A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Activists’ Forum

We’re meant to be organising for a ballot right now. But Left Unity doesn’t want to.

The pay remit was announced in May, as ADC was closing, another real-terms kick in the teeth of 3.25%. At Conference, motion A383, supported by the IL and its (then incumbent) NEC members was passed. This acknowledged that the pay remit was likely to be crap, set out a model claim/list of demands to aim for, and instructed the NEC to engage with members immediately to “re-win” support for our key demands and prepare for a ballot by mid-September if there was not satisfactory progress made to meeting our demands. 

Have you heard from the NEC about the national campaign since May? No, me neither, unless you count the General Secretary telling delegated negotiators to go and get what they could, without any meaningful support or guidance.

At the 23/24 July meeting of the NEC, something (at least), seems to have happened. White smoke emerged Falcon Road: the NEC, divinely instructed by Fran, were beginning the national campaign in earnest, ‘a comprehensive ballot-ready strategy to be put in place over the summer’. 

On 11 August a branch briefing relating the proceedings of the NEC was released and telling us that we would be treated to NEC speakers at members’ meetings (that we were to arrange), and that there would be two installments of an “activists’ forum” (find someone who looks at you like Left Unity look at a vaguely named meeting with no democratic locus, etc. etc.) on 19 August. This is all quite late in the summer, particularly given that we are meant to be balloting in one form or another in a month. 

What follows below are my reflections, as an activist of over a decade’s standing, a current branch secretary, and a former member of the NEC, of the afternoon edition of the the activists’ forum. To summarise – it was very disappointing and confirmed to me that Left Unity are not serious about balloting.

The meeting began with Fran speaking (as is her wont in such ‘consultative’ fora) for about 30 minutes (half the allotted time). She detailed motions A383 and A2’s demands, her talks with the Cabinet Office, our academic research and the fiscal as well as moral case for pay restoration, and detailed some of the pay settlements which delegated bargainers have achieved.  Effectively this section of the meeting was a dramatic reading of the 11 August branch bulletin on the subject (BB-29-25).

Fran also talked about ballot-readiness. The meeting was all about, she said, getting activists’ opinions on whether their branches and groups were ready for a ballot, although there was no way to indicate other than by asking a question. She touted the ballot ready schools that activists were encouraged to attend, with a week’s notice, in the middle of the summer holiday. But she cautioned that the NEC were unsure of the ballot-readiness of the union for September. I’m sure if you ask Left Unity, this state of affairs is the fault of the activists, and of their political opponents.

Then we moved on to questions. Several people raised the functionalities lacking in PCS Digital around contacting their members – the same old answers about ‘data protection’ and vague promises of a solution were provided by the national President, Martin Cavanagh. 

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! 

One activist asked why we had entered delegated negotiations when we were also saying the remit was crap. The General Secretary said it was necessary to prevent other civil service unions grabbing up cash at PCS members’ expense. If meetings such as these were not designed to ensure that the General Secretary and President always get the last word, by prohibiting meaningful dialogue, someone might have pointed out that if Left Unity had not presided over a precipitous decline of PCS’ density and bargaining power, we could prevent delegated negotiations from going ahead without us by threatening industrial action.

An activist in DWP made the point that AA/AOs can’t take national action cos they’re paid so little, and requested targeted action be utilised instead. in the case of successful ballot. To this, Martin seemed to suggest it was too expensive to have targeted action in DWP. Perhaps he should have allowed one of the IL’s many motions to the 2024/25 NEC about building a sustainable fighting fund to be heard… 

Constructive answers were not forthcoming. “How will we contact members?”, someone asked – you’ll have to go to a different meeting about that, or talk to your as yet assigned dedicated ballot FTO, came the answer. We closed with Fran admonishing us for the low attendance, and instructing us to engage our members more.

It was a very boring and disheartening way to spend my lunch break, if I’m honest. It felt as if nothing had been done to organise or agitate since ADC. Seeing the pictures of the General Secretary, President, NEC members and senior FTOs (who are mostly Left Unity members) living it up at the Big Meeting, the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival and the other big events of the labour aristocracy’s summer calendar, I wondered how much actual work they’d been doing. Not much, on this evidence. 

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.

A Ballot Ready NEC?

Left Unity (LU) does not want a strike ballot over pay and other critical issues. 

Their reluctance comes from: 

•    low union density (the proportion of members to non members), making collective action less effective. They believe the union is weak.
•    LU is intent on keeping good relations with the Labour Party, fearing that a ballot or strike might strain those ties, and their hitherto ineffectual national talks. (Labour Ministers are well aware of the huge gap between the General Secretary’s bombastic claim that she would hold their feet to the flame and the total absence of national campaigning since they entered Government last year).
•    They prefer a quiet life presiding over weakness than the busy and stressful life that is required to turn the union around and fight for improved terms and conditions.

