It is widely expected that there will be a UK general election this year and obviously that will impact us all.

Labour is pledged, and as we write this we are aware of Kier Stammer’s track record of reneging on promises, to boost the rights of unions and individual workers. If they delivered on those promises, and the labour movement would have to exert pressure to ensure this happened, then that would create a space for unions that does not exist under the Conservative party. 

Of course, despite the huge poll leads, the Conservatives might win. It is clear that they intend to run on a racist and xenophobic ticket, attacking migrants, attacking trans people, attacking unions etc. The Labour movement, therefore, even in a non-affiliated unions such as the PCS, should take part in the election campaign to defend basic democratic norms and values.

Of much lesser import, but nevertheless in the small world of PCS of importance, Mark Serwotka will soon leave and Fran Heathcote will become the General Secretary.

The Independent Left has predicted that without the anchor of Mr Serwotka, Left Unity will become even more right wing than it is now – by the way, claiming you are left wing does not mean you are.

We saw it in the GS and AGS election the beginning of red baiting where LU started to distinguish between the members and activists, claiming that at least some activists were not representative and we certainly saw Mark Serwotka developing an argument that some branches had no right to speak because they did not deliver on the ballot.  

As we pointed out at the time, Mr. Serwotka completely ignored the fact that his allies in the MOJ and elsewhere did not reballot because they knew they could not win. Obviously he kept quiet about them.

Nevertheless, despite his many faults, he kept Left Unity on a sort of trade union orientation. Without him, then all that keeps LU together is an intense dislike of the Socialist Party, the desire to remain in office and obviously for some, to become very well-paid full-time officials. How strong this glue is, we will see but certainly does not give Left Unity any guide to action.

Therefore, we predict not only a rapid right-wing trajectory, but actually that they will be clueless in the face not only of a general election, but also if the Labour party is actually elected.

They will default to a vapid leftism that was fully on display in Fran Heathcote’s article in Labour List.

In that, the GS elect gets herself into a contradiction by claiming:

This approach was visible during our successful national campaign in 2023, when we beat the government’s pay policy after combining huge national days of strike action with targeted actions across a number of employers. I was proud to be PCS president during this historic campaign. Our members showed how effective industrial action can be, winning an increased pay remit, a one-off £1,500 cost-of-living payment and guarantees on redundancy terms. 

Yet she admits:

And even though they are responsible for providing essential public services, they haven’t had a real-terms pay rise for more than 11 years.

So, we have beaten the government’s pay policy but at the same time, for 11 years, whilst Left Unity has been in total control of the union, no members have seen a real-terms pay increase. That doesn’t add up.

She adds:

Among my own colleagues in the DWP, one in five are claiming in-work benefits. There are stories of members being unable to afford to switch on the heating or to feed their kids – and these are government employees. This is a damning indictment of the Tories and their policies of immiseration (what does that say also of the union of which she has been the lead union lay official for year or Mark Serwotka?).

So we beat the government but still many members are suffering immiseration, so much so that they have to claim benefits. Again all this does not add up.

In reality, PCS got the lowest pay increase in the public sector and the only pay problem Ms Heathcoat has solved is her own as she goes from being an EO in DWP to getting £74K as GS.

Despite all this she claims:

As a union that is not affiliated to the party, we will hold Sir Keir Starmer’s feet to the fire

But we have not even slightly toasted the toes of the current government!

The GS elect ends her article by stating ‘Enough is enough’. We feel the same way about an LU dominated PCS.

Whilst Ms Heathcoate will be the GS that does not mean we have to resign ourselves to her controlling the union. Given the outcome of the AGS and GS elections, there now is the possibility that the Left Unity NEC can be defeated. Whether that happens, obviously will depend upon discussions between the various groupings of activists and independence that now exists within the union. The Independent Left will play its full role in those discussions

The outgoing General Secretary claimed in a Tribune article that one outcome of the 2023 pay round was:

… national talks about changing civil service pay structures to deal with low pay and inherent issues.

This was matched by a PCS announcement at the time, claiming our pay campaign:

… forced the Cabinet Office into a series of talks with PCS on pay and staffing.

And in another posting, PCS stated we had won:

A commitment to further talks on low pay and greater coherence of pay within the civil service.

