John Moloney, our candidate in the upcoming election Assistant General Secretary (AGS) speaks about the campaign…
Q) All the declared candidates so far present themselves as on the left, socialist, militant, etc. Why are you standing, and what′s distinct about your campaign?
A) I want to stand to ensure a proper contest. The declared candidates so far are on the left, but the only argument between them is who will be the [official] left candidate. They′re not looking for an election, but for a coronation of a particular person.
The main distinction between me and them is that all the declared candidates are full-time officials of the union; I′m the only rank-and-file member of the union standing. I′m also by far the poorest paid individual standing. The AGS, and the General Secretary, should be on a workers′ wage. My pledge is that I will take no more than the salary of an Executive Officer [the entry-level grade] in the DWP in London. That means pay awards will actually mean something to me if I′m elected, they won′t be an academic exercise.
It′s vitally important that the AGS should be a rank-and-file activist in the union, someone who actually knows what it′s like on the ground, and someone who has an organic link with the members and knows what it is to struggle
Q) The general impression of PCS in the wider labour movement, and certainly in terms of its self-presentation, is that it′s a left-wing, fighting union. Does that reflect reality?
A) PCS is a normal, top-down, TUC-affiliated union. The general secretary and the AGS are the only officials who are elected; other full-time officials are not. The officials are a bureaucratic caste within the union with which lay reps have to plead for resources, have to persuade to take legal cases, have to persuade to take action. The union′s rhetoric has a left tinge, but if you drill down, many unions are more democratic. The RMT has more democracy, the postal workers′ union has more democracy… in the postal workers′ union, for example, as I understand it, branches are allowed to initiate industrial action without permission from the national union. We don′t allow that; the national union rigidly controls who can take industrial action. There′s a body called the National Disputes Committee, to which people have to plead to be allowed to ballot for strikes.
To give one example of how bureaucratic the union is, some years ago a group of members in my section of the union applied to be able to ballot for strikes; that request was knocked back because we apparently wrote it on the wrong form. No-one in the national leadership said, ″no, that′s a disgrace, the most important thing is that you want to go on strike″… people were more interested in the bureaucratic procedures of the committee.
So no, we′re not different, we′re just a normal union. Every now and then there′s a rhetorical flourish, but beneath that, we′re a typical union.
Q) As union full-timers, your opponents talk about their strengths as negotiators. What successes for members do you have?
A) I′m more than happy to put my record as a negotiator up against those of my opponents.
It′s important to say, though, that whenever I′ve been involved in negotiating successes, it′s been as part of a collective effort. There′s nobody in the union who has single-handedly negotiated a great deal, without membership backing or legal backing. So asking, ″are you a great negotiator?″ is almost a false premise.
In situations where I have been in negotiations, I was part of the team that negotiated the first contractual staff handbook in the whole of the civil service, which has meant that management can′t arbitrarily change our terms and conditions. This has stood us in fantastic stead. Whereas the rest of the civil service suffered the debacle of [the end of] check-off [a mechanism by which an employer allows a union to deduct membership fees direct from salaries], where departments told the union, ″we′re ending check-off, we don′t care if you go bankrupt″, in our department, and another department with the same contractual arrangements, the management couldn′t change our check-off arrangements. If we had had those arrangements across the whole of the civil service, we could′ve prevented the end of check-off.
More specifically, I helped win improvements around the sick trigger point. This is the cut-off point beyond which you can potentially be disciplined for sickness absence. The vast bulk of the civil service has a sick trigger point of eight days, or three occasions of sickness. Our management tried to change our sick trigger point, and we launched a campaign which included a legal challenge, which we won. They appealed the decision, and lost, meaning we′re the only area in the whole civil service where management can never change our sick trigger point, because they′ve exhausted the entire legal process in this country.
