The NEC’s message claims, “We have made significant progress” but, in a seeming voice of reasonableness, adds, “Nevertheless we have clearly not won all of our demands.”

If we briefly benchmark those statements, comparing what we demanded (see here and here, for example) against what we have actually received, we note:

1. 10% consolidated increase in pay for 2022/23 pay year:
   No. Not one penny has been added to the sub-inflation pay rises we received in 2022-23.
   
2. NLW of £15ph for 2022/23:
   No. Not one penny more for the thousands of low paid members.
   
3. Reduction of 2% in pension contributions backdated to 2019, as recommended by actuaries: No. Not one penny to be voluntarily repaid by the Government. The Government is forcing PCS to continue its legal challenge, paid for out of our membership dues.
   
4. A guarantee of no compulsory redundancies:
   No. The Government has said what always says, it will avoid compulsory redundancies “wherever possible.” They could park an army of dismissed staff in that caveat.
   
5. Increased job security:
   No. We have only been offered talks, but without a single upfront Government proposal for delivering greater job security.
   
6. No cuts or further threats to redundancy rights: Some movement but the threat remains.
   The Government ministers have stated that they will refrain from any changes before 2025, which will require them to win the next election. But they are clear that they still want detrimental change.
   
7. Significant reduction in the working week with no loss of pay:
   No.
   
8. Pay coherence:
   No. We have been offered talks, but without a single meaningful improvement in the divide and rule system of civil service delegation.

From the outset, the NEC and national officials failed in their elementary duty to challenge the Government’s pro-rata approach and other restrictions on the payment of the lump sum. It is a sorry, embarrassing, saga:

On 2 June the Minister for the Cabinet Office briefed Mark Serwotka regarding the Government’s package of measures.

In a follow up to the General Secretary the same day, the Minister stated “The Government will issue an addendum to the 2023/24 Pay Remit Guidance which will enable departments…to have flexibility to make a fixed non-consolidated payment of £1,500 per full-time employee…subject to eligibility. You will be aware that departments should have regard to their policies on part time working and consider making the non-consolidated payment on a pro rata basis.”

The Government addendum stated, “under this Addendum, departments are able to award civil servants a fixed non-consolidated payment of £1,500 per full-time employee, subject to eligibility.”

At no point during the meeting or after reading the minister’s letter or after reading the addendum did the relevant PCS national negotiator(s) demand:

• A commitment that part time members would receive the £1,500 in full.
• The equality evidence that had been considered by Ministers and officials, at the point of (lump sum) policy creation; specifically, the equality evidence regarding the obligation or entitlement of BU to pay on a pro rata basis, affecting female time part time employees, other carers, and employees whose health does prevents them from working full time.

It is an elementary trade union equality duty to ask for the equality evidence and equality impact assessment considered by the employer during any policy formulation, to ensure that our members are not impacted adversely by protected characteristic and that public bodies are complying with their legal duties. Our leadership failed in this duty.

The only record provided by PCS to members as to what the General Secretary said to the Minister on 2^nd June is that he “welcomed the fact that the government and Cabinet Office has now listened and responded to the concerns of our members…” No equality concerns there though.

In subsequent videos, emails, and website briefings, there was no mention of the pro-rata issue despite its obvious equality importance, its relevance to so many members and the pressure exerted by activists such as those of us in the PCS Independent Left.

On 6 June, Paul O’Connor, a senior PCS full-timer and Left Unity’s candidate for Assistant General Secretary, issued “further guidance for negotiators on [pay] approach to take at delegated level.” This further guidance:

