What sort of trade union do we want PCS to be?

The PCS Independent Left is clear: a trade union championing membership interests, run by members, employing elected officials who are in touch with members and who are not elevated to a lifestyle out of kilter with the mass of those members by dint of their trade union employment.

“Another world” salaries paid to senior PCS officials

The current General Secretary, Mark Serwotka, takes £103,100pa for the privilege of being General Secretary. Fran Heathcote, Left Unity’s candidate to replace Serwotka, is fully in favour of such grotesque salary levels being paid for out of membership subscriptions. So is Paul O’Connor, LU’s candidate for Assistant General Secretary.

The PCS Independent Left is not. We think PCS salaries at this level are wholly wrong. Such incomes are in another world compared to the lives of tens of thousands of PCS members.

Mark Serwotka once agreed

When he was a young radical Mark Serwotka agreed with these views. In fact they were once common place amongst socialists of various hues in PCS.

The Mark Serwotka pay test

When Mark Serwotka first stood for election for GS in 2000, he contrasted his position as a part time EO (he had child care responsibilities) to the status and earnings of his opponent, a senior PCS official. He saw those difference as important in determining who should be elected. Paul O’Connor supported Mark in that election.

Applying that same Serwotka test today, Paul O’Connor is a very long time, very well paid, PCS official who will become wonderfully well paid if elected to AGS. John Moloney, on the other hand, dedicated his life as an AO and, very belatedly, an EO lay representative. Since he was elected as AGS in 20219 John has donated £120,000 back to PCS. Like Mark Serwotka in 2000, we think these differences and facts count for a great deal in this election.

PCS needs a rational wages policy

PCS needs a rational wages policy reflecting the sort of PCS we need. Individuals’ donating money to the PCS Fighting Fund, as a matter of conscience and socialist principle, is to be welcomed, but a rational wages policy would be better.

Reliance on conscience has not been successful. If you look at the annual accounts going back some years, you will see that virtually nothing has been donated back by the most senior officials apart from the outstanding exception of John Moloney, the current Assistant General Secretary and a candidate in the current AGS election – over £120,000 since his election in 2019.

The IL’s expectation of our candidates for high office

Given the reality of PCS – massively inflated salaries endorsed by Left Unity – we discuss with our candidates for senior office what they might reasonably retain and what they should donate back to the union – the Fighting Fund – to support PCS members who paid that money in subscriptions.

This policy is not an optional extra for us. We want employment by PCS to be one aspect of people’s very serious commitment to our trade union, not the smartest, most prosperous, career move they could make.

John Moloney’s  pay commitment will tie his AGS income to DWP EO

John Moloney has renewed his commitment, first made ahead of being elected AGS in 2019, to tie his income to that of the London EO DWP maxima. As previously advised, John has to date returned over £120,000 to the PCS Fighting Fund, money which has helped fund strikes by PCS members. John has also thereby tied his future income to pay movements in DWP. Our pay interests are his.

Marion Lloyd’s pay commitment will tie her GS income to £30,000 pa and BEIS pay movements

Marion earns £30K pa, pro-rata. Marion has committed to staying on the same income, while moving to full time hours as GS, and returning the balance to the PCS Fighting Fund. Marion has also tied her future income to pay settlements in her current department. 

Paul O’Connor’s commitment: I will take AGS guaranteed pay progression to £103,100pa.

Currently O’Connor  is what is called a Band 6 in PCS. That band has a maximum of £73,122, which we assume he is on because PCS officers enjoy pay progression. If elected O’Connor would join the AGS pay scale with guaranteed progression up to the current maximum of £103,100. he is very clear that he will take every penny of that inflated salary.

In a rare hustings – he and Fran have been desperately avoiding debate in front of members – Paul O’Connor stated that when he wakes up he is focussed on keeping wages up, not on moving them down.

It is a woefully insensitive way of justifying a huge income because O’Connor and his allies have been very unsuccessful in keeping members pay up. We have had years of pay freezes and below inflation awards and tens of thousands of members are on or hovering above minimum wage. But he is asking you to elect him on that record and to a salary he would never have received as a civil servant and which you, the members, can only dream of.

