come a lot a fair amount of stupid industries in my time (elephant repellent powder targeted at the Scottish market springs to mind), and I'm aware of some strange and bizarre not to mention totally unreasonable working practices around the world (sweat-shop trainers anyone?).

We all know that textiles are often exported from China / far east because the terrible pay and conditions provided to the workers means that it costs almost nothing to create the goods that get sold. We know it's wrong, we know it's bad and whenever we remember to have a conscience about it we all feel bad.
<font color="blue">You are leaping to conclusions regarding the outsourcing of manufacture, caused by globalisation (I teach this sh1t at the moment), and judging this by Western views. By setting up factories in 'third world' countries, companies such as Nike, are actually creating wealth - by something known as the 'multiplier effect' - where each £1 paid in salary to a 'sweat shop' worker filters down through the economy, benefiting many. It should also be noted that Nike and similar outsourced work, actually pays more than professions such as teaching - these are sought after jobs. On the downside, when the economy is stimulated by investment, growth of skills etc, then the MNC's tend to move on to a poorer country. </font>
I've thought for a long time that the equestrian industry was basically a "cottage-industry". With very small suppliers producing various niche products and services. Considering how many people ride and how many horses there are in this country alone, I've often wondered how these cottage-industries survive.

However, I've only just begun to realise the horror relating to employment within the horse industry. Specifically I'm talking about people that work with horses but not Yard Owners or internationally famous riders / course designers.

So how many of you work with horses? From what little I understand it appears that the picture is as follows:

An individual manages to achieve stage 3 / 4 as well as qualifying as an AI. Deciding to gain employment as a groom or a instructor / stable-manager they have a look at the job market.
At this point it looks like a Charles Dickens novel (Bleak House more than Great Expectations but take your pick...certainly not a Tale of Two Cities). A fully qualified and experienced AI is expected to work anything from 5 to 6 days per week, including weekends and "a late night". They are expected to be able to teach children, adults, stable-hands, manage the yard, school horses, oh and ideally they should have first-aid qualifications. If they are lucky (from the adverts I've seen) they'll earn the magnificent sum of £15k per year. No pension - unless they've managed to piggy-back on existing term of reference for a clerical post in a non-horsey environment). Annual leave appears to be something that's a dirty word, and is certainly never mentioned. I suspect it's unpaid, but if not I'm betting it won't be as much as 20 days per year.
<font color="blue">I agree - and £15k would actually be a very generous salary, considered a better job. The legal minimum of paid holiday has increased, I think to 22 paid days per year. It is also worth noting that workers are limited to an average of 48hrs per week, (mean of a few weeks) unless they specifically sign their rights away and agree to work extra hours. </font>
Is this the case? Don't talk to me about special, lucky exceptions (there's a 120 year old man down the road who smokes 50 a day and drinks three bottles a whisky a night - exceptions exist within all walks of life) I'm talking in-general.
<font color="blue">There are exceptions, but this is the case, in my experience. </font>
This is blooming stupid! What kind of mug would work for that? And why, on this green and pleasant land, hasn't a union been formed that actually addresses this ridiculous state of affairs?
<font color="blue"> There is a union - the British Grooms Association. If you give me a few minutes, I will find you a thread from careers which discussed this very situation, and gives BGA's response (or some would say, lack of response) to the points raised. In my opinion the BGA has made a fundamental error in its activities within the equine industry. If you look at the problem of staff shortages within most industries, using basic economic theory - at the moment the demand for grooms and instructors exceeds supply. In the neoclassical model, (assuming ceteris paribus) this situation would be resolved by the wages increasing, to the point where supply = demand, pretty much. The BGA have a different solution, however, and are adopting a 'deficit model'. After consulting employers regarding grooms (although I would have thought consulting grooms would be a better idea), they decided that grooms were lacking essential skills so could enrol themselves on a vocational qualification involving being signed off by employers for yard activities. Now if you can't get enough grooms, that to me, suggests the problem lies in the industry, with the employers, but maybe I'm just special
grin.gif
</font>
I've known instructors at yards go off to work at petrol stations, supermarkets etc. in the past and I've always just assumed that they were fed up with horses and could stand them no more. I didn't realise that they could get paid more and have better conditions as a completely unskilled worker in an environment where getting physically damaged wasn't a daily (subject to the horses at the yard) possibility.
<font color="blue">You do get better pay and conditions working in an unskilled non-equine job, in comparison to a vocational equine role. </font>

