The Writers Voice
The World's
Favourite Literary Website
An Unsettling Settlement
by
Jax Rerun
Why CBC workers aren't smiling
I took my first steps into Canada’s vast arts and culture sector with a summer
job at The Works Art & Design Festival in Edmonton. Over the years, I was
privileged to meet Canadian artists and critics like Sylvain Voyer - acclaimed
Alberta painter; Iain Baxter - Governor Award-winning installation artist; and
Colin MacLean - CBC's own "Dean of the Arts." Colin MacLean made the greatest
impression on me; he was an enthusiastic, white haired man that scribbled notes
next to me at Workshop West's play premieres, directed camera crews around me at
Canadian furniture design exhibitions, and broadcasted lively national art
reviews into my living room almost nightly. MacLean was the first television
personality to ever appear on the CBC network; he hosted their opening concert
on October 1, 1961. For over forty years, Maclean worked for the CBC (writing,
hosting, narrating, producing, and directing) -- if anyone's job was safe, it
was his.
On March 18, 2004, Maclean worked his last day for the CBC and began looking for
employment elsewhere. He had not been fired. He had not quit. After years of
loyal service, the CBC had chosen to simply not renew his contract. During the
weeks following his release, dozens of petitions to rehire MacLean circulated
the country. The coast-to-coast pleas from arts appreciators were ignored. Since
Maclean was a contractor, not as staff member, he was forced to accept the
termination of his position. This was a terrible wake-up call, not only for the
dozens of arts and entertainment contractors serving the CBC, but also for the
many long-term contractors employed in its other divisions.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) was founded in 1936 with one of its
main tenants being to preserve and promote the Canadian identity through the
presentation of Canadian news and entertainment via radio (and later television
and internet). Funded through tax-payer dollars and corporate advertising, the
CBC is largely regarded as an independent, bias-free forum for Canadians to
express their views on Canadian issues and culture. In 2004, the CBC employed
almost 5,500 people -- many of whom were on contract rather than permanent
staff. In May 2004, Canadian Media Guild representatives and CBC management
began negotiating a new contract for the CBC employees with a agreement deadline
fifteen months away. But management and the Guild could not come to an
agreement.
The major point of contention was the use of contract workers at the CBC. The
Guild wanted the number of contracted positions capped at 6% of the workforce
and management wanted the freedom to hire staff and contractors at their own
discretion, even though they maintained that their current hiring practices had
less than 6% contractors. On August 15, 2005, for the first time in the history
of the CBC, management locked out every single employee. News anchors, camera
operators, radio technicians, and script writers soon found themselves trudging
around CBC buildings hoisting placards in the air.
An eight week long stand-off ensued between employees and management. Management
broadcasted without their staff: reruns and movies were shown, BBC news reports
were aired, and untrained managers read live Canadian news reports. The CBC
ratings plummeted. Management finally made concessions on capping the number of
contract workers: only 9.5% of the total workforce may be on contract, anyone
who has been on contract for four or more years will be allowed to convert to
staff if they wish, and art & entertainment contractors cannot be terminated
without just cause.
These changes came too late for Colin MacLean, but for hundreds of CBC workers
these changes mean job security, access to health insurance, and the right to
take sick leave and maternity leave without losing their income. It seems that
the CBC workforce has, in the end, got its justice. But why are many CBC workers
still upset? Hasn't the CBC recognized the value of their employees with this
new contract? Can't fences be mended and a new future of cooperation begin? Or
is there injustice in this justice?
If, as the CBC management claimed, less that 6% of the current workforce was
contractors and the Guild was willing to negotiate their position up to 9.5%,
why did the settlement require fifteen months of negotiations and an eight week
long lock-out? Money. According to the Guild, the total weekly salary of the
locked-out workers was $4.8 million per week. Even after the settlement's
signing bonuses for every worker, the CBC saved well over $20 million;
coincidentally, this is also how much money the CBC lost in advertising revenue
due to the 2004/05 NHL lockout. In testimony to the House of Commons, CBC
president Robert Rabinovich said that the NHL lock-out would mean a minimum $20
million loss for the corporation. The CBC lock-out recuperated these losses, and
then management settled with the Guild just in time for Hockey Night in Canada
to return to the airwaves. Don Cherry and Ron MacLean took their seats at the
Hockey Night desk and drew over 1.6 million viewers. Molson, GM, MasterCard,
and the many other multi-million dollar advertisers must have be very happy to
see the CBC lock-out end.
