This is a follow up to an earlier posting Left Unity’s Real Reasons for Retreat – Part 1: It’s About Control

Firstly we have to be honest and say that PCS in is a minority union.

Left Unity believe this low membership density makes effective collective action difficult and limits the union’s ability to deliver a strong strike. Furthermore, they are genuinely worried about mobilising the members we do have. The risk, in their view, is not the government’s reaction, but the potential exposure of the union’s organisational weakness.

They have internalised our weakness and factored it into their assessment of the situation that faces us. Instead of viewing the union’s current size as a challenge to be overcome through aggressive organising, they see it as a permanent limitation on our actions. Their focus therefore is not on fighting the employer but on managing PCS itself. We see this plainly in their priorities: they see surpluses, healthy bank balances as a measure of success, rather than counting the number of fully engaged and mobilized members.

This approach is not leadership—it’s management. Union managers look at numbers, internalise risks, and avoid bold moves likely to upset the status quo. Leaders inspire members to take action and build real confidence in collective power. LU’s inertia is a choice, built into every decision they make to keep PCS stable rather than growing, defensive rather than offensive. It’s evident in their repeated decision to avoid national ballots, citing apathy or weakness rather than challenging those conditions head-on.

Moreover, they have done nothing serious to change the union to a majority one, let alone a super majority one.

We contrast this with the successful organising strategies championed elsewhere in the labour movement, particularly those discussed by organisations like Labor Notes. These movements understand that power is not preserved; it is built. They employ a strategy of “supermajority organising,” which demands systematic, person-to-person engagement across every workplace, targeting both members and non-members, using escalating actions to build a credible strike threat.

Successful unions do not wait until they reach perfect density before taking risks; they use the fight itself to recruit and consolidate power. This militant approach is centred on cultivating rank-and-file leaders and accepting the calculated risks that are necessary to break employer resistance.

We in the Independent Left believe the only way to escape the trap of being a minority union is to stop fearing the 50% threshold and start organising with the aggression and member-led focus required to smash through it.

If you believe the same then join us: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/

At the end of October, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) submitted its written evidence to the NHS Pay Review Body (PRB). The wording in this document is critical for all of us in the UK Civil Service, especially as we look at pay year 2026

The key passage from the DHSC submission states:

“DHSC have developed financial and delivery plans which currently allow for a pay uplift of 2.5% without having to make trade-offs against headline government health commitments. Should the independent pay review bodies recommend an award above this level, we would need to consider whether and how this could be made affordable from within existing DHSC budgets.”

This is a clear signal that the government wants to limit pay uplifts to just 2.5%.

Whilst the NHS is different to the UK civil service, it is a sector where a major union, the BMA, is already in dispute over pay restoration/jobs and another, the RCN may also soon move into a pay dispute.

So, Ministers are under pressure there, which they are in not in the UK civil service – the major union, PCS, having decided to opt for peace and hope for the best. So you would expect the submission to reflect this. And it does say ‘An engaged workforce is central to delivering government’s objectives for the NHS’. Yet it is recommending a cap on pay uplifts of 2.5%.

Indeed the submission says:

‘SR25 set departmental budgets for day-to-day spending until 2028/29. The Government has been clear in the SR that pay awards need to be funded in full from within these budgets and there will be no access to the reserve’.

The same will be said to PCS by the Cabinet Office in the so-called national talks. If, at the moment, the government won’t budge on the SR settlement in the NHS then they won’t in the UK civil service. The Cabinet Office may acknowledge problems with the current pay systems in the service but without extra cash they can’t fix those problems.

The Cabinet Office and the ‘Magic’ 2.5%

This figure is not an isolated incident. Civil Service World reports that the Cabinet Office, in its own evidence to the Senior Civil Service (SCS) Review Body, echoed the same sentiment:

“The government has considered these factors whilst carefully evaluating the overall affordability position and recommends that the total increase in paybill for the SCS should be no higher than 2.5%,”

The message is unmistakable: 2.5% is the government’s ceiling for next year’s pay increases across the public sector.

Is a Special Deal Likely?

The Left Unity (LU) leadership in PCS has often expressed hope about the potential of the national talks with the Cabinet Office to deliver a significant win for our members.

But let’s look at the facts. Given that the government is trying to hard cap pay at 2.5% for the NHS, and is enforcing the same limit for the SCS, do we really think it is likely that PCS will get a special deal, a better deal than the NHS?

The plain answer, from where we in the Independent Left (IL) stand, is No.

We must be realistic. The government tends to apply a consistent approach across the entire Civil Service and wider public sector. Furthermore, the decision by the current PCS leadership not to have a pay campaign this year—effectively giving up our industrial leverage—has significantly weakened our negotiating hand. Without the credible threat of industrial action, what pressure can be brought to bear to break the government’s 2.5% barrier?

Is 2.5% acceptable? The plain answer again is NO.

If you want a better union, a union that fights, then join us: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/

When we call for national action—the kind that might actually win something—Left Unity (LU) usually has one tired answer: “We’re too weak to deliver it.” Or more accurately “Activists and members keep failing us”. They point to internal hurdles like low engagement or the “failure” of their so-called stress tests, which supposedly gauge our readiness for a national ballot.

The current leadership’s inaction becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: they run a campaign with minimal publicity and zero genuine commitment, which creates the low turnout they then use to justify avoiding action in the first place. Their behaviour also taps into the caution many reps may feel in a do-nothing, at the national level, union 

LU’s conclusion? We should stick to local disputes and avoid the truly risky proposition of winning a national strike mandate.

We know this reluctance isn’t just a strategic caution—we will write more on this later – it’s fundamentally about maintaining control inside the union.