• Explicitly told pay negotiators to “seek a clear, up-front commitment to the payment of the £1,500 lump sum for all staff (pro rata where applicable)” [emphasis added].
• Did not provide guidance to negotiators as to when pro rata-payment would be “applicable.”
• Did not provide guidance as to the reasons for the leadership’s belief that a pro-rata payment could ever be “applicable” in relation to a one off, flat rate, non-pensionable, lump sum granted in recognition of the pressures of high inflation.
• Did not advise negotiators to reject the pro rata payment as discriminatory (Mark Serwotka’s belated discovery).
• Did not advise negotiators to seek the equality evidence and any equality impact assessment considered by management when formulating a decision to pro rata payment.
• Did not provide any guidance to negotiators concerning the relevance of aspects of law, such as the Public Sector Equality Duty.
• Did not express a single equality concern about the payment of the lump sum on a pro-rata basis.
• Advised, “If the £1500 lump sum payments are confirmed negotiators may enter into talks over the 2023/24 pay remit”, having already noted that “where applicable” payment would be pro rata, and it did so without any equality concern.

It took the General Secretary 28 days, from the Minister’s briefing/letter/addendum, to write to the minister about this issue. It is clear from the PCS report that he did so following membership anger.

Even then, it seems from the PCS website report, the General Secretary did not ask to see the equality evidence that had been considered by Ministers and officials at the point of policy creation. It really is a basic challenge for national negotiators to issue…but they do not seem to understand that.

In his letter, The General Secretary pointed out that, “the result of pro-rating the payments will be that the lowest paid, a majority of whom are women, and including those who have to claim Universal Credit because their salaries are so low and who will have their benefit payments reduced by the lump sum, will receive the least money in their pockets relative to higher paid colleagues.” But he took 28 days to make this obvious point to the Minister! It was too late. And again, in the early leadership briefings, there was no concern with the impact of a single lump sum payment on recipients of Universal Credit. That issue had to be raised by members and reps on the ground.

He also:

• Advised the Minister, “We regard [pro rata payment] as discriminatory and would have to consider our legal options if it is not addressed.” But He thereby let the Minister know that the PCS leadership either had not considered its legal options or had done so but was unconfident. For certain, we are still awaiting a report of the leadership’s considerations of its legal options.
• Complained of the qualifying requirement for staff to have been in post on 31 March 2023. But this qualifying requirement had been set out clearly in the Addendum, its impact was obvious, and yet it had not provoked a timely response from the leadership.
• He did not mention the requirement to be in post at the point of payment. But this date, like the 31 March date, can bar from payment members who were on unpaid special leave at one of the dates.

Frankly, the leadership was too busy, too desperately, selling this issue as a reason for stopping strike action – even though the Government did not make payment conditional on PCS halting action.

Despite significant, ongoing rank-and-file opposition, the PCS leadership is still trying to dress up and flog, as the basis for calling off our dispute, a package of Government measures that were not all new, that in important respects had previously been dismissed by the leadership as inadequate, and that don’t come near to meeting our claims.

The problem they have is that no one thinks the package of monies announced is good enough. Unable to sell the deal, they are left with the option of killing the dispute by demotivating activists and members. They can also attack reps.

So at the Facebook live meeting with PCS members and representatives on Monday 12 June, and at various regional meetings since, the PCS leadership turned to the old right-wing tactic of suggesting or implying that the very large number of activists who oppose the calling off the dispute are out of touch with members.

These are the same activists who delivered record membership turnouts in successive industrial action ballots, record “Yes” votes for industrial action, and record picket line turnouts. Many of them are young people who threw themselves into a strike campaign for the first time in their lives and are the future lifeblood of PCS. But it is they, not the General Secretary on £100,000 a year, about to go into a well-paid retirement, who is out of touch.

We have heard this right-wing tune before, when at the DWP Group conference Mark Serwotka singled out DWP London branches for not hitting the 50% threshold; strongly implying that this invalidated London activists’ legitimacy in calling for further action. Of course, he nor the DWP President, allowed DWP London branches a right of reply or indeed any reply. He dishes it out but he has no intention of taking it. He has also refused to respond to an email from the DWP London Region asking why they were singled out.

Yet, many other DWP branches didn’t get to 50% either and we certainly know that the DWP Group as a whole did not get over the threshold. Indeed now the figures have been published 80% of London DWP branches increased their turnout while the group’s average fell and DWP London was far from the lowest region in terms of overall turnout.