At the time we said that this was hype and spin. We pointed out that if you went here you would see what the Cabinet Office Minister really said about these talks (all emphasis in the rest of this postings is ours):

“Finally, in looking at the right approach to future reward strategy in the Civil Service, the Government intends to draw on the views of trade unions, including with respect to lower paid staff and how best to encourage greater coherence within the delegated Civil Service structures.“

 So it came as no surprise when PCS announced:   

The discussions (that PCS claimed were about changing civil service pay structures to deal with low pay and inherent issues) were positive and constructive and there appears to be a desire (which is not the same as there being a desire) on the employer’s side to make progress for the first time in many years.

The Cabinet Office has commissioned further work on the issues that we raised, and further talks will be arranged, probably in January 2024.

It is highly unlikely however that the talks will produce enough gains on pay for 2024 to meet our demands, and the NEC therefore decided that we should prepare for a national statutory industrial action ballot in 2024.

Of course the talks will produce zero gains on pay for 2024; spin and hype again.    

But the leadership has form when it comes to ending pay campaigns while claiming breakthrough talks (but interestingly never a breakthrough on our actual salaries!).

Mark Serwotka made the same claims of a breakthrough on national pay in 2005 and 2008.

In a PCS website posting on 2 December 2008, the leadership announced:

“PCS today announced a breakthrough in its pay campaign by reaching a national agreement [it had not!] with the government over pay…money from ‘efficiency savings’ will now be released for pay bargaining…” (it was not)

The PCS online report continued:

“Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said ‘This agreement [he never had one] is an important breakthrough …over the coming weeks and months we will be ensuring [he did not] that this agreement produces better pay for the low paid civil and public servants [it did not!]…” 

And now of course he and his allies pushed the same line in 2023. This is a lucky leadership – not many get to achieve three national breakthroughs in 18 years!

Will spin and hype leave with Mr Serwotka as he leaves PCS – NO. It is hard baked into Left Unity’s culture. Instead of honest accounting, LU prefers to reach for hyperbole.

We want to change the union so this approach ends. If we lose a dispute then let’s admit that was the case and then work out how to win the next one!

Martin Cavanagh (MC), a leading member of Left Unity (LU), recently made a number of posts concerning the Assistant General Secretary (AGS) and General Secretary (GS) elections.

Below we reply to his comments concerning debate and Palestine. In further posting(s) we will respond to his remaining points.

1. MC challenged us to “Engage in an honest debate”

John and Marion sought debate – LU candidates did not reply

We agree that debate should have been a key feature of these elections. Open hustings would have helped members to decide who they wanted to vote for in their branch nomination meetings and, afterwards, in the elections. They would also have enabled candidates to challenge any points made by rivals that they thought were incorrect, untrue, unfair.

At the outset of the election process, John Moloney, whose re-election to AGS we are supporting, and Marion Lloyd, standing for GS on a joint ticket with John, wrote to the LU candidates seeking their agreement to hustings, in which the candidates would debate each other in front of members, who would be free to ask questions and make comment.

LU candidates have avoided debate

Unfortunately, from the outset, Fran Heathcote and Paul O’Connor, the LU candidates for GS and AGS respectively, sought to avoid debate. They risibly claimed that it would be premature of them to attend hustings, because candidates needed to obtain fifteen branch nominations to get on the ballot paper and they would not know who the candidates would be until PCS formally published the branch nominations received by each individual.

The LU candidates knew full well that they, and John and Marion, would easily exceed fifteen nominations each. The LU candidates were just avoiding debate in front of members because, on the record and the arguments, their case is poor (Paul O’Connor did debate John Moloney at HMRC Long Benton but lost heavily). Instead, the LU candidates have sought to rely on the PCS machine, which they and their allies control, to boost their candidates.

In any event, Fran Heathcote and Paul O’Connor were candidates for branch nominations, competing with John Moloney and Marion Lloyd. But even after they were formally notified by PCS that they would be on the ballot paper, the LU candidates still avoided debating John and Marion in front of members. It is hard to have honest debate if the LU candidates will not enter the debating chamber.

These same LU candidates who cannot debate two other PCS representatives nevertheless want members to elect them to negotiate with Ministers and Cabinet Office officials. We respectfully advise members to doubt their capacity and to vote for John and Marion.