Really. This is complete tosh! Yard owners seem to expect a huge amount from staff yet are not prepared to give them the same benefits as unskilled workers. If the yards can not make enough money to pay people properly then they SHOULD go out of business. For some reason this stupid state of affairs is accepted in the horse-world. Why? For gods sake someone tell me why! Yes I know horses are a lifestyle choice for owners. But you'd have to have rocks in your head to work at a typical yard where your future is to manage the yard, teach and school horses all for £15k per year.
<font color="blue"> Agree entirely. </font>
The reason this continues is because people put up with it. A man much wiser than me (I have the wisdom of a new born baby but am not nearly quite so appealing nor attractive) told me that people have as much authority over you as you let them have.
<font color="blue">This is why the majority of people leave the equine industry before they are 25 yrs old (I can find refs for this if you want? Think it was a Lantra study.) </font>
I have only one conclusion that I'm genuinely hoping is wrong:

If you work with horses. You're a mug.

Discuss
cool.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Can't disagree with you. It can be fun to work with horses when you are young, enjoy the riding, and the social aspect. But if you need to buy a car/house, etc, you need to get a 'proper' job.
S
grin.gif
</font>
 
I'm sure theres quite a few yards that throw in free accomodation/livery/lessons/training for qualifications to make the job more appealing when the pay is low. I did a National Diploma in Horse Management when I was 16-18 but never wanted to work hands on with horse as much as I love em. I just couldnt live on the low pay. I much prefer having a 9-5 well paid office job (as boring as it is) and be able to enjoy looking after one horse.

Plus when I did my ND and we had to do yard duties it was 6.45-5pm on a weekend and we worked like dogs with only a breakfast and lunch break! That was enough to put me off wanting to work on a yard as a job lol.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So where do the horse owners put their horses? Becuase the yards which will make money are those that cut corners. Those that pay LESS than minimum wage, who keep on an army of working pupils with more of the working than the pupil. Yards where horses are given stingy beds, kept in less than perfect stables, on overstocked land. Trust me, I've seen a few livery businesses which are making money and several of them are for the above reasons (not all, I accept that)

A YO who genuinely takes care and pride over her client's horses and who gives their staff a nice working environment ultimately makes less money because their is a limit to how much horse owners will pay for livery.

Therefore, to have happy staff you need nice environment, nice boss, nice people= not much money!!!!! (oh yeah, unless YO is filthy rich and can afford it)

[/ QUOTE ]

But what you're basicaly saying is that there are too many yards. One can't charge more for livery, because the owners will go elsewhere if one does. There is too much competition to enable a YO to pay skilled staff a decent wage as a result. So if there is too much competition some yards will have to close down. As for where the hroses go I don't know. Perhaps if there are less yards less people will be inclined to breed horses. I don't think that would be a bad thing, but that is a subject for another day.

I'm sure in your case you create a great environment which is very important for staff. But do you really think it's fair that someone stacking shelves at a supermarket can get paid more despite having no skills or training? When was the last time that a shelf-stacker had to worry about turning their back on a tin of beans for fear it would kick them and cause permanent damage (yes I know it happened with those rogue imported Baked Bean tins of 83' - but not since then that I know of)?

What sort of provision for old-age to yards make for their staff? Is there a pension system? This very much appears to be taking advantage of people. Just because they don't mind doesn't make it any better.
 
I don't think this will change any time soon, if YOs had more money then I'm sure they would pay their staff more.

My YO complains a lot about not having much money and is always thinking of ways to make more money, and obviously it is very expensive to run a yard especially paying for things such as repairs etc. I don't think there's an easy solution tbh, although I do agree that staff at yards work damn hard for a pittance.

I work at a yard once a week as a saturday job, but could never do it full time!
 
[ QUOTE ]

But what you're basicaly saying is that there are too many yards. One can't charge more for livery, because the owners will go elsewhere if one does. There is too much competition to enable a YO to pay skilled staff a decent wage as a result. So if there is too much competition some yards will have to close down. As for where the hroses go I don't know. Perhaps if there are less yards less people will be inclined to breed horses. I don't think that would be a bad thing, but that is a subject for another day.

What sort of provision for old-age to yards make for their staff? Is there a pension system? This very much appears to be taking advantage of people. Just because they don't mind doesn't make it any better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree its all very unjust and trust me, I spend my summers working on the yard at home and I know exactly how tough the work is and how difficult it is to live on that sort of money. But our 2 full time staff adore the horses. They actually dont have qualifications and neither of them would ever want to work anywhere bar on a yard- everything else is boring!

Sadly I doubt the issue will ever be resolved, being a yard worker is a poorly paid job with a lot of hard work but so many rewards if you love horses.
 
