If you know The Simpsons, you have recognized Itchy and Scratchy . I feel that the divisions among union members reached the proportions of a cartoon in the sense that if we hit it, it does not really hurt and you know you will not be bad friends so far .
is in this spirit that published tonight on the eve of another meeting, both texts defending opposing views, but both enlightening in their own way. I publish them in the order I received them.
- Text Yves Desjardins, received at 10:24 this morning.
Title: Contribution of a former (refers to unsuccessful attempts to obtain testimony from executives on this site)
I did not show on the forums of discussion since the passage that Jean-Hugues Roy had good enough to publish his "Blog-out early in the conflict. And sometimes if I followed the debates on "Yahoo Groups", I thought the emphasis on internal dissent there was rather thin. It seemed that for a point of view ever so slightly different so it is admissible, it must, as precondition, profess that the bosses were despicable beings and / or despicable or take the verse of the humiliation which we would collectively victims (1) .
Because I am among those who were not favorable to the conflict. I thought that such a confrontation could weaken an already public broadcaster beleaguered on many fronts. And I admit I was mistaken about the extent of concessions that the union would get. Like many others, I underestimated the emotional impact that the lockout would cause among many of us who were initially skeptical.
But many union activists were well aware when they went on strike for 24 hours, what would the reaction of employers. And they did not hide that they were counting on it to convince the doubters, that is to say all those who were not prepared to grant a general mandate to strike unlimited. Radio-Canada, with its artists on the sidewalk has caused anger has partly masked the hard fact that a conflict was inevitable from the moment a majority of members called for earnings going well beyond the offers so-called "final" in March. The union leadership has simply been a tactical sense than that of the bosses.
Anyway, the meeting which followed the outbreak of the lockout was perfectly democratic, and a strong majority was clearly knowingly. Therefore, while displaying my dissent, I 'm joined by participating, inter alia, the committee checks. But now we face one question: can we really go further? [Editor's note: emphasis is mine]
Maybe the CBC and / or our negotiating committee will be a miracle by the assembly tomorrow. I hope so, but I do not know. And the fact is that Wednesday is the only meeting that will decide on.
Raunet Daniel offers him a solution which at least has the merit of consistency. Redo our unit and once again united, carry the conflict on the political scene, that of discrimination that exist between the anglophone and francophone employees of Radio-Canada. The company where we work is somehow a microcosm of the injustices that prevail in the Canadian federation.
But is it so obvious? The problem is that both networks have evolved very differently over the years. An example: I have often heard that the English network assistants have much higher salaries. But what is not said is that the term "assistant" at home includes separate categories for Guild, as "associate director" and "program assistant" to wage very different. This is also why a review process monographs employment was undertaken, a process that can not be completed until after the conclusion of an agreement.
A second example is that of permanence. Because if you enter the game comparisons, then we must also compare the percentages of domestic production of both networks. CBC has done in this respect the choices that are not necessarily those that apply to the French network. And if we continue at this level, we must also raise the debate on the ever-growing TV production budgets are now devolved to the private producers.
I think if Daniel Raunet goes to its logical conclusion, then he must take the debate one step further, namely the allocation of budgets between the two networks. Arguably, such as CBC and CBC both have the same mandate, parliament should give them equal budgets. Colleagues from the English system would respond, as has already been done, in contrast, the budget of the French network should rather correspond to the percentage of the Francophone population in Canada. The current distribution is ultimately a compromise between these two visions. (For an example of television, the breakdown is as follows: French TV 284.9 million to $ 494.9 million for English TV dollars.) [Editor's note: 36.5% in the French network, 63.5% English network]
But I do not know if you realize that when we have gotten there, what our interlocutors are not the employers' negotiators at the table, or even Robert Rabinovitch. Those with whom he must then negotiate what really are the federal politicians, the Chrétien government and those who preceded him, for it is they who set the rules by which our managers must contend.
This is especially true as it is these same politicians who have reduced year after year the budgets of public radio and TV, while not restricting in any way the mandates entrusted to it. Not only mandates have not decreased, but new areas were created from scratch, as new media. To achieve this, it is undeniable that more precarious employment has grown, but if we assign responsibility, it seems to be much federal politicians begging for some support now that the frames.
And this is where I am less the logic of Daniel Raunet. Does he really believe that these politicians support our union? Or they gave the order to resolve to the bosses? I believe when these same politicians will increase the budget of the CBC to pay for concessions obtained and above all the news you want some ... In the meantime, I invite those of you who want to know what to think about the role, hidden or not, these politicians to go beyond public statements that are not binding, check out our colleagues Hill in Ottawa. Everyone will agree they have excellent sources.
The General Assembly may well decide to bring our struggle at the political level. But I think she should do so knowingly.
1. Radio-Canada is a bureaucratic organization (in the sociological sense of the word) and in such an institution, fragmented among many levels of management, any major decision is the fruit of laborious arbitrations. That is why I refuse to believe that we, on the other hand, made decisions for the express purpose of "humiliating" or "contempt" of individuals who are also colleagues. Rather, institutional decisions taken cold in terms of "leeway" or "power relations". Decisions that may be correct or incorrect. This does not detract from the feelings of individuals who are victims of these decisions, I think many employers would agree now that the lockout was rather catastrophic. It does not deny that there may be patterns of "temperamental" in their relations with their subordinates. But this is more of human nature, and "temperamental" there are also in the ranks of unionized workers. What I deplore is some grammar labor disputes in which, for mobilizing and solidarity, we feel compelled to demonize the adversary, which thus loses its own self identity and becomes the "other", the "enemy" that must hate . When one falls into this logic, one feels entitled to characterize the frames to give an example of "bastards" and these can then rightfully feel they too humiliated and scorned ... Which stops the spiral?