The Ministry of Justice and Defence Groups too fell well short of 50% and were not re-balloted as a result, yet neither of these have been singled out by the GS, nor cautioned that their views were less valid than those whose branches and Groups got over 50%. Perhaps because the General Secretary and Left Unity are in coalition with the PCS Democrats, who have for years run the Justice group; a group with an humiliating 26% density-rate and which despite it’s predominantly junior grade make-up has spectacularly and consistently failed to reach even close to the 50% threshold. Where’s the public condemnation?

The point is that Mark Serwotka disapproves of DWP London’s views (indeed the views of the overwhelming majority of all branches in London) and therefore uses the 50% card against them but for people who he approves of, he doesn’t. This is consistent pattern for the GS; he uses arguments tactically; his only judgement being their usefulness in the moment.

The history of DWP London’s opposition to the leadership is varied, but it is worth saying that in the eyes of members it was particularly soured when the Left Unity Leadership in DWP, supported by Mark Serworkta made an agreement with the employer for all London staff to work an extra hour a week for no extra money! It’s that sort of behaviour which leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

The leadership’s tactic of demotivating members and activists can, and must be combated. One way is to join the NO campaign. This was started by a a number of branches from across the political, group and geographic spectrum of the union coming  together to issue a statement in opposition to shutting-down the national dispute.

The statement was put together by a number of branches who have passed motions expressing the many issues with the concessions and discontent with the current position with a view to gaining the broadest possible unity in our campaign to persuade the National Executive Committee that our dispute must not be ended on the basis of these concessions and campaign for a ‘reject’ vote if they do.

PCS Independent Left fully support this campaign and urge branches to discuss and pass the motions at Executive and members meetings in order to join the campaign.

If your branch has agreed our statement, please let the campaign know by emailing: join@pcssayno.co.uk

The unions leadership is at pains to tell us that “Nobody will be left behind” from the current settlement, but not everyone is getting the £1500 payment.

This article focusses on the sex discrimination inherent in the pro-ratering of the £1500 payment. We will write shortly about the other members being left behind, including those in the culture sector, where employers are simply refusing to pay the money and the Left Unity leadership are asking our members in those institutions to fight on alone.

The current position

The largest government department, DWP have just announced that they will prorate the £1500 for part-time workers. We assume that most other departments, if they haven’t already, will follow suit.

Given that the great bulk of part-timers are women, this means in reality that we are seeing prorating by gender. There’s other gender equality issues that haven’t been addressed either, for example, it’s not clear that women on unpaid maternity leave during the qualifying period will be paid.

How did this come to pass?

Well, we can blame the Left Unity leadership and the General Secretary.

If this sounds harsh, let’s examine the facts as we know them. Unlike the NHS, teachers, rail, etc. there have been no pay talks, as far as we are aware, between the union and the UK Civil Service in regard to 4.5% plus 0.5%; Ministers just announced it.

Similarly, with the £1500 there was no direct negotiations either, where our team meets theirs. What seems to have happened is there were back channel discussions between the General Secretary and the Civil Service, and out of these the £1500 emerged.

One of the reasons the union fields teams for pay and other talks, is that a group of people bring different ideas and experiences to such talks.

If the £1500 had been proposed to a team, then someone might have said; the cost of living impacts part time and full time staff the same (you don’t get a discount on energy bills for being a part timer) and the £1500 supposedly is “in recognition of the pressures” faced by all staff, so therefore we must insist on it being paid in full for all staff.

Instead, as only Mark Serwotka was involved in the talks, then the above mustn’t have occurred to him (we are taking the most charitable view here – the alternative is that he did know but didn’t push for it), just as it didn’t occur to him that as the £1500 is not new money so staff related budgets might have to be squeezed to get the dough – staff will end up paying for it, one way or the other.