Debate and hustings obstructed

The London and South East Region attempted to set up regional wide hustings for the enormous number of members in that region. A single cross branch hustings meeting would have enabled members to hear the candidates directly irrespective of whether their hard pressed branch representatives had organised hustings (the vast majority had not) and boosted membership participation in the election. Any democratic Union leadership should welcome such an initiative.

Instead, the outgoing General Secretary, who is backing his LU allies and friends despite being the returning officer, refused to send out details of the proposed meeting to members. He said that the regional committee had no “locus” in the election process (by strange coincidence, Paul O’Connor has also used this phrase when replying to invitations).  The L&SE Region proceeded to build the hustings as best they could and it proceeded without the presence of the LU candidates. 

LU candidates claim celeb support but are silent on LU supporters who have given on them

Unable to claim the support of members gained in open debate, the LU candidates have instead claimed the support of…celebs! That is their idea of a mature approach to the AGS/GS elections and the key issues impacting members.

While avoiding debate and engaging in silly celeb stunts, the LU candidates choose not to talk about:

• The recent mass resignations from LU of long standing HMRC members who could no longer tolerate the incompetent and exclusive way the LU leadership run PCS.
• The resignations from LU of two longstanding Black NEC members, after being told “We Don’t Do Black for Blacks sake.” One of these NEC colleagues is advising members to vote for John  Moloney and Marion Lloyd.
• A former LU NEC member, who was made redundant, imploring members to vote for Moloney and Lloyd because of her woeful experience of their leadership.

 2. MC challenged us to “Talk about why your candidates seem more interested in the Ukraine than Palestine.”

Despite his use of the plural “candidates”. MC’s challenge was obviously aimed at John Moloney.

In the wake of his call for honest debate, we are compelled to note that his comment is an untrue, unsustainable, and obnoxious attempt to misuse for factional purposes the dreadful events in Israel/Palestine –  which, here in the UK, has seen a disgraceful rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia. This moment requires solidarity and principle from British trade unions.

John Moloney’s election address statement on Israel/Palestine crisis

In his election address, which was submitted before the Israeli invasion of Gaza had begun, John devoted 38 words to Israel/Palestine, compared to 21 words to Ukraine. John did so because he wanted every member to be able to understand his in principle position on the unfolding crisis.

John stated:

“I advocate an immediate halt to the siege of Gaza; condemn Hamas’ attacks; condemn collective punishment of Gaza and settler attacks in the West Bank; and champion an independent Palestine alongside Israel – for two states and equal rights.”

The siege having since turned into invasion, John has supported the calls for an immediate ceasefire. His call for two states is consistent with PCS policy.

The LU candidates election address (non) statements on Israel/Palestine

Neither Paul O’Connor nor Fran Heathcote mentioned Palestine in their election addresses, despite the horror that was unfolding at the time. We only comment upon this now because of the need to set the record straight after MC’s attack on John Moloney.

MC should “Talk about why his candidates seem disinterested in Palestine”

If MC is honest, consistent, and genuinely interested in Palestine, and was not just misusing the horror of what is happening to launch a dire but dim factional attack upon John, he would now publicly demand to know why the LU candidates did not show interest in Palestine in their election addresses or apologise to John. We invite him to do one or the other.

John and Ukraine

PCS has clear policies, established at the 2022 and 2023 Annual Delegate Conferences (ADC),  supporting the Ukrainian people’s right to defend themselves and Ukrainian trade unions.

Motion A55, moved by the NEC at 2023 ADC and overwhelmingly passed, instructed the NEC to send a solidarity delegation to Ukraine in cooperation with Ukrainian unions and the Ukrainian Solidarity Campaign. The NEC subsequently agreed to send John, in his official capacity as AGS, and NEC member Bev Laidlaw, to meet with Ukraine trade unions and deliver some resources. John and Bev Laidlaw duly carried out that task.

At no time has a single LU NEC member claimed that the NEC’s compliance with Motion A55 deprioritised PCS’ solidarity and work around Israel/Palestine. How could they, after submitting A55 to conference? Such a claim would be ridiculous and outrageous, except, perhaps, in the overly factionalised view of MC.