LU’s mindset means that it responds negatively and with hostility to members and activists who push for more union ambition, a meaningful bargaining agenda, and for stronger action. Rather than engaging with members and activists, seriously challenging, for example, the lack of progression pay, they are wholly focused on maintaining internal control of PCS and preventing rivals from gaining influence. In the process they abuse the structures of PCS.

Whatever criticisms one might make of the British Medical Association’s leadership, the current contrast between that union and PCS is stark. 

They have a long term agenda, most notably restoration of the value of their pay; activists won that agenda and the leadership have repeatedly called action on that basis (delivering the highest pay awards in the public sector), having carefully explained the reasoning and need for restoration to members; membership has risen as a result. Doctors know that the BMA is serious about the demands.  

Government has been repeatedly told that the BMA needs clear proposals for rebuilding resident (formerly “junior”) doctors’ pay – not necessarily in a single year but delivering on the demand. In face of foot dragging by the Tory and now the Labour government the BMA shows a willingness to fight, they have a campaign plan, and they are always looking to build their membership.

PCS’ “left wing” leadership, however, projects a different image. ‘We implore the government to review the roadmap and work constructively with trade unions’ so says the President after the announcement that many of the provisions of the Employment Bill won’t be enacted until late 2026, early 2027. Yet he doesn’t have a concrete plan for what the union will do if ministers refuse to budge. This is not only around the Employment Bill but in fact on all things. PCS tends to beg, not fight. This gives the public impression of a union acting more as a humble petitioner than as a force ready to confront power. 

The General Secretary writes ‘“… government hostility to public service workers have made it clear that we can’t rely on employers or ministers to do the right thing …. It’s only through collective strength that we can shift the balance of power.” So, if the Government is hostile, how does our LU General Secretary plan to deploy our collective strength? She promised to hold their feet to the flame, how and when does she plan to do so? 

Not a word from her or the President or the LU NEC majority on such matters. LU hopes by playing nice this hostile government will give us concessions, and we will not have to use our collective strength. The results of their approach is obvious: members heading for standstill or below inflation pay awards; no pay progression; no return to national civil service rates of pay; no pay restoration; insistence on office attendance; job loss. If we want to make a difference as a Union we have to have the confidence to act like one. 

PCS is a minority union in most workplaces. More members would indeed bring more negotiating leverage. An ambitious recruitment plan to bring in tens of thousands more members, backed by real resources, will boost our ability to impose accountability on ministers and employers.

The NEC has supposedly adopted a “ballot-ready” strategy – after wasting all of June and July – and arranged members’ meetings. But months of inactivity mean members approach these meetings unprepared, with no strike plan to consider, and little momentum to carry forward. LU are secretly hoping to blame members and so avoid holding the ballot  mandated by the 2025 PCS conference.

Where is the National Campaign?

PCS is at a cross roads. For months, Left Unity (LU) has done nothing to build amongst members for action on pay, jobs and working flexibility, and have only yesterday, belatedly, announced an activists forum (August 19th) to discuss the issue with members.

Motions carried at conference called for a ballot to be held by mid-September, why have they silent on the campaign since conference? There is a real risk we won’t hold a ballot at all, sending all the wrong signals to the Labour government, and to our own members about the strength and seriousness of PCS. 

LU’s message of weakness is not simply about 2025/26. PCS has to have a meaningful bargaining agenda for longer term pay reform, addressing all the structural problems in civil service pay: wild variations in pay between the same grades in different departments and agencies; lack of progression pay arrangements; members trapped on the minimum wage; different grades of members being paid at the same rate of pay because they are all on the minimum wage; a lack of meaningful national negotiations over specialist members who are treated as a singleton specialism but within the delegated bargaining structure that breaks the civil service up in to a huge number of different pay systems.

Time for a serious plan

So, despite the LU leadership, what would “getting serious” actually look like?

First, it’s time for an all-hands-on-deck approach. Every full-time organiser and full time official needs to make the ballot their priority, putting aside non-essential work for now. At branch, town, and regional committee level, we should be calling urgent meetings and launching member discussions about the ballot. This can’t be business as usual anymore—everyone in the union needs to shift gears so we’re focused and ready to win.

But mobilisation isn’t just about what happens at the top. Communications need to be powered by activists and rooted in real-life experiences. HQ can’t reach everyone, and—let’s face it—mass emails from the centre are no substitute for a message from someone you actually know and trust. That’s why activists should be encouraged not only to draft their own messages, but to send them out, speaking in the language and style that members respond to. Local voices must take the lead. That’s how we build momentum and trust.