The logic of Paul O’Connor’s position – one that Left Unity shares – is that if the union paid £200,000pa to its AGS and GS he would fight to keep that salary up, as well as keeping it! The hearts of the LU socialists supporting the Heathcote/O’Connor ticket to pay heaven must bleed for bankers when they read about attacks on bankers’ incomes…let’s keep pay up shout the LU socialists!

Fran Heathcote’s commitment: I deserve £103,000pa.

At one (rare) hustings, Fran Heathcote  was asked whether she would take the GS money. She did not say “no.” and she did not say “yes”, to a very simple question and in  contrast to Marion Lloyd’s, and John Moloney’s pledges  and Paul O’Connor’s clear commitment to keeping all the money as the due of a PCS AGS.

Until she clarifies her position, and given LU’s consistent support for these salary levels, it is fair to assume that Fran will, if elected,  take the full GS salary and progress to £103,000pa. She is certainly happy that her running mate will take every penny.

Any grade of member that PCS represents earn a lot less – for most a great deal less – than an AGS and GS. If we take a hypothetical  DWP EO in the national pay area, Fran’s grade, would earning £29,500pa but, upon being elected to GS, that EO member would move  to £74,820pa, a pay rise of £45,320 i.e. 253%. That would be an inflation busting pay increase!

Of course, the same calculation could have been made for John Moloney in 2019, except that he committed to not accepting such a huge leap in pay and progression to that mouth watering maximum.

The Wage Argument begins to hurt LU – so they spin nonsense

LU – now little more than the Fran and Paul fan club and shedding members everywhere (see here and here) say,

“Repeatedly members will hear claims that their [IL’s and Broad Left Network’s] candidates are pledging to take a worker’s wage if elected, because they understand how low paid members’ struggle. They omit to clarify, however, that their GS candidate is a G6 manager with a pro-rate salary higher than that of Fran’s wage as an EO in DWP, or that since elected in 2019, their AGS candidate has taken the rate for that job before personally deciding how much he can afford to donate to causes he supports.”

The statement is dishonest but revealing:

• John Moloney was very explicit, before first being elected to AGS in 2019, that he would tie his salary to the DWP EO maximum (his then LU opponent was committed to taking the full whack).
• Upon election he asked not to be placed on the enormous AGS gsalary but to be paid the DWP London EO wage, saving PCS salary but also the NI and taxation on the higher wage. The leadership said no but that he could donate the money back. That is what he does – every penny to the PCS Fighting Fund.
•  Marion is a G7, not a 6. In the IL we are very happy to have supporters in all the grades represented by PCS and we fight for all members irrespective of grade. But if  the LU leadership of a multi-grade union want to dismiss   G7 and 6 members, that is their privilege. W. The real point, and typically  this is not addressed by LU,  Marion will stay on £30000 pa if elected whereas Fran Heathcote and Paul O’Connor will take every penny.
• LU do not deny that they are really happy for their candidates to be paid £103,000 pa from membership subscriptions.
• We do not say that we will take a worker’s wage because we “understand how low paid members’ struggle” (although it is obnoxious to spend the subscriptions of members on minimum wage on such salaries). We argue that officials should not receive salaries that result in their being totally out of touch with, and with no stake in the bargaining and campaign outcomes for, members. 
• £103,100 pay is a fortune compared to the salaries of HEO’s and SEOs for example. It is a lot more than G7 and G6 members. It is a lot more than most senior civil servants earn!

Vote for the kind of PCS you need, Vote Marion and John.

This week supporters from across all nations and groups in the union have been out speaking to members about voting for Marion and John.

You can find our leaflet below in image and pdf form. If you’d like any delivered to you to give out in your branch or workplace, please contact the campaign: john4pcs@gmail.com

The General Secretary has claimed in a Tribune article that:

But one of the things that we won was national talks about changing civil service pay structures to deal with low pay and inherent issues.

This is factually untrue.

