Commercial Radio and Massive Layoffs?
The Toronto Star, covering CBC President Hubert Lacroix’s speech at the Empire Club yesterday, says the CBC could be facing “600 or 700 layoffs in the coming year, and full-scale commercialization of English-language radio.”
That prediction should be taken with a grain of salt. It is from anonymous “CBC insiders.” No CBC executive have made any predictions that even approach that. Nevertheless it speaks to the level of concern over the corporation’s financial situation.
Lacroix also addressed the government’s recent comments that the CBC has enough funding. “It’s not about a handout. We are not begging for more money, or new money…” The financing options “would cost the government no more dollars than those they would normally invest in CBC-Radio Canada.”
|
Email This Post |
| HOT TOPICS, Parliament, The Media Landscape |
This doesn’t make sense.
How does “cost-cutting” end up costing the government anything?
Perhaps it is time to have some kind of sponsorship on CBC Radio networks a la NPR models.
Allan. you’re right.
Glad no lock out until 2014 says:
Perhaps it is time to have some kind of sponsorship on CBC Radio networks a la NPR models.
I COULDN’T AGREE more. I read a posting on the Globe where someone stated that NPR doesn’t receive as much money as to what CBC gets.
Perhaps if we had something similar, we’d at least have a say in programming.
When we had Air Farce, I had suggested a skit where by CBC is doing pledge drives with Peter Mansbridge hosting. If they didn’t get the funding, we’d be forced to watch Beachcombers 24/7
I agree with Glad no lock out… And I’ve said it before: CBC TV has long ago stopped being relevant and necessary — it’s not true public broadcasting.
Layoffs?
Start with Stursberg.
“Crusty Curmudgeon says:
Layoffs?
Start with Stursberg.”
Agreed for once start at the top. I wonder what his cut of the $1,000,000 some of the top CBC executives split last year was.
It was actually Ian Morrison who was quoted regarding the 600-700 layoffs. It jumped out at me when I read it. Here is the original reference to the job losses that has now become a vague “cbc insider”. It is in the last paragraph of this star story. If posting the article is a problem then maybe an admin will just cut it down to the quote, but I will post it all.
Stumbling CBC seeks federal help
TheStar.com – Television – Stumbling CBC seeks federal help
February 25, 2009
Greg Quill
ENTERTAINMENT COLUMNIST
Faced with a $65 million advertising shortfall, the CBC is reaching out to Ottawa for bridge financing, an unprecedented request of a Conservative government that has historically had a cool relationship with the public broadcaster.
“The revenues fell off a cliff. … I have not seen a slide that precipitous and that deep in my entire life,” Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president for English services, told employees yesterday.
“We have not been able to bail the boat as quickly as the water is coming in over the gunwales.”
The public broadcaster says it has used surpluses from other divisions and money in reserve to narrow the budget shortfall to $12 million during the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, but ad revenues are forecast to continue to plummet in the coming year.
Stursberg, who confirmed the move at the monthly town hall meeting yesterday, conceded he did not know what type of reception he would receive from the Conservatives, who, while in opposition, were often overtly hostile to the CBC.
“We don’t know how receptive the government will be to the request,” he said.
A spokesperson for Heritage Minister James Moore said he was already in discussions with the CBC and indicated the door was open to help the corporation.
“In these difficult economic times all broadcasters, including the CBC, are facing challenges, and he is open to working with everyone in a way that will serve all Canadians,” Deirdre McCracken told the Star.
Stursberg did not specify the amount of the bridge loan the CBC is seeking from the government or from a private bank.
“The money … is not a handout. … It would be paid back,” he said.
Advertising revenues in the corporation’s English-language TV operations went into decline last summer.
Canada’s private TV networks, CTV and Canwest Global, are also in crisis because of falling ad revenues, exacerbated by the recession.
Just how much the CBC needs to survive is a matter of conjecture.
“We’ve been in discussions with the federal government about (the bridge financing option) for the past month,” said Jeff Keay, the broadcaster’s head of media relations.
“Senior management is focused on managing (the shortfall) without putting programs, services or jobs at risk.”
Management is working on a strategic plan to present to its board of directors before the end of March, he said.
But the corporation may be in deeper trouble than Stursberg is admitting, said Ian Morrison, spokesperson for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, a broadcast industry watchdog group.
“We believe that the shortfall is $100 million or more, attributable to the decision last year to purchase several expensive U.S. TV properties, including Jeopardy, Wheel Of Fortune and The Martha Stewart Show, on airtight, multi-year contracts,” he said.