Those are the sorts of things I′ve negotiated, as well as progression pay, when few people had progression pay, and 30 days′ annual leave, which few people initially had. So, again, I′m more than happy to talk in terms of my record as a negotiator, but in terms of the crisis PCS faces, this misses the point. We can have good negotiators, we can train good negotiators, but what we actually need is an active membership, to ensure we have some strength in negotiations. Fundamentally we need members!
That′s another difference in this election. I recognise that PCS is in a terminal crisis. It cannot be business as usual. It can′t be a matter of electing someone who says we′ll just do the same things we′ve done before. I recognise we′ve got real problems, none of my opponents do. If we can face up to those problems – political, organisational – then when we negotiate it will be with an engaged membership which can force the employer to make concessions, rather than presupposing that someone very smart can sit down and find a cunning way to get round a powerful employer.
Q) The PCS NEC has announced pay demands of 8% or 10% in its national pay campaign. Do you support this?
A) The main issue for civil servants, in my view, is equality. Equality of pay, and equality of process. We have a situation now where men and women across different departments are paid differently. The union′s main demand should be equalisation of pay across the civil service and associated industries.
Our procedures are riddled with racism, sexism, and other biases. We should tackle that head on. Yes, 8 or 10% for the highest paid, that′s great as an aim. But the main thing should be a fight for equality in the pay system, and for equality of treatment across all the terms and conditions we have.
Q) How can the PCS′s prospective national pay ballot be won?
A) At last year′s conference, we all knew we′d be having a ballot this year, but we as a union haven′t been working since then, so we′re now doing preparatory work we should′ve done much earlier.
There needs to be an insistent campaign of propaganda amongst members. We should′ve been doing that from last May. My conception of a pay campaign is around equality, with propaganda that highlights the inequalities within the civil service. That could be a vital motivator of members.
Our key task is to propagandise amongst our members. It′s vitally important we mobilise the rank-and-file. The union must find every means possible to give power and impetus to the rank-and-file. The union must also seriously take on the employer directly in the workplace itself. What we have at the moment is a shutdown on freedom of speech and freedom of association in the workplace. We′re effectively banned from going around talking to members. We have to challenge that head on – legally, politically, but also industrially.
Q) In your union and throughout the labour movement, members are often excluded from union negotatons due to secretive embargo agreements and a generally bureaucratic, behind-closed-doors approach to negotiation. What would you do, if elected, to more directly involve the union rank-and-file in the process of negotiation?
A) Negotiations should be open. While we probably can′t go as far as Solidarnosc and do live broadcasts of negotiations to mass meetings of members, partly because many people would be bored to death by it, we should clearly refuse confidentiality agreements. We should be open with members and tell members what′s happening in negotiations. I′m totally opposed to secret negotiations, we should be as open as possible.
The bulk of all negotiating teams should be lay reps and officials. Full-time officials should be there, but to help make the tea, go out and get legal advice, or whatever. They should be auxillary to the main people, who should be the rank-and-file members.
Q) Brexit is the biggest political issue of the moment. How will that issue feature in your campaign platform, and what are your views specifically around questions of migrants′ rights and freedom of movement?
A) I′m pro-Remain, and believe there should be another referendum. I′m for freedom of movement. I do not accept the argument that workers coming into this country depress wages; the people who depress wages are employers. We should say that straightforwardly.
Both my parents are immigrants, who came to this country for economic reasons. I therefore couldn′t sign up to policies that would′ve meant my parents would never have come to this country. I′m for every EU citizen having the right to work for the civil service, and I′m for new migrants coming into this country having the right to join the civil service. I don′t want a closed-off civil service, I want anybody being able to join the civil service who can meet the necessary qualifications.
I also want a different kind of Europe. Instead of the Europe we have now, dominated by big corporations, I want a Europe of a united working class. That′s the kind of Europe we should be going for. In the here-and-now, our key task is to defeat Brexit.
Q) The broad left bloc in PCS has won every national election for 15 years. How come there’s so little to show for well over a decade of supposedly radical left leadership, in terms of the growth of workers′ power and a more democratic union, and what would you do differently?