If you go here you will see that what Cabinet Office Minister really said about what the government’s intends:

“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.“

No matter how you stretch and torture the English language you cannot make the above be the same as ‘we won was national talks about changing civil service pay structures to deal with low pay and inherent issues’.

All the Tories have committed to do, is to listen to the trade unions (draw on our views) about lower paid staff and to our views as to how to best encourage greater coherence. Mark Serwotka has, of course, set those views out many a time – at least we hope he has – but to no effect.

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!). He 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 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 [it was a break down of our action]…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 are pushing similar lines in 2023. This is a lucky leadership – not many get to achieve three national breakthroughs in 18 years.

The members have not been so lucky, because none of these breakthroughs have added one penny to their ever declining salaries on his watch.

His, and Fran Heathcote’s and Paul O’Connor’s, “get the best deal possible” out of the 2023 pay round, predictably resulted in the great bulk of us once again receiving below inflation awards and the worse pay settlement in the public sector.

They could all have learned lessons from 2005 and 2008. But instead, those of us who have been around long enough, are witnessing a rerun of the leaderships’ long rehearsed tactic of avoiding or withdrawing from a campaign for real money on the table with a promise of talks that are misrepresented to make the winning of more money seem a good prospect.

So why does Fran, Mark and Paul make claims that have no substance?

Partly, because they have no confidence in the union’s ability to win a fight – a lack of confidence. A fear that the Tories can see and smell. So, they wanted out of the 2022 pay fight and to avoid a 2023 pay fight, hence the refusal to submit a national claim, in order to claim “significant concessions” through all the resources of PCS in the runup to the AGS and GS elections.

If Fran Heathcote and Paul O’Connor win, it won’t matter if there are no national talks or talks do not result in significant improvements to, civil service pay structures, coherence issues, and  the incomes of our many low paid members, They will already be in office and with high staff and membership turnover as well as control of PCS Communications, the claims will be forgotten.

The PCS leadership is the union equivalent of Orwell’s ‘Oceania’, in his dystopian novel “1984”, in its exploitation of the concept of ‘unremembering’. The claim of such talks, and their hyping by the leadership, will have served its purpose of persuading some activists and members that we did make a breakthrough and to vote for the LU candidates.

In a membership led trade union the leadership would  publish the timetable and the terms of reference of national pay and jobs talks.

We challenge the General Secretary to do so now, or admit that just as in 2005 and 2008, all you have delivered is spin and hype – and that don’t pay the bills.

Breaking through Again and Again – and yet Again!

In an earlier posting we said we would get back to the claim of Martin Cavanagh, the Deputy Vice President, that the leadership’s strategy had forced the government to talk about pay cohesion for the ‘first time in over a quarter of a century’.

If the leadership take 25 years to get into talks – with no promise of meaningful change after another below inflation pay year – then we need a new leadership. But the claim is untrue even its own terms.

If you read the 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/2023 pay remits (Cabinet Office instructions to bargaining units regarding the annual pay round) you will see that pay coherence is referenced. For example, 2019/20 states,

“Cabinet Office ministers have valued engagement with trade unions on this year’s process.”

“Coherence: Proposals may take into account wider Civil Service context and, if departments decide it is appropriate for them they may look towards more consistent approaches on common issues. In particular business cases could look at where historic divergence between departments makes reward systems more complex, less agile, less fair to employees and less value overall to the taxpayer.”

We assume that our national representatives do talk about pay coherence when meeting Cabinet Office officials and Ministers about pay remits. If they don’t, then we definitely need a new leadership.

More substantially though, both in 2005 and 2008 the then union leadership, with Mark Serwotka at the fore, claimed that it made the same breakthrough as it has this year!

In 2005 the PCS leadership said, “We have persuaded the Government to introduce a fairer, more coherent pay system…” The truth was that the government of the time had no intention of introducing a “fairer, more coherent” pay system and it did not do so. Just three years later the r the then leadership, with Mark Serwotka to the fore, claimed that the NEC had “Achieved the first national pay negotiations in 15 years to address massive inequalities in pay.”