Of course, even the best-organised ballot is hampered by our low union density. We can’t shy away from recruitment—we have to bring more people into the union, quickly. That means inviting all staff—not just existing members—to meetings. Our message, our campaign, and our events should speak to everyone, showing them why joining PCS strengthens all of us. To build the power we need, every new recruit counts.

It’s also time to be honest about our demands. The current set simply isn’t connecting with enough members. We’re hearing that what really matters along with pay is meaningful progression, equal pay, the right to flexible and hybrid working, and a four-day week – let’s not forget: LU originally opposed the four-day week – now it’s clear we need demands that actually resonate with people’s real, everyday concerns. Consulting activists and using relatable, straightforward language will help us build a platform everyone can rally behind.

Above all, the strength of our union comes from the bottom up. Regional and town committees—along with branches—should be taking the reins on local ballot work, empowered with real resource and decision-making capacity. National leadership must support that by channelling power down, not hoarding it. Campaigns fuelled by members and activists at every level are the ones that win.

Yes, the hill we’re climbing is steeper because of past delays, but that doesn’t mean we can’t reach the top. If we keep our focus clear, act collectively, and trust in the power of our activists and members, we can still build a campaign that makes PCS a union everyone wants to join—and a force the government can’t ignore.

Let’s shift gears together and launch the campaign our members need and deserve.

Trans exclusion: A stain on PCS

With PCS’s annual delegate conference concluding on Thursday, we wanted to share a report of the main issue of the conference.

As we have reported on earlier: The General Secretary, President and the National Standing Orders Committee made a number of decisions and statements in the run-up to and during this week’s conference which attacked the rights of trans delegates and blocked the discussion of motions of trans solidarity in the wake of the Supreme Court Judgement on the Equality Act.

The primary issues were:

  1. The President and General Secretary, without NEC consultation, releasing a public statement in advance of conference which stated that the union was intent on enforcing their own interpretation of the Supreme Court Ruling, advising trans delegates not to use the toilet of their gender. In doing so enforcing segregation and causing harm and harassment to our trans delegates and placing PCS to the right of the rest of the trade union movement, the Brighton Conference Centre and Civil Service Employers.
  1. The Standing Orders Committee sending all motions from branches which mentioned ‘the trans issue’ in bulk to the unions lawyers, asking for legal advice ‘in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling’. And subsequently ruling that not only would none of the motions be put to conference, but that none of them would be printed and that this decision could not be challenged. This included a motion from MHCLG HQ Branch which was unceremoniously thrown into the ‘bulk submission’, but to which the legal advice didn’t relate.
  1. The Standing Orders Committee, on the eve of conference, ruling that motion A57 on trans rights which had already been printed and circulated as part of the original motions booklet, would also be ruled out of order. The legal advice for this wasn’t forthcoming and had to be fought for on conference floor by the majority of delegates continuously refusing to adopt standing orders. 

When the advice was provided, it did not relate to this year’s Supreme Court ruling at all, rather it stated that calling on the union to ‘oppose exclusionary ideologies that reduce human experience to the biological characteristics of sex alone’ was likely to infringe the rights of those who hold such ideologies as a protected characteristic under the equality act. Leaving us to ask whether existing PCS policy confirming that trans women and women and trans men are men still stands or is itself ‘illegal’.

Who controls conference?

As a result of the above, conference, taking the lead from trans delegates and allies, refused to endorse standing orders, with passionate speeches and heckles from the floor demanding that minimally motion A57 was reinstated onto the agenda. 

Regardless of the SOC legal advice, the President could have accepted A57 as it had already been printed, and the supposed legal jeopardy already breached, by simply calling for a vote on a previous Standing Order Report which included it, but he did not.

In a twist of bitter irony, conference was told repeatedly from the Chair, that it was the sovereign body of the union, despite repeatedly refusing to allow votes to overturn the Standing Orders ruling out of all the trans solidarity motions, on the basis that the Chair of Standing Orders had the constitutional authority to simply refuse for them to be heard. 

To imbue one individual, regardless of political stripe, with the authority to rule-out any motion on the grounds of legal jeopardy and the legal responsibility to do so, is not a tenable or democratic situation and completely undermines the idea that PCS is a member led union. 

PCS Independent Left will be proposing rule changes for next year’s conference to ensure that minimally, it’s conference who endorses any such ruling after being furnished with the legal advice, and that the union indemnifies any individual against legal challenges arising from it, as it does already with the NEC.

We also welcome the election of members of the Coalition for Change to the Standing Orders Committee to challenge such behaviour next year.

Annual Conference should be the sovereign body of the union. Not the Standing Orders Committee and certainly not the lawyers.