A) The broad left bloc has won elections, they′re a very effective electoral machine, but all that′s meant is that good activists have become full-time officials. The would-be left in the union has become a conveyor belt for full-time officials. People have become very well-paid in cushy jobs. Left Unity [the dominant left-wing bloc in the union, historically led by the Socialist Party] has solved the pay problems of people who were activists in the past by getting them jobs as full-time officials. It′s become a career mechanism.
There was never an attempt by the left leadership to change union culture. When Left Unity got a majority on the NEC, [activists in what would become Independent Left] starting proposing motions for full-time officers to be on, not even a workers′ wage, but merely a wage closer to the average wage of members. Left Unity and the Socialist Party vehemently opposed that. They never wanted to change the culture; they were content with a top-down, TUC culture. They were the people who became the full-time officials and enriched themselves. They didn′t want to change things because that would′ve meant adversely affecting their own material circumstances.
If I′m elected, that won′t change things dramatically by itself. The AGS is just one person. One person trying to overturn a bureaucracy isn′t going to help. I urge people to vote for my comrades standing for the National Executive Committee as part of the Independent Left slate, but even if we had a majority, that wouldn′t be enough. This is a long-term struggle to turn the union around.
One person isn′t going to change much, but one person can help. One person can report back to members what′s happening, and be a voice for alternative strategies. You can say to members, ″this is what′s happening, this is why you should mobilise.″
If we engage enough members in the project of transforming the union, I believe we can change it from what it is currently – a top-down, typical TUC-affiliated union – into what I believe a trade union should be, a class-struggle union.
Q) The campaigns for living wages by cleaners and other outsourced workers at the Ministry of Justice, where the workers are organised by the United Voices of the World union, and at the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, where the workers are in PCS, have rightly garnered a lot of attention. How can PCS engage with these disputes, and help to build and spread them? What can PCS do to organise and empower outsourced workers in the civil service?
A) PCS needs to make a fundamental decision about whether we′re serious about organising outsourced workers. On the whole, we don′t, at all. That′s why United Voices of the World have been so successful, because they′ve effectively moved into a vacuum.
My branch, and others in the Independent Left, have advocated for many years that where PCS will not organise outsourced workers, we should work with other unions who will.
We should link up with as many other unions organising outsourced workers as possible to organise not only in individual workplaces, but across whole companies. Hopefully the workers at MoJ and BEIS will win, but that′s a win on a single contract. Of course, they shouldn′t be outsourced at all, so the long-term political aim is to get the work back in house. But while they are outsourced, unions′ aim should be to organise entire companies.
Q) PCS has been losing members over the past few years; partially that′s down to job cuts, but presumably not exclusively. Density has reached all-time lows in some big government departments. Why is this, and how can that trend be reversed?
A) Ending check-off is a cause. This was a political attack by the Tories on the union, aimed to bankrupt us. It hasn′t been successful in that regard but it has had some success in reducing membership numbers. The attack on facility time for reps also has an impact on organisation.
The employer generally tries to curtail, and in some cases literally bans, freedom of association and expression in the workplace. The union has rarely tackled that head on, and we must do if we′re going to rebuild membership and organisation.
The people who try to organise are good people, but we′re operating on a failed model. We identify an area, recruit one or two people, then withdraw resources and hope the organisation survives. We need to take a fundamental look at the workplace and rebuild, workplace by workplace, rather than trying to cash in from blitzes.
I look to models such as that of the Chicago Teachers′ Union, who have organised themselves to overcome huge strike ballot thresholds. They built school by school, with a systematic effort to win activists, propagandising for certain things. Sheer hard work. We do have organisers working hard, but the work is not focused and it′s not uniform. We have to win an activist at a time, then a workplace at a time, and build from the bottom up.
Q) The union has in the past supported pay deals which have sold terms and conditions for salary increases, for example in the DWP. What do you think of these kinds of deals?