[ QUOTE ]
We all know that textiles are often exported from China / far east because the terrible pay and conditions provided to the workers means that it costs almost nothing to create the goods that get sold. We know it's wrong, we know it's bad and whenever we remember to have a conscience about it we all feel bad.


You are leaping to conclusions regarding the outsourcing of manufacture, caused by globalisation (I teach this sh1t at the moment), and judging this by Western views. By setting up factories in 'third world' countries, companies such as Nike, are actually creating wealth - by something known as the 'multiplier effect' - where each £1 paid in salary to a 'sweat shop' worker filters down through the economy, benefiting many. It should also be noted that Nike and similar outsourced work, actually pays more than professions such as teaching - these are sought after jobs. On the downside, when the economy is stimulated by investment, growth of skills etc, then the MNC's tend to move on to a poorer country.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure - but children work in these factories that we would send to school (yes this is a western value - I'm a westerner - go figure) and in conditions that would be unacceptable in the west. These western based manufacturers outsource the production of their goods to these countries because it is cheaper than to produce them within a western society, where conditions need to be reasonable (according to western standards) and pay commensurate with the socio-economic conditions. I do not deny that local economics means that 1USD or 1 GBP buys a lot more in those countries than it does here. However, it could be considered that it perpetuates the social injustice extant within these nations: the social elite within the developing-nations do not send their children to work in these factories. By withdrawing the western controlled factories (which creates a disproportionate (to the OpEx) amount of wealth for the western-based company and also establishes a short-term revenue stream), professions such as teaching would be seen as a means to improve the social and economic fabric of the nation, enabling a balance to achieved faster.

Additionally by paying wages for unskilled or lowly skilled activities higher than for skilled activities western-nations are helping to sustain the inability of these nations to develop.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you want to justify a western-company taking advantage of poverty in another nation or not. Personally I don't.


Other than that I agreed with you. I noticed that the main benefit of being in the Grooms Association seemed to be a discount card at some saddlers??!! Where is Arthur Scargill (sp) when you need him?
 
[ QUOTE ]


If you work with horses. You're a mug.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a mug.
smile.gif
I've got an ace groom's job which is comparatively well paid with lots of perks (I'm a peasant but not as desperate as some!!), but I couldn't afford my own horse and ponies if my family didn't help me out. I've no provision for the future and I need to go and get a proper job but I really love doing my job - and I've never thought of anything else I'd like to do or be any good at. Yes its stupid but I'll probably keep grooming anyway.
crazy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

Sure - but children work in these factories that we would send to school (yes this is a western value - I'm a westerner - go figure) and in conditions that would be unacceptable in the west.
<font color="blue">But you can't impose Western values on the rest of the world - they don't have the resources. If you did stop 'children' working in India or wherever, the reality is that they would starve, or end up in a much worse situation. In the factories, they are relatively safe, and earn enough to eat. School fees may be beyond them, or their family may no longer be able to feed them. There are no simplistic answers. </font>
These western based manufacturers outsource the production of their goods to these countries because it is cheaper than to produce them within a western society, where conditions need to be reasonable (according to western standards) and pay commensurate with the socio-economic conditions. I do not deny that local economics means that 1USD or 1 GBP buys a lot more in those countries than it does here.
<font color="blue"> No, you have misunderstood the 'multiplier effect'. The benefit of the £1 invested, is to the host nation, not to the MNC - such investment injected into a country can stimulate the economy to generate further wealth. </font>

However, it could be considered that it perpetuates the social injustice extant within these nations: the social elite within the developing-nations do not send their children to work in these factories. By withdrawing the western controlled factories (which creates a disproportionate (to the OpEx) amount of wealth for the western-based company and also establishes a short-term revenue stream), professions such as teaching would be seen as a means to improve the social and economic fabric of the nation, enabling a balance to achieved faster.
<font color="blue"> Education may be a 'merit' good in this country - which the government is happy to fund (and can afford to fund) through taxes from the income earned by capitalist activities...such as training shoe manufacture
wink.gif
It is a little disingenuous to propose that MNCs, which have to make a profit for shareholders like you (where is your pension fund located
wink.gif
) will suddenly fund education instead. </font>

Additionally by paying wages for unskilled or lowly skilled activities higher than for skilled activities western-nations are helping to sustain the inability of these nations to develop.
<font color="blue"> On the contrary, the 'outsource' countries gain investment, gain access to world markets, gain skills which enable them to set up in their own enterprise. </font>
I suppose it depends on whether or not you want to justify a western-company taking advantage of poverty in another nation or not. Personally I don't.
<font color="blue"> If the employees at the outsourced factory can get a better job elsewhere in the economy, why do so many of them want to work for the MNCs? It's because it pays well in the context of that country's economy. Comparing that to wages in say, London, or NY, is completely pointless, as it is so far outside the employee's frame of reference. </font>

Other than that I agreed with you. I noticed that the main benefit of being in the Grooms Association seemed to be a discount card at some saddlers??!! Where is Arthur Scargill (sp) when you need him?

