Objectively, the grounds exist for a national dispute. The CPI(H) rate of inflation rose by 3.4% in the 12 months to March but the Government has based plans on 2.8% public sector pay increases. Whilst the remit figure for the UK Civil Service may end up just over the inflation rate, depending on price movements, an average pay increase covers a multitude of possibilities and sins, and many of us will get below inflation. In any case, departments have to self-fund this year’s pay increases, and that will mean departments either not offering the remit figure or cutting more staff to fund any increase.

For certain, the 2025/26 pay remit will not:
· Begin to make up for 14-16 years’ decline in our real pay
· Permanently lift the many tens of thousands of civil servants off the minimum wage
· Fund a system for permanent, automatic progression
· End the 2/3 tier workforce
· Deliver improvements across the board to annual leave or reduce the working week

At the same time as squeezing our wages the Government is intent on job cuts. We need a national job protection and use of AI agreement to be an essential element of the national campaign. The situation in the Scottish and Welsh civil service and Met Police is not so bad, but it is not good enough to mean that members do not need a campaign in those areas as well.

It is an unfortunate truth, however, that the incoming LU NEC will see a continuation of the politics of quiescence, combined with some occasional bombastic statements.

Remember LU’s promise to hold Labour’s feet to the flame? Serious moves to campaigning and balloting will therefore only happen if ADC sets instructions and branches/groups successfully demand their implementation. PCS IL has argued for decades for hard-hitting selective action, supported by a financial war chest, alongside serious national action. While the 2022/23 campaign saw a lot of paid selective action, it was more limited than it needed to be; because it was funded by an ad-hoc, belatedly scrambled together levy, not an existing war chest, and there was little national action. Unsurprisingly, the then-LU leadership failed to achieve a single one of the 22/23 pay demands and delivered the lowest public sector pay increase in 23/24.

The sabotage over the last 12 months of the outgoing NEC, by the LU General Secretary and President with the support of the LU NEC minority, means that the ground has not been prepared for a successful ballot. LU will not move quickly to put right what they have put wrong. Indeed, they are looking to deplete the Fighting Fund and want to impose a year-long ‘consultation’ on future levy provisions. Neither bodes well for chances of a dispute this year.

Critically, PCS is a minority union, with less than 50% and shrinking density in many areas, making industrial action harder to win and less effective. But LU refuse to even acknowledge the problem, despite density being the basic question of union power: If you want to hold Starmer’s feet to the fire, build the union!

Campaigning, and standing up for ourselves is key to successfully rebuilding PCS. Through serious activity, we can win new activists, win more pay, and defend jobs.

Read our NEC leaflet and DWP group leaflet here -NEC elections close on Friday 9th May (post ballots before Wed 7th to ensure receipt) and DWP group elections close Tuesday 13th May (check personal emails for your e-ballot).

PCS Members and reps will be deeply concerned about the Supreme Court Ruling on Gendered spaces and the Equality Act, and the subsequent interim guidance released by the EHRC last week.

Our response

Straightforwardly, the ruling and the guidance represents an attack on the rights of our trans and non-binary colleagues and the wider community. We know it has emboldened the far-right and created a great deal of fear, confusion and anxiety for our members, and we stand fully with them.

The ruling is wrong, and the interim guidance is unworkable and discriminatory to trans people. The labour movement should oppose it on that basis, legally and industrially in the workplace.

Many will be looking to their unions General Secretary and President to provide such assurances. Regrettably this has not been the case.

Colleagues may have read with disdain the statement that’s been put out on behalf of the President and the General Secretary.

In the very short statement, they outline that the union will be “reviewing its policies and practices to ensure they remain legally compliant” and refuses to say that the union opposes the law.

It is a very basic trade union tradition, repeated at key points throughout history, that if a law or ruling is judged to be discriminatory to a marginalised section of society or a union membership, then that law shouldn’t be accepted and ‘policies and practices changed’ in accordance with it. It should be straightforwardly opposed.