A) The DWP deal was atrocious. The lowest paid members would′ve gotten those pay increases anyway, as standard increases to the government′s so-called ″National Living Wage″ would′ve guaranteed that. In effect we′ve generated a two-tier workforce, with the ″lower tier″ mainly being women workers, many of whom couldn′t give up the flexibilities without impinging on caring responsibilities.
We are a union that bargains within the capitalist system, we are going to make concessions when we have to. But our tasks is to make the minimum concessions possible while winning gains through the action of an engaged membership. My model is to put ambitious demands that try to advance terms and conditions, rather than accepting the status quo as all we can get.
We should be serious about demands for a shorter working week, a 35, 33, or 32-hour week. As artificial intelligence and automated systems come in, we should say to the employer, ″you′ve got these systems in place that reduce working time, we want to enjoy the benefit of that by having the same, or increased, pay but having reduced hours.″
The Independent Left proposes these demands are things the union should be fighting for, and we genuinely mean it. Not only the shorter working week, but also a reduced pension age. We′ve gone backwards in the civil service, with a general pension age of 67. I want to bring it down to 60, and then to 55 and even to 50.
Q) How should PCS, and trade unions in general, relate to the Labour Party?
A) I think that PCS should affiliate to the Labour Party. I understand that′s going to be a difficult argument for some members; some members genuinely believe we should be a non-political union. But I believe that history has shown us that, with an explicitly political employer, we have to be political as well.
I′ve been a longstanding member of the Labour Party, since long before it was fashionable! I′ve stuck it out because I′ve always seen the vital necessity of the organic link between the Labour Party and the unions. In the current era, I believe every union should affiliate to Labour. Partly that′s to have an organised voice in politics, but also to defend the gains made inside the Labour Party and to make them permanent.
Jeremy Corbyn is just one person. We have to ensure that whoever comes next has the same or better politics.
Q) We have a real prospect now for a left-led Labour government. What policies would you want to see Labour implement to benefit workers in the civil service, and the working class generally?
A) We as a union should say to a Corbyn government, ″you may be our friends, but if you don′t deliver, we′re going to put pressure on you, and if necessary strike against you.″ The immediate thing I want Labour to legislate for is equality.
There′s tremendous pay inequality on gender terms, there′s mistreatment of BAME workers within performance and disciplinary systems. There′s mistreatment of disabled workers. So I′d want to see a Labour government ensure real equality within the civil service.
Clearly that has to be part of a wider package of positive rights for workers: the ability for unions to recruit and organise, a positive right to strike without having to go through the statutory ballots we have now, rights to time off, rights to organise in the workplace, genuine freedom of association.
The wider trade union movement must be arguing for a fundamental reshaping of the relationship between the employer and the worker, and legislate to put as much of the balance of power as is possible within a capitalist society on the side of the workers, rather than the policies of the last 30 or more years which have massively shifted the balance of power towards an already powerful boss.
Q) Despite the Corbyn surge inside the Labour Party, there′s been no equivalent in the unions. In fact things have gone the other way, with union membership stagnating or falling, and strikes at their lowest ever level. Why is that, and how can it be turned around?
A) The Labour Party should be educating its members and saying they should all be trade unionists. The Labour Party should be mobilising its own members in support of the unions, but also saying to unions that they have to mobilise their own troops in real campaigns that people can relate to – around outsourced workers, around workers in the so-called ″gig economy″, campaigns that can make trade unions relevant.
A Labour goverment will improve things tremendously, as such a government could legislate in favour of workers′ and unions′ rights, but the trade union movement has to pull itself up by the bootstraps and say yes, we are in a crisis, we can′t continue as we are. The fundamental relook that I think we need in PCS has to be carried out across the whole trade union movement.
Q) We′ve seen a resurgence of the far right, including attacks by fascists on picket lines. What can organised labour do to counter the rise of the far right?
A) This is taking place within the context of Brexit, which is a nationalist, xenophobic, and, for some, completely racist project. We could have predicted that as we prepared for Brexit, the far right would be emboldened, and clearly they are.