The announcement by the Cabinet Office this week that departments must immediately seek to ensure workers increase their presence in offices from 40% to 60% should not come as a surprise.

The Tories are feeling confident in their ill treatment of civil servants. Having successfully imposed the worst public sector pay settlement on us, the government is feeling confident. They are also in a dire political situation and are looking for ways to help the Tory Press divert attention away from the Government’s failings. Picking on civil servants yet again is one of their go-to techniques.

We have been asked what our response is and how the union should respond to it.

The current policy is unequal, unnecessary and unworkable.

The first thing to say is that the default position of the union should be that workers should have ultimate flexibility to choose to work from home or the office, including operational staff where this can be enabled by technology. A policy of mandating any arbitrary percentage is unnecessary, unworkable and inequal.

The union should have already demanded an equality impact assessment: The requirement to attend the office clearly heavily and negatively impacts those with disabilities, caring responsibilities, and young parents.

Since the government has sold off swathes of floorspace over the past 2 years, in many workplaces there simply isn’t the capacity to support 60% office attendance. If implemented this policy will create a two-tier workforce of those who can be mandated and those who can’t.

Ultimately, this policy will increase the amount of time and money spent on travel. With the cost of living still incredibly high and most civil servants receiving the lowest pay rise in the public sector, this represents yet another hit on our salaries and standard of living and is likely to impact morale and productivity.

How should the union oppose this?

To be clear, the union leadership should have challenged the end of flexible working far more robustly. However, we are where we are. This is what we would do:

• Insist on the principle of flexible working and employee choice.
• The legal duty of the Cabinet Office is to consider all the equality evidence of each proposal. The union must write to them demanding this evidence when the policy was first mooted. Also requesting any plans for a post-implementation impact assessment.
• It is likely that the Cabinet Office will claim to respect their legal duty. But without a public impact analysis and commitment on the back of this proposal, none of this can be guaranteed.
• As any equality impacts from the Cabinet Office will be conducted based on generalities, the union must also demand that individual Departments impact asses on the basis that in the large operational departments such as DWP and HMRC, there will be impact differentials between operational staff and Corporate Centre/HQ staff.
• To prove the legal case on equality grounds the union needs to ask for a breakdown of each part-time worker in each department, broken down by gender and then by child carers, those who work part-time for health reasons etc.
• The employers’ assessments are likely to be substandard, so the union should carry out its own equality impact assessment based on the above.
• The legal department should be immediately instructed to challenge the policy on this basis with the stats publicised to members. There is a likely potential for taking test cases on behalf of all civil servants and these should be immediately identified and secured.
• The stats to compare workplaces that can accommodate 60% to those that can’t should be requested, by FOI if not forthcoming. In the DWP for example there will be offices which can and those which can’t, and this has been acknowledged by the Cabinet Office and several individual departments. Our bargaining position both nationally and in bargaining units must be that the policy cannot negatively impact workers based on where their office is.
• In the immediate term, advice and guidance should be supplied to department negotiating teams on the unions position bargaining position alongside a risk-based assessment on the impact of non-compliance. Reps and members should be reassured that they will receive legal support and the legal department should be mandated to that effect.
• Guidance and templates should be produced for members being asked to increase their time in office who have caring responsibility or health issues to challenge any management action to increase their time in the office, with training provided to reps on how to fight this in each department.
• The union should use all communication avenues not just to publicise opposition to the latest attack, which is what’s being produced at present, but to make the political case for flexible working. Highlighting the positive impacts on both the individual and public services as well as the hypocrisy of the politicians demanding an arbitrary return.
• We should work to enshrine the rights to flexible working within contracts and staff handbooks. In the DfT, John Moloney made sure that rights to things such as check-off and attendance rights were so when the coalition government came for them, they legally couldn’t change them. In the past the current leadership have accused us of ‘legalism’ for suggesting others should do the same, but it was our members who were protected while others, such as those in the DWP, had their rights torn from them without challenge. We should use all options available to us.

Further considerations…

Enabling members to work from the office if they wish to

We know from departmental teams, membership feedback, and casework, that some members prefer or need to be in the office for well-being reasons. We defend the right of those members to do so with good quality accommodation, appropriate H&S measures in place, and where appropriate, reasonable adjustments. 

