Thursday, September 29, 2005
Security AND Flexibility?
I'm sure better, and more legalistic minds than mine are working on all of the issues surrounding the new contract but, just to throw out some food for thought what if - current staff remained as it was and new hires worked like this:
The first year is probationary, you can be let go for any reason during the first year, call it a no-fault trial run.
After the first year you become staff, but it doesn't mean forever: You work on 5 year contracts, during that five years there are peer reviews (under a system instituted by management) and supervisor reviews. Every 5 years someone (preferably a panel) sits down with accumulated (anonymous) peer reviews, as well as manager/supervisor reviews and based on those alone decides whether to renew you or not. 5 years worth of accumulated reviews averaged out should rule out your being dismissed based on - discrimination, bad chemistry with a single person (or a few), any temporary rough patches in your life, etc. Continual bad scores on these assessments are the only reason you can be denied renewal.
Additionally each year you are required to attend, for example, 25 (minimum) and 50 (maximum) hours of skills training, this is counted as work time and paid for by the corp. What skills you work on is established by conversations between the employee, their supervisor and human resources and are based, in part, on the assessed future needs of the corporation. This should insure that the current workforce is sufficiently skilled and flexible to meet the future needs of the CBC, even if the role they are currently employed in should become redundant or obsolete and will provide an opportunity for workers to expand their skill set and take on new challenges.
Despite the 5 year 'contract' these employees are treated as 'staff' with full pension and benefits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
justin - i see where you're heading, but i think it needs to be simpler than that. the corp's argument is that it needs "flexibility" to launch new projects/shows and not be left dealing with whom they've hired if that project/show fails after a season or 2. fine...allow contracts for up to 2 years on a specific show/project. if the show is cancelled within those 2 years - they go...if it continues, the contract people become staff. no contract person can be let go before the 2 years is up - except in the case of the project/show being cancelled or for "just cause". there is no "just clause" condition in current contracts...a person can be let go, with notice, just because someone got up on the wrong side of the bed. this condition is required so that managers don't let people go - even if a show is a success, just to prevent them from becoming staff. it seems to me, this would address the problem both sides in this dispute have. if the corp is sincere about the flexibility argument - here's loads of flexibility. besides, imagine how invested new hires would be on behalf of their show/project!!
the success rate of new shows would rise...these contract people would, as a result, become staff as a reward, the cbc would be stronger etc, etc.
just a thought.
Post a Comment