CBC management claims that the NHL advertising money was not a contributing
factor to their decision to settle with the Guild. Management contends that
Hockey Night in Canada would have been aired without commentary just as the CFL
was aired earlier in the year. But, football is a slower game that the average
fan can follow without commentary, CFL announcers are virtual unknowns, and
advertisers aren‘t willing to pay big bucks for CFL commercials. In contrast,
hockey is a fast game for which play-by-play commentary adds enjoyment for the
fans, Don Cherry is an internationally recognized celebrity, and NHL advertisers
pay millions of dollars for air-time.
It is true that hockey games aired without Don Cherry’s commentary would still
have advertisements. However, they would not have been worth the millions of
dollars that they are worth when Cherry is at the helm. The big-money
advertising deals cut for NHL games operate under a system of "make-good," which
simply means that the commercial must be seen by an audience of a pre-determined
size. If CBC fails to meet their audience quota they must "make-good" on the
deal by reshowing the ad for free until the audience requirement is met. How
many GM truck ads would have to air between Da Vinci's Inquest and The National
in order to reach one million Canadians? All that extra air time equals a lot of
lost revenue for the CBC. They needed to get Hockey Night in Canada operating at
full capacity as soon as possible.
The money-motive behind CBC management's decision to lock-out thousands of its
employees is particularly disturbing when you consider that they are supposed to
be a not-for-profit corporation that reflects the Canadian identity. Is this
what Canada has become? Are we a nation willing to throw thousands of people
into the street in order to balance the books? It is wrong to lock-out skilled
employees, who are willing to work and are in no way responsible for the
corporation’s revenue-loss, in order to save some money. Knowing that it was
hockey and its big-money advertisers that finally drove management to do the
right thing and accept their Guild's deal is cold comfort for CBC employees who
struggled to make ends meet for nearly two months. For CBC to play with their
employee's payroll like it was some sort of stock market game is unconscionable.
Those were not abstract dollars they were saving -- it was their employee's
mortgage payments, grocery bills, heating cost! s, insurance payments, and
electricity bills. For eight weeks CBC forced its employees to live off of $200
a week (provided by the Guild). I know families with teenaged children who eat
that much in one week. And while their employees were marching outside for this
pittance, CBC management continued cashing the government cheques; upwards of
$17 million per week in government operating grants continued to flow into the
CBC coffers throughout the lock-out.
The CBC was in the wrong when it locked-out its employees, and this injustice
should not be forgotten by the public. Yes, in the end the workers got what they
needed from the settlement, but the unnecessarily long negotiations and lock-out
were a cold, unjustified means for the CBC to recuperated funds. Once we allow
such large-scale cash-grabs to go unchecked by a tax-funded identity, we open
the door for further indiscretions. The importance of advertising revenue
generated by NHL broadcasts cannot dictate how the CBC does business.
Broadcasters that are driven by the profit-motive can become biased in their
programming. If a corporation is giving them $10 million in advertising revenue,
it becomes tempting to squash negative news stories about that corporation in
order maintain positive relations.
During this lock-out, CBC management demonstrated its willingness to choose
money over people. That brings into question the integrity of the entire
network. Can we trust the CBC to remain unbiased and independent when faced with
money-making opportunities in the future? If they are willing to commit an
injustice upon the people they work with everyday, what will stop them from
committing injustices against the public with whom they have very little direct
contact? With the integrity of the entire network in question, the employees of
CBC now return to work. Is it any surprise they aren’t smiling?
Critique this work
Click on the book to leave a comment about this work