History is littered with examples. The unions in the deep South who refused to abide by racist Jim Crow laws. To the union leaders of Solidarnosc in Poland who opposed the law banning strikes and independent unions. To the miners of the NUM who carried on the 84/85 strike despite it being ruled illegal by the High Court. The list goes on and on, and all these people were on the right side of history.

Why in this instance, on this subject, does the President and General Secretary break with that tradition?

The law should have been opposed, and the union should immediately be calling for the interim guidance not to be implemented and launch collective bargaining, campaigning and legal challenges to the ruling, in defence of our trans colleagues.

That’s what the unions statement should have said.

And that’s the line that a lot of reps at the grassroots are taking, because we know that our trans friends and members are fearful of policies being introduced by employers who are copying the unions publicly stated example of ‘reviewing their policies and practises’. Unworkable, discriminatory and will cause an increase in the reactionary and violent sentiment towards transpeople.

Once again, on this subject, The President and General Secretary have failed the test. As, regrettably, have the leaderships of other unions.

What can we do?

Rank and file reps from across the movement are coming together to organise. We hope reps reading this will join in that work. But also ensure we take this message to the union annual conference at the end of the month. We will be supporting Emergency Motions containing this position and will ensure that despite Left Unity equivocation, this voice is heard and supported.

Finally, members can have their voices heard by voting for candidates in the ongoing NEC elections with a consistent track-record of standing up for trans rights. There are only a few days to get that ballot paper sent back. Please vote for Coalition for Change candidates.

Throughout this year IL and Coalition for Change members of the National Executive Committee opposed the General Secretary’s staffing re-structure, as it poured members money into providing incredibly well remunerated jobs for their loyal factional allies.

The General Secretary, with the support of the National President and LU minority on the NEC ensured it was pushed through without scrutiny or a vote of the NEC.

We claimed at the time, that the creation of a new ‘super grade’ within the union was unnecessary and could not be justified while our lowest paid members receive derisory pay offers and languish on the minimum wage.

We also pointed out that the re-structure would mean that the General Secretary would have provided herself a significant overnight pay-rise, on top of a salary our members could only dream of.

This week the unions 2025 financial report has been published. It demonstrates the impact of the staffing and grading restructure on the salary of the General Secretary.

Below is the comparison between the last 2 years salaries. The lowest spine-point of Band B7, the General Secretaries salary, increased from £78,187 to £90,084 (highlighted). A 13.3% or £11,897 pay rise.

The Assistant General Secretary, John Moloney is the only other Full-time officer on that pay point. However, unlike the General Secretary, John has maintained the principle that elected officials should not gain financially, from members’ subs, on account of gaining office and has therefore consistently only taken the wage of a London EO, paying the rest back each month to PCS..

Members have a right to be angry. This is your money being spent by your union leadership, feathering their own nest. And doing so while so flagrantly ignoring your elected NEC members who have the mandate from you, the members, to prevent this from happening.

There may have been some consolation if the General Secretary and President had achieved a similar pay-rise for our members this year. There may then have been an argument that this was appropriate. But no, as with previous years, we have been imposed with the lowest pay-rise in the public sector, and more and more of our members are on the legal minimum employers can pay.

The only way to curtail the power of the General Secretary and President to prevent such wanton excesses, but to also fight for the interests of our members, is to elect a majority leadership who will do just that. This is why members should ensure they vote for the Coalition for Change candidates when ballots start landing though doors from April 16^th.

We are tired of a union that doesn’t deliver for members. We are sure you are too.

P/S: We are aware that Left Unity have published an article refuting this information. Claiming that the General Secretary is no longer on the B7 rate, but on the same as the people she manages and therefore ‘only'(!) on £82,089.

We don’t accept that the GS is on the same money as those allies she’s given promotions to, but even if we did, it’s still the case that the General Secretary’s salary band maxima has increased by £6k to £113k! This is still an outrageous pay bump, which they are guaranteed to progress to! Why on earth should the General Secretary enrich themselves like this at the expense of the members?