But even then, we must insist on the right of those members to decide how long they will be in the office, making time up at home on the same day or later if need be.

Enabling members to work from home according to their judgment

Civil servants should be able to make their own judgements about their circumstances and work needs (which may change over time) and where they work from.

Mandating any arbitrary percentage is unnecessary, unworkable and unequal. It will adversely impact colleagues with particular “protected characteristics” (most obviously those with dependent care responsibilities, very disproportionately women, and health issues). The underlying logic of the Tories and the mandarins is that greater expectation of office-based working will be underpinned by the misconduct procedures if someone “unreasonably” fails to comply with the expectation. 

Consistent with technical, socio-economic direction of travel

This approach would not prevent management from genuinely encouraging – as opposed to pressurising – people to attend the office, but it would be consistent with the technological, organisational, and economic direction of travel and the experience of recent years.

It is obvious that some parts of the civil and public sector and private sector see greater trust in employees’ judgements and preferences, and greater work location flexibility, as a way of recruiting, retaining and motivating their workforce. A civil service wide policy, under the divide and rule pretence of delegation – would deprive management teams of those tools.

Equality impact evidence and assessments and building in protections

PCS must demand to see what equality evidence the Cabinet Office took into account in drawing up its policy and what equality impact assessment it produced: The requirement to attend the office clearly heavily and negatively impacts those with disabilities and health issues, partner and extended family caring responsibilities, and parents.

It should insist on receipt of the same data and assessments from each individual civil service “bargaining unit” that is considering enforcing greater office working. And, without prejudice to our in-principle position, it must seek to strengthen the rights of members and the equality protections.

Flexibility – a vital requirement for carers

A long-term policy of employee choice flexibility will enable carers to work full time or to contract more hours on a part time or other flexible working pattern because commuting time may be converted to contracted working. That is a boon to pay, pensions and long-term security, especially for women and colleagues with health issues. Insisting on the commute is tantamount to insisting on some members working reduced hours.

For certain, without prejudice to our in-principle position of the location of work being a matter of judgement for all members, those who work part time hours need to be able to decide whether, when, and for how long they attend the office on the basis of what makes sense given their circumstances and working pattern. Not commuting lessens the stress of trying to leave work on time to get home for a dependant.

Percentages of contracted hours potentially discriminates

Equally, as the demand is represented as a percentage rather than attendance days, part-time workers will be greatest hit. Any expression of office time in “percentage” terms may mean that the part time worker must end up with an unsustainably long working day, with impacts on health and the ability to maintain dependent care – or a more “normal” working day plus one or more short days that are not justified as a good use of time against the commuting time.

Government selling off or surrendering estate

Since the government has sold off swathes of floorspace for many years, including the past two years, in many workplaces there simply isn’t the capacity to support 60% office attendance. The Cabinet Office freely admits this. But the lack of desks:

• Raises health and safety issues in overcrowding, blocking of passage ways and escape routes, and people working in “break out areas” and staff canteens.
• Creates problems for members who require special facilities as reasonable adjustments.
• Will create a two-tier workforce of those who will be mandated and those who will not and, because mandating will be left to individual managers, the result will be arbitrary, potentially discriminatory, and result in unfair, inconsistent, application of conduct procedures for “failure to attend.”
• In and of itself, before we think about issues such as dispersed teams, the lack of desking and meeting rooms in some areas undermines the claimed benefits of increased office attendance because you do not get to sit with colleagues, who may not even be in on the same day, and you still join meetings by teams.

Further reducing living standards

Enforced greater office attendance will increase the amount of time and money spent on travel. With the cost of living still high, with the value of civil service pay in long term decline, with the last few years of brutal reductions in our purchasing power, not commuting or commuting three or more days a week is one way in which members have sought to get by. This is a further attack on our already reduced living standards.

Vote for Marion & John

The current leadership is unlikely to challenge this policy competently. Just as they haven’t in the past when it was important to challenge the end of flexible working. If you want leaders who have the ideas, the will and the track record to ensure these things are challenged correctly, please vote for Marion Lloyd and John Moloney in the current General and Assistant General Secretary elections.