Even though the programs have won substantial audiences, the anticipated income has not materialized because of the media-wide decline in advertising revenue, coupled with the recession, Morrison said.
“It’s a perfect storm, the beginning of a death spiral.
“A $45 million shortfall in the summer has grown to $100 million or $125 million,” he said.
“To get out of that hole, CBC will have to make massive layoffs, as many as 600 or 700 of the most senior, costly employees, forcing the national broadcaster to be more centralized in Toronto and Montreal, and weakening its functions, scope and appeal.”
I’ll eat my passcard, lanyard and all, if the cuts are actually made from “the most senior,costly employees”. It’s never happened, and I doubt it ever will.
Perhaps they should draw a line at that misterious $75,xxx.xx average wage and only layoff above that since everyone else is below industry standard (and probably knowingly so…I know I could make more elseware, I care about this d*mn Corp.)
Sadly, I’d eat my passcard, lanyard and all, if even that happened….”It’s not the CBC way.”
That’s part of the problem.
Maybe we could all take a temporary 5% cut in pay. At Rogers they are taking mandatory unpaid days off.
Let the flames begin.
I’d go for it to save jobs of fellow CBC-ers but with the very obvious conditions.
1. Across the board. From Hubert all the way down to grunts like me
. Everybody including Mgm’t, APS, CMG, Contracts, Temps and all the “hidden people”
2. Transparency. I’d want proof that every dollar listed by the CBC as a payment for labour of any kind is now $0.95.
3.Bonuses and mysterious “incentive payments” be eliminated first and shown to be so. (Ahem, do they even get it thast we laugh when the seniors justify these as “attracting the best people” Do they even understand the irony?)
4. Stronger and third party oversigth on travel expenses and other expense accounts.
5. Time limit.
Basically, I would reject a lowering of my wage if I think it’s paying for a Smooze-dinner, Opera tickets or $1,000.000.00 in bonuses for a select few. If it will save the job of the person next to me, or my own job. I’d do it and invest in KD.
I would take a cut in pay or upaid days off in a second if it meant no layoffs.
I’m already paid below industry-standard, and every day I see inefficiencies that could be corrected to save money without reducing headcount. If I was asked to take a cut but no effort was made to make people work smarter, I’d walk.
So Kev would walk. Do you mean quit? You would give up a job in this enviroment because you were asked to take a pay cut? We need more people like you. So that sane people like the rest of us can still have jobs.
I was wondering how people would react to this post I made about a 5% cut. I too would gladly take a cut to save jobs. I would also like it to be across the board …. the whole board. I think that would save about $35 million. So we would have to find other savings too.
Tony
We’ve give up huge concessions on OT and turn around, Not willing to take a cut in the meager wage increases negotiated. When times are good we don’t get much. The corp historical delay and delays negotiating and wiggles out of retro by offering a cas pay out.
No thanks to chipping away at the tiny augmentation to our take home pay.
The cuts need to start at top. Senior management need to look at their outrageous numbers, compensation and performance incentives they hand out too each other.
We need a real leader. Stursberg needs to go so we can have someone with true talent.
Tony, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to leave, if I did I would probably have done so by now. My work is rewarding, when I get to do it, and I still get the warm fuzzies about the whole contributing-to-society element.
But there are an awful lot of bad parts to it too. There’s a lot of politics (mostly due to the lack of metrics and consequences), there’s still quite a bit of duplication of effort (despite worthy projects like iNews integration), and, frankly, there are an awful lot of people unwilling to step outside a strict job description, and an awful lot of managers who think that staff work for them, rather than realizing that they work for their staff. It is still, at heart, a C20 crown corporation.
The recession sucks, but it’s also an opportunity, to figure out what’s important and do it, to become more flexible in our attitudes, to realize that people are the CBC’s most valuable asset, and to start using their skills effectively. I have seen all of this happen already, in places, haphazardly, and it’s always been good for the organization and its balance sheet.
Calling for pay cuts is the kind of old thinking that considers people at best a necessary evil and at worst a liability, and it avoids the really hard but most rewarding choice, to grow up and complete the transition to being a C21 media organization that serves its society first rather than just being a machine to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. I’m happy to work for that nascent organization at below the industry rate for my niche, but if it reacts to our current woes by going in reverse, that’s a smack in the mouth.
After discussing this thread with a few people last night, I feel I should modify one condition. (I shall also try to spell check
).
