Arnold Amber, president of the guild at the CBC, takes on CBC president Robert Rabinovitch's commentary from Tuesday's Globe and Mail:

Some excerpts:

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?

Sorry, Arnold. That doesn't make much sense. I thought management's decision to lock out the guild's 5,500 members was a smart, if hardball, move. Was the guild prepared at some point to strike over this? Because if it was, then bleating about being locked out doesn't get my sympathy. They were supposed to leave the timing of the walkout up to you guys?

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.

Amber is on a bit more solid ground here. I don't know whether it's true that CBC uses a higher proportion of casuals than CTV (who employs me) or Global.

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.

I know plenty of people who did the casual grind at CBC for years before they finally got staff jobs. To me, a casual job is something short-term: a few weeks or months, or filling in for a day or two here and there.

How people manage to be "casual" for years on end -- except for artificial interruptions to keep them from getting any type of tenure -- is something that puzzles me. Clearly they are doing the work of a full-time equivalent.

A big task for the guild is getting long-term casuals on staff. "If you're still here in a year, we'll get you on permanent," was the promise of one union rep to me when I was a CBC casual in 2003.

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.

Well, if it's not about jobs for life, would the union be prepared to let go of seniority as a basis of protection against layoffs and instead work out some protocol to ensure that if a restructuring was required, there was a good fit between the survivor and the job.

People can learn new skills, even those over the age of 27, but there's also been cases where people have bumped into jobs they weren't suited for and had no interest in.

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."

Newsflash, Arnold: That self-censorship already exists. There are some controlling, punitive managers at CBC.

What happens now is people get shuffled around. The former executive producer of CBC Online became a TV producer on about 15 minutes notice one day after it became clear he wasn't buying into the creative vision of the new director of new media.

His replacement did.

I've heard stories of people being made to sit in a corner doing nothing much for years until they were judged by their betters to be sufficiently rehabilitated. But they weren't fired!

The CBC in general is a bit paradoxical. The on-air staff brag about what a groovy, eclectic group of colleagues they have, yet to a certain extent, everyone there seems to think the sam.

In nine months at the Canadian Broadcasting Centre, I never heard one thought publicly uttered that would go against CBC conventional thinking. Imagine what it would be like if there weren't a union and staff jobs! :)

Lest you think it's just me, at a spring screening and discussion of Outfoxed, Stuart Coxe, then-executive producer of CBC TV's Sunday Report, said half the country is against gay marriage, yet you don't see that debate reflected within the CBC itself.

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.

Hate to put you on the sport, Arnold, but what does "fair" mean to the guild, and how does it differ from management's definition of "fair" at this point in time? What is a "real partnership"?

Would fair be to end the lockout now and let the guild set a strike date at a time of its choosing -- a time that would no doubt give it maximum leverage over the corporation?

If the lockout is ended as part of negotiations, would the guild promise not to strike? What if things go another six months without resolution?

One question I'd love answered is whether the Decima poll on the weekend -- one that had 61 per cent of Canadians saying the CBC lockout and resultant programming disruption hadn't affected their lives at all -- helped spur today's return to face-to-face discussions.

Underfunding is a constant cry by the CBC's supporters (although I have no idea what an appropriate level of funding is, other than "more"), but is underfunding the reason why only 10 per cent of those surveyed said the lockout seriously affected them.

During negotiations, the two sides might also want to talk about how to make the CBC more relevant to Canadians.