When the law is wrong, we fight the law 

There is broad consensus that the Supreme Court ruling is detrimental to trans rights. We consider the ruling and the subsequent interim EHRC guidance as part of a cultural and legislative trajectory of erasure of trans people from society.

When unions in the deep south were faced with legally enforced racial segregation through Jim Crow, did they simply accept the law or did they break it in order to organise black and white workers against it? Did unions simply accept the poll-tax when it became law, or did they support the mass campaign of non-payment to oppose and ultimately defeat it? 

Did our own union simply accept the law had changed disallowing union membership at GCHQ, or did they oppose it and support each and every rep who was sacked as a consequence?

There are, of course, many other examples of unions refusing to accept the law when it challenges the rights, or in this case, the existence of their members.

PCS activists and members need to ask themselves and their leadership – why is it different this time?

The President, General Secretary and the Standing Orders Committee chose to seek legal advice on this question. It is beyond comprehension that they did not know what the response would have been.

But even if they hadn’t, there are other motions on the order paper which could have been challenged legally on a similar basis to the trans solidarity motions. Unison, for example, regularly rules out motions on industrial action on the same basis, using legal advice from the same lawyers as PCS. Why weren’t these motions sent to the lawyers?

At best it’s cowardly and conservative. At worse, underhanded, exclusionary and undemocratic.

It is also important to note that some Group conferences taken this week, did allow similar motions to be debated and voted on, which almost entirely debases the rationale behind excluding them from national conference.

An existential fight

This is not an issue like the debate on the national campaign, or our strategy on hybrid working. This is an existential fight for the trans community. This is why there was rightfully a majority to refuse accepting standing orders on two successive votes.

We sincerely hope that delegates who were frustrated about the delayed start to conference recognise this and direct their frustration to those who prevented the interests of our trans members being debated by conference.

In behaving as they have, PCS Left Unity have not only thrown our trans members under the bus, but have – potentially unwittingly – signalled to transphobes in the wider trade union movement how to ensure similar situations are played out in other unions. 

We want to be very clear to every rep and member, that is the consequence of their behaviour this week.

If there was one incident which demonstrates this the most, it was the emboldening of transphobes to an extent that for the first time at PCS conference, they felt it acceptable to boast from the podium of misgendering and presuming the gender of delegates and harassing them in the toilets. Later providing the same perspectives freely to the Daily Mail.

The power of self-organisation

We want to pay a huge tribute to the self-organisation of trans delegates who led allies in refusing to back down, despite the force of the leadership, lawyers, the standing orders committee and full-timers acting against them.

We also don’t want activists to be disheartened. The power shown on the conference floor during the debate on standing orders and during the Equalities section and the continuous stream of delegates throughout the conference highlighting support for trans siblings should be heartening. There is an organisation here which isn’t going away.

PCS Independent Left will continue to back our trans members and the wider trans community. 

Solidarity means listening to the voices of oppressed people, not silencing them. It means amplifying their demands, not refusing to print them. It means backing them, regardless of the law.

Rally for trans rights outside conference on Wedensday morning

Championing equality at the heart of PCS

At this year’s ADC, the PCS Independent Left reaffirm our unwavering commitment to placing equality at the core of everything we do. In a time of growing division and hostility, we must stand united in our fight for justice, dignity, and inclusion for all members.

Standing with Transgender and Non-Binary Members
We are deeply concerned by the Supreme Court judgment narrowing the legal definition of “woman.” This ruling undermines the rights and recognition of our trans and non-binary members. The IL believes our union must:
· Campaign vigorously against this judgment, defending the rights of all members to self-identify
· Support motions and emergency motions at ADC that empower our leadership to advocate for trans rights both within PCS and across society
· Ensure our union is a safe, inclusive space where all gender identities are respected and celebrated

Confronting the Far Right and Racism
The rise of the far right poses a direct threat to PCS members and the communities we serve. Their agenda of racism, scapegoating, and violence must be met with firm resistance. We call on PCS to:
· Work in solidarity with other unions to oppose racism
· Advance anti-racist policies that challenge scapegoating and protect our communities
· Educate and mobilise members to recognise and resist far-right narratives in the workplace and beyond

Embedding Equality in Every Campaign
PCS must lead by example, embedding equality into every campaign and workplace initiative. Our national equality programme must:
· Spread best practices and ensure all personnel policies are equality-checked and legally compliant
· Address systemic inequalities, including the overrepresentation of ethnic minority, disabled, and lower-grade members in personal cases
· End the multi-tier workforce, which leaves newer, often younger staff on inferior terms
· Champion flexible working, giving all members the right to choose where they work based on their wellbeing and personal commitments