By constantly insisting that the organisation is weak, or acting that way, LU conveniently justifies a strategy of protracted national talks, engagements with Ministers and polite, pointless lobbying. This approach means they don’t face an unpredictable mass mobilisation. Their priority isn’t building power to fight the employer; it’s internal stability. They are focused on controlling the narrative and keeping their own leadership secure, ensuring they never face the scrutiny that might come with a failed (or indeed successful) statutory ballot.

The truth is, the only way to build a fighting union is to actively campaign and give members a clear, rallying objective and to work towards a national ballot mandate. And yes, to take risks. We may fail at times but that is better than doing nothing, provided we learn from those failures.

To help build a serious union then join the IL. You can do that here: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/

Left Unity, which leads the PCS union, decided not to hold a ballot of members across the UK civil service. Their official reason as to why no vote? Well activists, that’s you, failed a series of internal “stress tests.”

These tests were based on attendance at the National Activist Forum, the Campaign Schools, and members’ meetings. The poor turnouts for these showed that the union was not ready for a vote on industrial action.

Now the notion of “stress tests” is taken from the work of Jane McAlevey, the US union organiser and writer.

However, Jane’s actual concept of “structure tests” bears little resemblance to what Left Unity conducted. In her model, the tests are active, collective exercises. They involve asking members to take a clear, measurable action — sign a petition, attend a picket, contact co-workers — something that shows real strength and organisation across an entire membership. Passive activities like meetings were never meant to count as tests.

To repeat – a real structure test involves all members taking a specific, measurable action—it’s a massive, active undertaking.

Meetings, as Jane said are not stress tests. But even if they were, Left Unity did next to nothing to promote them. There was no central push, no real publicity, just vague notices. The resulting low attendance wasn’t a stress test failure; it was a clear verdict on Left Unity’s non-organising of the campaign. If there was a test, it was of the leadership’s competence, and they scored a resounding ‘Fail.’

In any case, the national forum was dire. In an article from one of our comrades in August, they wrote of the Forum

There were a fair few comments about how there’d been very little communication about the campaign until now, and why we were holding these fora and the strikes schools in the same week in the middle of the summer holidays, at 7 days’ notice. In response to this, Fran seemingly blamed A383 for setting an unrealistic time scale, while Martin noted that the overlap of the Scottish and English summer school holidays means that there about 9 weeks of comparative quiet. You’ve had since May, comrades!

,…

I could not help but think throughout that the subtext of all of this is that quite soon the NEC will conclude that we are not ballot-ready. And this will precipitate no reflection on their part, because they don’t want to have a ballot.

Then there was confusion over the timing of meetings. In a tweet of 12 August, we wrote:

New Branch Bulletin says branch meetings should “conclude as far as possible by September but also “no later than mid-September”. Which is it?  Branches only got this on 11/12 Aug — barely a month to organise. Unclear deadlines + short notice = harder for branches to deliver. Feels like we’re being set up to fail. Certainly this is an unserious way to operate. But then what do you expect from LU – order, planning, thought!

The sad truth is that Left Unity never wanted a ballot or a serious campaign in the first place.

The entire process—the late notice, no real publicity or drive to build for events, the confusing deadlines, and the misuse of the stress text concept, was designed to blame activists for the leadership’s own failings. By deliberately conducting an unserious campaign and then claiming members weren’t ‘ballot-ready,’ Left Unity manufactured the outcome they wanted: an excuse to avoid industrial action.

If you want a serious leadership then we have to vote Left Unity off the NEC and GECs. To help in that please join the IL. You can do that here: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/

PCS National President Martin Cavanagh, the Left Unity (LU) co-leader, titled his latest web article, “Budget threat is clear – we will keep fighting.”

The Independent Left (IL) agrees we are fighting, but only at a local level. Nationally, LU has chosen a strategy of calculated retreat. They have deliberately disarmed our union by refusing to run a national pay and job security campaign and, crucially, refusing to ballot members on these critical issues.

Mr. Cavanagh says that PCS is “working to secure an agreement with the employer on pay restoration, job security and better access to more flexible ways of working.” He argues that departments cannot recruit or retain staff without fixing pay, a reality he claims the Cabinet Office (CO) acknowledges in their recognition of the need for a new ‘reward strategy.’

He then notes “It is increasingly clear that jobs are under threat… we are clear we need more staff, not fewer.” Finally, he observes that “jobs, pay and the services you provide are all under threat of further cuts as the budget approaches in November.”

Contradiction

The President claims the CO knows they need a new pay strategy (the good news), but also that pay is “under threat” as the Budget nears (the bad news). Since the Chancellor controls the money and is vastly more powerful than the CO, the pay tug-of-war has an obvious winner.

LU may be “working” for an agreement, but they have abandoned the only leverage we have: the threat of national action. Why would the employer concede anything without that threat?

Job Security: A Conspicuous Omission

Mr. Cavanagh mentions the Cabinet Office’s acknowledgment of a new pay strategy, but he conspicuously fails to say whether they acknowledge the need for a new job security agreement. Since LU would certainly mention it if the Cabinet Office had, we assume they have not.

So what is LU’s plan for job protection? What pressure will they apply?

Our Alternative: Prepare to Fight

The Independent Left sees the severe political and economic climate as demanding a genuine fight, not polite lobbying.

We argue that PCS must immediately restart preparations for an industrial action campaign. Given the time LU has wasted, we need a proper run-up before a statutory ballot can succeed. Therefore, the Independent Left urges PCS to work toward preparing for a national ballot in 2026 for all UK civil service members, covering pay, terms, conditions, and, importantly, job security.

We need a fighting, member-led union—not one that gives up its power before negotiating. If you agree it’s time to stop hoping and start preparing to fight, please join us: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/