CBC must explain reason for lockout
Yesterday marked the start of the sixth week of the lockout of 5,500 employees by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. With no end in sight, it is time senior CBC management fully explain to the public the reasoning behind its decision to precipitate the labour dispute and what it will take to restore CBC radio and television services across the country. The current standoff, started by CBC management’s decision to lock out its unionized workers on Aug. 15 after 15 months of contract talks, has resulted in the cancellation of all news and public affairs programs as well as affecting sports and cultural shows.
If the current dispute lingers on much longer, the CBC faces the real possibility of alienating loyal viewers and listeners and giving vocal critics more ammunition to slash its annual grant from the federal government. If that happens, the CBC could be drastically changed in the coming years and its role as one of the key champions of Canadian culture threatened. Two federal mediators have been working with both parties since Aug. 31 in an effort to reach a settlement. To date, negotiators for the Canadian Media Guild, which represents CBC employees, and the management negotiators have made little headway on the key sticking point, which is the CBC’s desire to use more contract workers for some of its programs. Union leaders contend the CBC wants to reduce full- time employees at the crown corporation in favour of short- term contract workers. The CBC may have a good reason for its position, but it has failed badly in explaining it to the Canadian public. That’s why CBC president Robert Rabinovitch should appear next week before the House of Commons heritage committee to tell MPs how this standoff will result in a better CBC. In a recent opinion article, Rabinovitch said he believes “ in a strong, distinctive CBC, one that provides an essential and highly valued service: informing and entertaining Canadians, connecting them with their communities and the rest of the country, giving them unique programming they can’t get anywhere else.” How the CBC can do that by locking out employees is a mystery. What Rabinovitch needs to do is outline why the CBC is taking this huge gamble with its future, with the potential permanent loss of viewers and thus advertisers. What’s the risk? What’s the payoff? Why were workers locked out? What can he tell taxpayers about how winning this dispute will result in a better, more efficient CBC in the years ahead? Union leaders, too, need to explain why they feel so threatened, when many people at the CBC are already contract workers.
So far, the public lacks the information to decide what is the best course for the CBC. Rabinovitch can provide it with an appearance before the Commons committee. After that, a true national debate about the future of the CBC can take place.