CBC president Robert Rabinovitch has an op-ed piece in today's Globe and Mail. Here are some excerpts:

... Despite the current labour dispute, management and employees at the CBC share a common vision of the Corporation's mandate and mission -- hardly surprising, since most of today's managers came up through the ranks as working journalists and broadcasters.

We believe 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. The CBC's radio services must host the Canadian conversation. CBC Television must be the home of Canadian drama in prime time, the deepest, most complete news service, and a place where our children find fun, commercial-free education.

We believe in a relevant CBC, not one that is reduced to marginal status doing only those things that commercial broadcasters choose not to do. To attract eyes and ears, the CBC must appeal to a broad cross-section of the population. A public broadcasting service must make room for specialized programming that attracts dedicated but smaller audiences. But there must also be space for those nation-sharing moments that bring us together and remind us of who we are as Canadians -- be it a major news event, a prestigious documentary series, a big-ticket drama, or a must-watch hockey game.

And we believe in a CBC that is motivated primarily by a deep commitment to the ideals of public service. Yet here is where management and the union may differ: over means, rather than ends.

Rabinovitch talked about the funding issue, saying the CBC runs  18 platforms in both official languages for $950 million. Other revenue has included one-time funds of $102 million and "an additional $65-million per year through efficiencies and new revenues."

The only way to maintain and improve service is to make the money CBC has go further: through internal efficiencies, by generating income from existing assets -- from program content to real estate -- and by entering into new entrepreneurial partnerships. Otherwise, we'll have no choice but to cut jobs and services at a rate of about $12-million every year, just to keep up with inflation.

In talking about the changing environment for broadcasters, he said:

Public broadcasters, like all broadcasters, need to renew, refresh or replace programming at a faster pace and over shorter program cycles than ever before to remain relevant.

Enter the disposable workforce. Rabinovitch wants to hire a health producer for three years, and then if health isn't hot any more -- see ya!

That employee, hired for his medical background, should not be able, because he has seniority, to transfer into CBC.ca and displace a newly hired producer who was brought in for her knowledge of the cultural scene and her familiarity with the blogging universe.

This is the reality of the world in which we live. Taken together, the proposals we have put forward to our unionized employees seek to ensure that the CBC can employ the right people for the right jobs at the right time. It seems obvious, but that is the core of our dispute with our union. Without this ability, our programming will suffer and the CBC will gradually become less relevant and attractive to Canadians.

Interesting use of language by Rabinovitch: The bad person would be the senior male who displaces the talented younger female.

Frankly, I think that's ageism on Rabinovitch's part and may be a coded message aimed at wooing younger Canadian Media Guild members.

It would seem CBC management think people have only one skill set that makes them employable, and that people can't be useful to the corporation in any role except the one they were hired for.

That strikes me as having a narrow view of an employee's worth -- a view of them as disposable widgets, quite frankly.

The guild claims what's at stake in this dispute is the ability to have a career at the CBC. I'm starting to think they're right.

Rabinovitch does say that jobs like journalists should be permanent.

Some kinds of skills will always be needed at the CBC. An example would be the news-gathering skills of a reporter, and so, in our proposals, reporters will continue to be hired on a permanent basis.

And how about video editors, camera operators, etc., etc.?

But despite his talk that some jobs should be permanent staff ones, and then using reporters as an example, there's that troubling, unconfirmed rumour that virtually everyone on The National, the flagship TV newscast, would be on contract, from the executive producer on down, would be on contract.

Is The National one of those experimental, here-today-gone-tomorrow types of programs that Rabinovitch alluded to in his commentary?

(Can someone either confirm the truth of that rumour or kill it once and for all?)

Arnold Amber, the guild's chief negotiator, said the 1996 collective agreement gave the CBC the right to hire people on contract for special projects and pilot shows, yet Rabinovitch is talking like this is the first time it's come up. Who's right?

In additiion, Mark Starowicz said in a Maclean's commentary that virtually all comedy, drama and variety is contracted out already. Is he right? If he is, what's left?

About 30 per cent of the CBC's workforce is already either casual or contract.

Rabinovitch didn't mention that salient fact, which spares him explaining why it isn't enough.

My sneaking suspicion the real target, when CBC management says flexibility, is the union.