An okay look by The Globe and Mail at the issues behind the CBC lockout.

Some excerpts:

Management argues it must have the option of filling certain jobs, such as television and radio producers, on a fixed-term, contract basis rather than with permanent staff. A producer on contract usually works as long as a program continues; about 5 per cent of CBC workers are already hired on fixed-term contracts and represented by the guild. Contract workers currently have many of the same benefits as permanent workers, but their employment has a fixed end date. ...

"All of the research and studies that we've done, and all of the planning that we've done, has told us that we've got too little flexibility in terms of certain kinds of staff, and we need to change it,” said Fred Mattocks, executive director of production and resources for CBC English television.

The guild contends this not only puts permanent jobs in jeopardy, it places careers and the quality of programming at risk. Hiring more contract workers whenever permanent staffers leave will whittle away the number of permanent jobs and increase the proportion of non-permanent positions, the union says.

Attrition is currently around 5 per cent a year, CBC management says.

Management maintains the dispute is about contract workers. The union counters that it is really about the larger 30 per cent of all non-permanent workers. These include all temporary and casual workers hired to fill the positions of staffers on leave or for short-term jobs such as technical work needed during election coverage. ...

This graf puzzled me:

Contract work is often viewed as part of the general downsizing and outsourcing trend seen across all industries over the past 15 years. At the same time, the media industry has been hit by the explosion of cable and satellite channels, as well as the Internet, which have increased competition and redefined the concept of what a broadcaster is.

I haven't seen it explained satisfactorily how the CBC's current workforce structure is crippling it and leaving it unable to cope with a changing world. Is the real issue CBC management envy of private sector flexibility rather than actual need?

That raises another question: Does the CBC exist to provide a public service, or is it just another business? And that leads to this:

... Many question whether the CBC, as a public broadcaster, has a broader mandate than merely to follow market trends.

“The risk [CBC managers] are running is that you could potentially get people who might be interested in a career in broadcasting, but they are not going to be embedded in the public broadcasting culture,” said Michael Nolan, an industry veteran and professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario's Faculty of Information and Media Studies.

“The public broadcaster should not be simply following the industry. The public broadcaster's role is to lead and to provide a distinctive style of broadcasting,” Mr. Nolan said.

“You definitely have viewers in this country — I know they're declining — but you have viewers here who still believe in the CBC, and you've got listeners who still believe in the CBC.”

One final point: While I haven't seen every article on this dispute, one point worth exploring could be about the union's self-interest in all of this.

During my nine months as a casual at CBC in 2003, there was a battle going on to see which union would represent staff: the Canadian Media Guild or the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers.

"The guild got me on staff," was the refrain I heard over and over.

If there are fewer staff jobs, does that weaken the guild, even if the new contract workers are dues-paying guild members?

Now, if it does weaken the guild, is this dispute about what's best for the union or what's best for public broadcasting in Canada?

Just asking.