Until yesterday, I didn't know that CBC president Robert Rabinovitch was such a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt's "walk softly and carry a big stick" philosophy.
Reading Mr. Rabinovitch's well-measured article in this space yesterday, I thought about how little it had to do with what has gone on at the CBC, even before he threw 5,500 employees onto the streets, creating a major crisis for the CBC and delivering our loyal audiences into the arms of competing broadcasters. What could he have been thinking?
This is definitely a management lockout that didn't have to happen. However, labour relations at the CBC are as bad as they can get. Here are the figures: In 6½ years, there have been five work stoppages involving four different unions, the last three caused by management-imposed lockouts. The Canadian Media Guild's estimate is that more than 250,000 person-days have been lost in the disputes, and every day that toll continues to rise. Compare the Corporation's record with that of the guild: Until Aug. 15, we had been at the CBC for 53 years without a work stoppage.
Throughout the latest negotiations, the Corporation kept insisting that the union agree to its most troubling demand: the right to hire whole groups of employees on contract if it so wishes. When we refused to buckle on this very important point (and others), senior managers orchestrated an end to the talks when it suited their schedule. They locked us out in order to avoid a strike later in the busy broadcast season.
It's clear that Mr. Rabinovitch et al. had no qualms about shutting down the CBC. Apparently, it's better to deny Canadians their public broadcaster in August than to risk missing coverage of a federal election or of the Olympics. If that's the faulty logic at work in CBC's upper echelons, why not be up front about turning the CBC into a special-events broadcaster and forget the daily programming altogether?
In The Globe and Mail yesterday, Mr. Rabinovitch touted the fact that CBC Radio has developed and aired more than 30 new programs over the past two years. What he didn't say is that all of this was done under our present agreement, which already provides many ways for the CBC to hire non-permanent employees. That's why a full 30 per cent of existing CBC employees have non-permanent status, a higher proportion than our private-sector counterparts, CTV, Global and the CHUM group.
Mr. Rabinovitch doesn't seem to know that his Corporation can already hire people with special knowledge or expertise on a contract basis if it doesn't already exist at the CBC, such as a doctor for a medical show. He doesn't acknowledge that the CBC can hire people on a temporary basis to cover major events. He certainly doesn't admit that the Corporation already often hires people on a temporary basis to perform ongoing work. For example, we recently found seven staff positions in one department that were being filled with temporary employees.
The guild deals with the issue of non-permanent work every day in human terms. People have been around the CBC for five and six years without staff positions and are denied the opportunity for job security and career development. We are continually approached by members who want a real two-way commitment with the CBC. If CBC gets its way, there will be less hope for real careers in public broadcasting.
This dispute is not about jobs for life. Mr. Rabinovitch's explanation that his proposal is about getting the right people into the right jobs at the right time is deeply insulting to the men and women who, until Aug. 15, put their hearts and souls into creating public broadcasting every day.
Don't forget: This isn't only about the people, it's also about the quality and integrity of our programming. As a guild member recently wrote, "Any new hires will start worrying about whether the story they are doing might affect their chances at contract-renewal time. Could it ruffle the feathers of somebody rich and powerful, somebody with influence and access? . . . I am afraid that insecurity will inevitably lead to the worst form of censorship we see in a western democracy . . . self-censorship."
Almost anything to do with the CBC is of national importance. This lockout is no exception. As the days pass, this dispute is risking serious damage to the CBC. It is no longer simply about the two sides and their machinations and propaganda. Those who don't like the CBC, or even the concept of public broadcasting, are weighing in, calling for an end to public funding, and for the privatization of the CBC.
During the latter stages of negotiations, the guild warned management that it may be risking too much by locking us out to get its way. We don't want to see our warning become a reality. This is the wrong way for a Crown corporation to reach out to Canadians. We know that the CBC is constantly underfunded in the midst of a very complex broadcast industry. What we've always requested is that management respect and form a real partnership with employees and bargain a fair collective agreement for the future.
One of the earliest reviewers of public broadcasting in Canada noted nearly 50 years ago that every generation will have to fight to keep it. We're pretty sure this isn't the kind of fight he had in mind. It's time to stop the war between senior management and CBC employees.
Arnold Amber is president of the CBC branch of the Canadian Media Guild.