The trade union movement has to mobilise itself. We have to defend picket lines, and be prepared to confront the far right, including physically were necessary. Where the far right march, we have to march in greater numbers. We have to take on their arguments amongst union members and in wider society. We have to make the arguments inside the Labour Party about why it should oppose the far right, not only in Parliament but on the streets.
This year, PCS will re-elect its Assistant General Secretary. John Moloney is standing for the position.
John is standing on the following platform:
- A workers-wage. If elected he will take no more than the DWP EO London (Around 29k), not the full £85k taken by Baugh since 2004, or indeed Serwotka. Employed Union Full-timers should be elected and on a wage much closer to the average wage of the members
- A genuine return to national pay bargaining. An end to bargaining units across government where employers can engage in a race to the bottom on terms and conditions. John will push for real national pay bargaining and a levelling-up of all grades to the highest in government and would reject the selling of Terms and Conditions for pay as has happened with the divisive Employee Deal in DWP.
- A serious strategy to win the pay ballot: Announce our intention to members early, commit organisers where we’re weakest and be open with members about what’s needed to win. Co-opting proven layorganisers to PCS for the duration of the ballot, maximising social-media and most importantly face-toface, shop-floor contact with members. Trusting our branches with members’ personal contact details.
- Strengthen the confidence of the Rank-and-File: To rebuild PCS we need to organise, support and allow members locally to take action on issues. Historic low rates of membership in key departments can only be reversed by building confidence in member’s ability to fight and win battles locally as well as nationally. John will support any group of members who wish to take action to defend their interests – not bureaucratically block such action as the DWP group did with the North West Contact Centres.
- Not an inch on Compulsory redundancies: An injury to one is an injury to all is not just a pretty slogan. Any compulsory redundancies, such as those faced through office closure programmes should be met by a cross-government ballot of all members. John would put the Cabinet Office on notice.
- For a re-orientation to rank-and-file organising: We need to re-engage members, including the 90%+ who don’t vote in national elections. For complete transparency and membership involvement in all negotiations. John will work to end secretive ‘embargo’ agreements. We elect representatives, not leaders.
- A serious industrial and political strategy: It’s not all about a catch-all ‘national campaign’. More focus on service and workplace campaigns and disputes. E.G extend the HMRC cleaners campaign unionwide, channel the anger among telephony and processing members in DWP into a wider dispute.
- Equality and anti-fascism at the centre: There is a rise of the far right across the world and the UK is no exception. PCS needs to prioritise the defence of our members against this threat.
- No deal made with employers should increase inequality among our members such as the DWP Employee Deal or the 2005 pensions agreement which sold-out our newer younger members, dumping them with worse pensions.
The national leadership of PCS has been dominated for some fifteen years by the same group of people and it has been fifteen years of unimaginative failure in terms of delivery for members.
Members and activists desperately need to start changing that leadership and the 2019 AGS gives us a great opportunity to do so.
While John cannot change the situation in PCS by himself, his election is a necessary step along with IL candidates for the NEC.
If you agree with the above, nominate John Moloney for Assistant General Secretary and PCS Independent Left candidates for the National Executive Committee at your branch Annual General Meeting.
AGS: John Moloney. President: Bev Laidlaw, DWP
Vice-Presidents: Bryan Carlsen, HSE. Phil Dickens, HMRC. Chris Marks, DWP. Paulette Romain, MHCLG.
NEC: Tom Bishell, DWP. Bryan Carlsen, HSE. Ralph Corrigan, PSg. Phil Dickens, R&C. Chris Hickey, MHCLG. Karen Johnson, MHCLG. Bev Laidlaw, DWP. Charlie McDonald, DWP. Chris Marks, DWP. John Moloney, DfT. Paulette Romain, MHCLG. Leon Searle, DWP
As PCS representatives we know PCS can do better!
Download our leaflet here for full list and share with friends, colleagues and fellow PCS members.