Publicly against pro-rateing; privately accepting it

On the 6th of June, a Management Action Brief (MAB) was issued by the union for bargainers, stating that once employers had committed to pay the £1500, ‘pro-ratered where applicable’, bargaining units should go into negotiations on the consolidated pay remit.

Firstly, where is pro-ratering applicable? The public statements from the union and the General Secretary, including at members meetings, is that it shouldn’t be in any circumstances.

Secondly, either the dispute is still continuing and no delegated bargaining is allowed, as per the NEC’s own Motion A292 at national conference, or the leadership has already begun to end the dispute unilaterally, prior to members voting.

No equality impact assessment

In the creation of any policy or pay settlement, employers are bound to ensure that they don’t disproportionately impact any protected characteristic. The leadership should have asked for equality evidence. They have not asked for it and they have not issued any advice to bargaining units regarding equality impacts. An abrogation to the unions commitment to equality.

The dispute must continue

DWP’s announcement, along with other employers, is a further reason why the dispute must go on, particularly when you consider that the payment of the monies announced are not conditional on us ending the dispute. So if you are going to get the money in any case, why not stick out for more!          

Yesterday, branch delegates to the London and South East Regional AGM voted unanimously for a motion calling on the NEC to continue the dispute.

The motion, proposed by Independent Left members in the DLUHC National branch called on the NEC to immediately renew ballot mandates, renew national and targeted strike action and draw up a programme of future action.

Following a short debate, all branches present in the room and online voted in support of the motion, including a Left Unity member of the NEC who also spoke in support.

Both during the motions debate and the previous Q&A session with the General Secretary, Mark Serwotka, branch delegates lined-up to express their members views, garnered through pay meetings, that the dispute should continue.

The L&SE region is by far the largest region in the union, representing over 50,000 members – over 25% of the total PCS membership.

The AGM also passed policy asserting the need for the region to engage in building trade union anti-fascist activity and prioritising the recruitment and organisation of outsourced workers.

Full text of the motion passed below:

That this Annual General Meeting notes that:

1. The package of measures announced by
   the Government on 2nd June was not an
   offer to PCS and was not conditional on
   PCS calling a halt to its campaign to
   secure, most importantly, a 10%
   consolidated cost of living increase in pay
   backdated to 2022/23 and an underpin of
   £15 per hour.
2. The 2023/24 Pay remit headline figure
   was sharply criticised by the PCS
   leadership and by Early Day Motion 1097
   for being below the rate of inflation. It is
   also not clear that HMT will provide
   additional funding for the remit but if it
   does not it will result in greater job loss
   and heavier workloads.
3. The discretion to enable departments to
   make a fixed non-consolidated payment
   of £1,500 per full-time employee, subject
   to eligibility, while a welcome
   achievement of our campaign, has many
   weaknesses. For example:

• It does not add a penny to our salaries
  and therefore the 2023 pay awards
  will t be based on the poor pay rates
  established in 2022.
• It will not count towards pension,
  redundancy, or overtime calculations.
• It will leave low paid civil servants
  stranded on desperately low pay.
• Departments are free to pay civil
  servants working part time on a pro
  rata basis and to impose conditions
  on payment.
• The lump sum will only be paid to
  members in the civil service on 31
  March 2023 and who remain in the
  CS on the date of payment.
• It does not require Departments to
  offer an option for members to take
  the lump sum in a manner that will
  reduce the amount of Universal Credit
  they will lose.
• Central government is not providing
  additional funding for the lump sum.

There is little meaningful progress on job
security and nothing at all on the
reduction of our pension contributions
and repayment for the overcharging to
date.
We therefore call on the NEC to:

1. Explain the issues and problems outlined
   at 1-4 above with issues to members.
2. To regain and renew legal mandates for
   strike action.
3. Renew the campaign of national and
   targeted action involving all bargaining
   groups with a current live legal mandate
   for strike action.
4. Draw up and implement a programme for
   future national and targeted strike action,
   showing tactical flexibility and not ruling
   out any particular form of industrial
   action.