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I do find the BGA to be a wasted opportunity. Some real progress could have been made regarding pay and conditions - suggestions as to 5 day weeks, increased holiday entitlement, definite working hours (yes, we all know that horses become ill etc, but to routinely expect your groom to work unpaid overtime while you increase the workload is unreasonable).
S
grin.gif
</font>
 
Sure - but children work in these factories that we would send to school (yes this is a western value - I'm a westerner - go figure) and in conditions that would be unacceptable in the west.
<font color="blue"> But you can't impose Western values on the rest of the world - they don't have the resources. If you did stop 'children' working in India or wherever, the reality is that they would starve, or end up in a much worse situation. In the factories, they are relatively safe, and earn enough to eat. School fees may be beyond them, or their family may no longer be able to feed them. There are no simplistic answers. </font>
<font color="green"> Don't agree. If the developing nations are striving for these values (as demonstrated by the social elite within those nations) then not only are they the western values, but they are the values the nation would like to have themselves. Yes if the factories were suddenly removed it would cause considerable short-term pain. However, the existence of these western-funded factories cause long-term sustainment of their current existence. Without education to develop skills / services and home-grown products how can they ever be anything other than a cheap labour-pool for the west?</font>
These western based manufacturers outsource the production of their goods to these countries because it is cheaper than to produce them within a western society, where conditions need to be reasonable (according to western standards) and pay commensurate with the socio-economic conditions. I do not deny that local economics means that 1USD or 1 GBP buys a lot more in those countries than it does here.
<font color="blue"> No, you have misunderstood the 'multiplier effect'. The benefit of the £1 invested, is to the host nation, not to the MNC - such investment injected into a country can stimulate the economy to generate further wealth. </font> <font color="green"> Apologies but you didn't understand my statement. It was regarding the amount that was paid to the individual being small in comparison to what would be required for an equivalent western worker. I have no difficulty understanding the multiplier effect. </font>
However, it could be considered that it perpetuates the social injustice extant within these nations: the social elite within the developing-nations do not send their children to work in these factories. By withdrawing the western controlled factories (which creates a disproportionate (to the OpEx) amount of wealth for the western-based company and also establishes a short-term revenue stream), professions such as teaching would be seen as a means to improve the social and economic fabric of the nation, enabling a balance to achieved faster.
<font color="blue"> Education may be a 'merit' good in this country - which the government is happy to fund (and can afford to fund) through taxes from the income earned by capitalist activities...such as training shoe manufacture It is a little disingenuous to propose that MNCs, which have to make a profit for shareholders like you (where is your pension fund located ) will suddenly fund education instead.</font>
<font color="green"> I'm not proposing that MNCs start funding education (although there have been initiatives in this country to that end) in developing nations. I'm suggesting that the presence of these factories provides short-term relief for nations that would need to develop for themselves without their presence, which would do them a lot more good in the future.

As for my pension I have no idea where it is located. But it comes down to economics doesn't it? The funds will be spread across a number of different companies based on risk / yield ratios. If a manufacturing company is less profitable as a result of sweat-shops being less-cheap, then they will be switched to other companies. I'm not sure I see the point.
</font>

Additionally by paying wages for unskilled or lowly skilled activities higher than for skilled activities western-nations are helping to sustain the inability of these nations to develop.

<font color="blue">On the contrary, the 'outsource' countries gain investment, gain access to world markets, gain skills which enable them to set up in their own enterprise. [/colour]
<font color="green"> Really? They gain enough to stop people from starving. You can talk about the multiplier effect as much as you like but it isn't that much more. Access to world markets? Yes as a cheap labour-pool for the west. As for the skills that people develop working in these factories - I can only assume you are being ironic at this point. </font>