3. Bonuses (Boni?) and “incentive payments”- There are many cases when a small bonus is given instead of compensating employees that have unrecognized and endless off-hour/on-call availability.
I certainly cannot begrudge someone getting 2 grand bonus for a year’s worth of 60+ hour weeks. If anything, those employess have already takeen a cut in pay for services in excess of 5%.
I wonder if EI will bring back “workshare”? I recall it from the crash of ’91.
Speaking of lay-offs SEE THIS VIDEO.
I think that not only should Peter Kormos lay off Geri Hall, I think he should beg her to forgive him!
I think if my union asked me to take part in some sort of concessions I would gladly take part. I understand those who say otherwise. I know that many of the staff have been there a long time and been through many rounds of cuts. We also have some people that are fairly unhappy with both the corp and the duties they perform.
My willingness probably comes from selfishness too. I am a newer staff member. I would most likely be cut. I make good moeny for what I do, in fact I would say excellent money compared to others at the privates. I just want to keep working and be able to provide for my family.
I have to say I something about people who are unwilling to step out of job descriptions. Most of us are paid by the hour. We should all be willing to do whatever needs to be done. End of story. Those attitudes are so out of date. In the real world grads are arriving ready to shoot, edit and report. They will also be more than willing to grab a few stills for the web and write a little blog at the end of the day. They are taught all those jobs as ONE job now in school.
With respect, I do think it’s fair to say that not everyone has the skills to shoot, edit and report well. In fact, I would venture to say that very few people can do all the things Tony suggests, regardless of how willing they are to try. The audience deserves the very best that public broadcasting can bring them.
your all cowards
To meme, with respect intended:
I’m not exactly sure where the “your(sic) all cowards” was directed at but if it is directed by those hesitant to stretch their vocation I can see a point there.
I have been thinking about this today and a lot of people get those horrendous PMSD interviews, but really do not have the support from their managers to try new and better ways…face it, it takes time to learn and try things out and a lot of groups a caught in various metrics that measure “productivity” but not “effectiveness”.
If you have an upper echelon that you know will cover your back if you cut through the crap and get something done, trying new things is easier.If you have micro-manager(s), glory hound(s), or insecure martinet(s)to answer to, you are lucky to be able to endure enough years to make Permanent.
We really do have some excellent Leads, Managers, Supervisors and Directors(Mgm’t) At the CBC. Really. Perhaps not as many as we should have since the old Niagara Institute system seem to burn out all but a few, but we really do.
We also have chairwarmers (and usually expensive, ergonomic chairs).
I really can’t say it’s the mark of a coward to not make waves in a static, no-win environment. It may take a lot of courage tho say “I can’t do that” (either if you really can’t or if it’s stupid or just wrong).
If some people have had enough and said so, that’s not a cowardly statement at all.
If the coward comment was meant to be a reduction of “You’re all cowards because you are too scared to leave your job.” I respectfully disagree because, at least in the non-broadcast-specialized vocations, trust me, it wouldn’t be hard and the money here is not that great. I’d rather hang around and make this messed up corporation be a CBC even better than what I thought it was before I came in.
And If I get my pink slip come these cuts, I’ll stand by my words. I’ll be upset, but not bitter. That dog just doesn’t hunt.
re: Tony says: Maybe we could all take a temporary 5% cut in pay. At Rogers they are taking mandatory unpaid days off.
I’m willing, but it would have to be much more than 5% to actually make a difference: the Corp’s payroll is about $770m; it’s falling about $10m into the red every month (which could get worse). So, it would take an across the board 20% reduction to keep up with the deficit.
In other words, everyone would have to go on a four day week. Good news is that with the EI Workshare program (which I hear is still operating), the after-tax loss in takehome pay would be minimal. And we’d all get 3 days off each week.
Hubert and Lise?
I would happily take one day a week off unpaid for a set time to avoid job cuts.
I am in news so that would mean that another person would have to be spread a little thin that day taking care of some of my responsibilities and in turn, when they have their unpaid day off, I would also be doing something to help them out.
I think this is fair, although hard on my wallet. And I think we might all be a little more pleasant to work with and maybe for a few people more productive (no running to the bank, making that quick personal call or fitting in doctor’s appointments) if we had a four-day work week.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-30-four-day_N.htm
And please CBC offer buy outs to unhappy, unproductive people like meme who don’t realize that we need to embrace change if we are going to move forward and grow.