- Text by Pierre Duchesne, received at 21.05 tonight.
Title: Maurice Duplessis is indeed dead yet!
soon as I entered this institution, the CBC has taught me to do my job and to report information that I managed to pluck the fairest way possible. I was trained in the information box early. I joined Radio-Canada at the age of 22 years as an intern. For fifteen years I worked. I am a pure product "Radio Canada". Passionate about journalism, I have witnessed some irregularities at the last meeting General. So as an information professional I want to share with my people (employees and executives of CR) the following information.
I think such information will help my colleagues to make an informed decision and to better understand the scope of employers' strategy which seeks only to divide us rather than respond to our requests.
Last Wednesday, at the last general meeting, a dance macabre orchestrated by Radio-Canada, has begun. Hoping to trap our negotiating committee, management has changed at the last minute clause called "presidential". Depending on the version offered at a general meeting, management would have been singing our negotiating committee, saying: "If you want this new clause, tell your members that the rest of the employer's proposal is perfectly acceptable!" Our committee negotiation has proposed, after several hours of expectations and deadlines, accept this offer comprehensive while telling us that we were free to refuse. The direction we had just succeeded in sending a double message that immediately destabilized the meeting. Most were hesitant to follow the advice of their negotiating committee that they trust, for others, more determined, they could choose to reject or accept. Without obvious bad faith, I hope our negotiating committee had therefore to include a division factor that would color the upcoming vote.
While the debate was beginning in the room, our negotiating committee told us then that the management of Radio-Canada refused to negotiate a protocol to return to work. We first had to accept that the union offers. Heard the rumble of dissatisfaction in the room then fear the worst for Radio-Canada, told the hour of the conduct of the meeting by "antennas" benevolent.
While we were at dozens of microphones to express ourselves "for" and "cons" Our bargaining committee and the entire union executive deserted places, leaving only himself and the chairman. It was a few times in a difficult position. It was both chair the important meeting and answer some questions that were addressed to the union executive. The President would then demonstrate an ability not to wander.
While it was still possible that the assembly rejects proposal from management, our negotiating committee, which has offered to accept the offers, trying to negotiate on the phone and in the corridors, a protocol for returning to work with Radio-Canada. Certainly pleased to see a negotiating committee and ask the management to another last-minute proposal, the CBC has done so arrogant, not moving.
The hours pass. In the evening, the meeting seems to have made his bed. The question advance is requested. Union members say they are ready to vote by a clear two-thirds majority of members. An officer is elected. The teams are trained tellers. At the back of the room, curtains are drawn. We see the ballot boxes. The crowd gets up and goes to the back of the room. People move away and turn their backs on the scene, yet a new plot is being prepared.
Some people favor the agreement employers are experiencing an unprecedented way the content of a new letter from the Radio-Canada. [Editor's note: I took the liberty of adding the picture above the text of Peter to illustrate his point.] We can read in this letter [Editor's note: published by Radio-Canada on its website devoted to the current conflict ] that when union members have voted in favor of the employer's proposal, "regular employees of the Company will be resettled on the payroll as of midnight tonight. Tomorrow morning at 10:00, the parties will meet to negotiate details of the protocol of return to work. "Again, it is reasonable to think that to know the contents of this letter may influence voting in favor of tenders. Starting at midnight, Radio-Canada we are ready to "pay"! These same people, knowledgeable, trying to convince the chairman to read the contents of this letter and this, in complete disregard of a sovereign who had general meeting decided to vote. Indeed, the question was first asked, the audience decided to vote two-thirds of people head to the voting booths. According to the Code of Procedure of the CSN, it is forbidden to seek to influence the vote so that people have decided to vote. Still, the chairman announced to the audience of the existence of this letter. This is an irregularity of the first order.
difficult to assess accurately the effect that an irregularity has had on the vote. It seems likely that all the maneuvers implemented by the Radio-Canada in the last twenty-four hours before the vote, have significantly conditioned the vote dramatic
For: 499 Against: 502
The Radio-Canada still seems to think that the Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis is called again and that, as in the forties and fifties, questionable maneuvers can be implemented to destabilize its employees. This latest offering, some key points have not been negotiated, seems from another era. She recorded a new structure within the walls of Radio-Canada - two classes of employees: people information (mostly permanentisés) and other radio general, television, culture in general, RCI Nordic service ... abandoned precariousness. There are two classes of citizens in the same company: Francophones are less well paid and more precarious and the rest of Anglophone Canada treated better. Like any segregation it is based on the arbitrary. Radio-Canada - CBC, two realities?!
Maurice Duplessis was fond of saying he was delighted to eat the bishops in his hand. In the next few hours, I beg you, do we behave so as to support than ever, Radio-Canada, has managed to make us eat in the back of his hand ...
... or we offer the spaghetti in the cafeteria of Radio-Canada.
the best man win!
Pierre Duchesne, journalist, program Zone Libre - Zone locked
0 comments:
Post a Comment