<font color="black">I suppose it depends on whether or not you want to justify a western-company taking advantage of poverty in another nation or not. Personally I don't. </font>
<font color="blue"> If the employees at the outsourced factory can get a better job elsewhere in the economy, why do so many of them want to work for the MNCs? It's because it pays well in the context of that country's economy. Comparing that to wages in say, London, or NY, is completely pointless, as it is so far outside the employee's frame of reference. </font>
<font color="green">I think perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. By using developing nations as cheap labour-pools with poor conditions and poor wages (albeit better than skilled work) the MNCs are forcing individuals to make a choice between eating and going hungry. They could develop their own skills and teach others, whilst going hungry or they eat and do unskilled work. As a result of this choice developing nations are being abused by MNCs and their development is being hampered. This wonderful opportunity that MNCs are providing is nothing of the sort. It perpetuates their present levels of existence and prohibits nations from developing at a faster rate. Worse still it could actually hamper the development of nations as a consequence. [/colour]

The role and functions of the BGA would make a suspicious person think they were actually funded and organised by YOs and had very little interest in improving the conditions for grooms. Although I suspect that would require at least two YOs to agree with each other to organise it so it can't be that.
 
The posts are getting too lengthy so I'll just answer them without...
1. A country can't change it's wealth status in isolation, as the measure of wealth is comparative/relative. A country can only get richer/poorer in comparison to other countries. And the only way a country can get richer, is by encouraging other, richer (or poorer, but more likely richer) countries to give their money in return for products/services. If not labour, what do you think that South Korea, for example, would have to offer, in terms of trade?
2. Yes, if costs were the same in South Korea, for example, as in the USA, then MNC's wouldn't outsource. This would only happen when South Korea became as wealthy as, or wealthier than, the USA....obviously...and without global trade, with MNCs etc, this won't happen. When South Korea's economy strengthens, MNCs will move to other, poorer countries, and the process will repeat itself.
3. You say 'I'm suggesting that the presence of these factories provides short-term relief for nations that would need to develop for themselves without their presence, which would do them a lot more good in the future.'
Without international trade, which relies on comparative advantages in production of some goods, exactly how do you see a country 'developing' - do you think the USA should give handouts to the citizens? Pay them artificially high wages creating inequalities within the society? And my point about pensions is that you are probably one of the shareholders 'profiting' from these workers.
4. Your next point shows that you don't understand how outsourcing normally works. The host country retains ownership of the factories, and the management there, are, say, South Korean. Technically the workers aren't actually employed by the MNC, but contracted to factory owners within their own country, fulfilling the MNC's contracts. So the factory owners, staff etc, do learn production skills which they can take to the open market, to the highest bidder. So no irony there. And many MNCs sponsor training and education in the host countries, as you agreed earlier.
If no inward or outward investment is allowed (by its nature, it HAS to be based on inequality), then how exactly do you see the country developing. Life for these people is often a stark choice between eating and going hungry - getting a fabby new high paid job, or training to be a lawyer, for example, are beyond the scope of these countries' means, without a thriving economy which depends on global trade.

Finally - I share your disappointment in the BGA.
S
grin.gif
 
Supply and demand will allways apply unless regulation can be enforced, workers in the racing industry have better pay and conditions than general horse industry but cost to owner of a horse in training reflects and racing industry has more regulation. eg horse in training £200/week a lot of full livery £90/week
 
[ QUOTE ]
Fact is often the trainees that don't have their AI etc get paid and treated the same as those that do.

This is why I trained myself, didn't work as a working pupil, have never and will never work in a riding school and solely do freelance. I am lucky with my home life that if I have a "bad" week it doesn't effect us too much, but I couldn't work in a RS. I constantly have them on the phone looking for instructors and the answer as soon as I know who it is, is "no, I don't need to work in a RS". It might be arrogant, but it's true. They'd pay me like £5/6 per hour! No thank you. Freelance I get 4 times that!

They moan about staff turnover, but there is good reason for it IMO!

[/ QUOTE ]

We've a number of riding schools in Edinburgh and Perthshire and they varied from adequate to useless. We now pay a freelance to come to our home and teach all 4 of us individually. We pay a lot more than at any riding school but are getting excellent tuition tailored to what we want on our terms.

Compared to what we pay our accountants and lawyers the hourly rate is cheap. Compared to what we pay our plumber or joiner it's reasonable; and yet a lot of people think it's expensive. Considering what can go wrong when riding we're more than happy to pay a decent hourly rate for a competent professional to teach us and (more importantly) our kids.
 
Simply supply and demand. Most of the work around horses is relatively unskilled, by that I mean that an AI qualification or even more is not required to muck out, groom and change rugs, turn out etc. This is what most of the work in the horse industry is. There is always a steady supply of young girls (and a few boys!)willing to do this for min wage or even less.

I don't really see this as a problem, but do think that the more skilled end of the market such as full time comp grooms thigs could be improved and agree that the BGA is a real missed opportunity here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top