The statement was untrue. The leadership had conducted years of fruitless “national pay framework” and “pay coherence” talks before 2008. Indeed, it is a mystery as to how the then leadership, with Mark Serwotka once again at the fore, managed to persuade the government in 2005 to introduce a “fairer, more coherent pay system”, if in 2008 they were achieving the first national pay negotiations to address pay inequalities in 15 years.

Of course, people can make bad mistakes (including misleading members), learn the lessons, and move on. But here we are and the same type of spin comes rolling out from the Left Unity/’Fran & Paul’ leadership.

So you will see that three times in the last 25 years the national union has claimed the same breakthrough. Each time there was nothing.

We leave you therefore with what we wrote in 2008 regarding the 2005 breakthrough – what we said then still stands now:

“The lack of detail at the time showed that the PCS leadership either knew the Government was not so persuaded or it genuinely believed its own hype but had no idea what it had persuaded the Government to do!“

Martin, withdraw your bizarre and misleading claim!

We watched with interest the video by Martin Cavanagh, the Deputy President, on behalf of Fran Heathcote and Paul O’Connor, respectively Left Unity’s candidates for General Secretary and Assistant General Secretary.

Martin claims that Fran and Paul devised the strategy that forced the government to give members more money; he forgets the strategy delivered in fact the lowest pay increases in the entire public sector. So he is boasting about a strategy that achieved a fall in living standards!

In any case, the main plank of that strategy, the use of selective action, is not Fran’s or Paul’s ideas, nor that of Mark Serwotka either. The idea comes from the Independent Left.

Until the latest dispute, the standard tactic pursued by the Left Unity leadership, a term that encompasses the General Secretary, Fran Heathcote and Paul O’Connor, was a one or two day strike, followed by months of inactivity, with maybe a further day of action. This was then followed by either silence and no formal ending of the dispute (it just faded away and in in true 1984 fashion was then forgotten) or a claimed victory (which there never was) that justified the ending of action… does this sound familiar?

Our critique was that such tactics were doomed to failure as they did not bring enough pressure onto the employer and therefore we suggested that in between general ‘all members’ action that there be selective strikes.

It followed, we said, that you therefore needed to greatly increase the size of the strike fund, not during a dispute, but long before. We have been arguing for a levy for 23 years – if we had one, we would have a substantial war chest to support much more considerable selective action.

Our critique and solution was denounced by Left Unity at the time on the basis it showed ‘a lack of faith in the membership’ and ‘you cannot buy your way to victory comrade’. Indeed!

Then of course, without warning, or acknowledging where the idea came from, Left Unity embraced selective action, though they called it targeted action in an attempt to hide the origins of the idea.

Although we should be flattered by this adoption, unfortunately for members, the idea was only taken on board in a one-sided way. We argued that all-members action was also important, and the union should seek to win members over to taking as much such action as could be sustained, with selective strike action being used where and when it is effective.

Anyway, back to Martin. He further claims that the strategy has forced the government to talk about pay cohesion (pay levels in the different departments being brought closer together) for the first time in over a quarter of a century!

We shall come back to that claim in a later posting as it is factually incorrect. No, what we want to discuss here is the claim that the union ‘desperately needs’ and members ‘desperately deserve’ Fran and Paul to win.

It is no slip of the tongue when Martin makes a distinction between the union and the members.

For Left Unity, the union is a source of jobs, prestige, status and is their ‘thing’. Members are therefore separate and distinct from the union. In fact we think LU believe that the members are there to serve the union.

This is not only clear from how the union treats members; they exist to be switched on as in the recent strikes and turned off when not needed – they don’t have any other function. That’s why the union leadership is so affronted when activists question their betters (as many have over the ballot wording) or seek to set up structures outside the official union ones or seek to ensure that existing structures such as town and regional committees actually are lively, democratic and think for themselves.

Marion Llyod and John Moloney, who are standing as candidates for GS and AGS take the opposite view. They want a union of challengers, people who are self activating, who push the union and question received wisdom. If that is a vision you share, then please nominate Marion and John and then vote for them in the election.