The PCS National Executive Committee are currently running a consultation on the pay campaign. You can respond to it online here, and all PCS members are urged to do so. This will, at least on paper, shape what happens next when the NEC “push the button” on the campaign when they meet on 5 February.
However, in recent days the union has also released a survey. Where the consultation contains open questions, this contains two closed questions: whether you agree with the pay claim and whether you would vote for industrial action in a ballot. This may be useful in terms of testing the mood for action, but how can members say whether they agree with the pay claim when that claim is still under consultation? Both Phil Dickens, the Independent Left member on the NEC, and the Branch Executive Committee of PCS Bootle Taxes have argued for a more ambitious and comprehensive claim than the “8-10%” suggested in the consultation. Will such views actually be taken into account?
If there’s doubt on that question, they are compounded by a recent article from “Socialist View,” the faction-within-a-faction which wants to purge Left Unity of any perceived disloyalty to Mark Serwotka. Dealing with the question of aggregated or disaggregated ballots rather than the pay claim, it nonetheless seeks to turn an open tactical question on a consultation into an existential one wherein the very future of the union is under threat.
They write: “This unnecessary distraction is in our view undermining our efforts to deliver on our national pay campaign, with time that should be spent on building our engagement with the wider membership and improving our organising capacity, being used to debate a failed strategy.” And: “Socialist View call on all members of Left Unity, and indeed Independent Left, to pull back from pursuing this strategy and unite to deliver a successful ballot result.”
Two questions arise from this.
First, should we not be able to deliver our pay campaign organising whilst discussing these matters? We don’t know about Socialist View or Left Unity as a whole, but the Independent Left can walk and chew gum at the same time. It was our understanding that the work necessary to deliver the ballot should already be underway, and if we don’t have a leadership that can organise whilst having these tactical discussions, then we need one that can.
Second, if even discussing this puts the campaign at risk, why did you open the consultation in the first place?
It’s fortunate that most of the internal bickering in Left Unity has little exposure (and less relevance) to members. Far from “defending” the national pay campaign, this kind of cheap aggression is an utter embarrassment for our union.
This year, PCS will re-elect its Assistant General Secretary. John Moloney is standing for the position.
John is a member of PCS Independent Left and a well-respected activist in the DfT. If elected, John has pledged to take the salary of an EO in the DWP rather than the £90k+ the post currently pays, as he believes workers’ representatives should be on a worker’s wage.
If elected, John will fight for:
• National pay: that those on the same grade should have the same pay, instead of the current cross-departmental inequality.
• Rank-and-file control: the union should support all groups of workers willing to take action, not offer barriers to them doing so.
• Accountable full time officials: all full time officials for the union should be elected by and answer to the members, not to any internal staff hierarchy.
• Organising all government workers: PCS should take the lead from unions like United Voices of the World and our own activists in BEIS, the Culture Sector and HMRC Bootle to fight privatisation by helping outsourced workers fight for a living wage and conditions in line with civil servants.
If you agree with the above, nominate John Moloney for Assistant General Secretary and PCS Independent Left candidates for the National Executive Committee at your branch Annual General Meeting.
Click here for video statement from John and our full slate for the NEC.
Last Saturday (5 January), fascists masquerading as the British version of the French gilets jaunes (yellow vests) movement, staged a protest in Manchester. It was poorly attended, overall, but the numbers were enough for them to stop and harass a picket line of RMT members at Victoria station. This reinforces the point that the far-right is the enemy of the organised working class. It also underlined the need for a serious working class self-defence against fascism.
It has been heartening to see the mass outpouring of solidarity with the RMT and the commitment of other unions, activist groups and local Labour Party branches to swell the numbers on their pickets. Aside from the broader principle that the working class should support our own in struggle against the bosses, it is also true that fascist aggression should be directly confronted.
There has, this past year, been a renewed debate on the left about what form our anti-fascist activism should take. The position of the PCS Independent Left is that we should face the far-right head on – our mobilisations aimed at halting their marches, drowning out their voices, defending those they would seek to physically attack. We also believe that opposition to fascism should be organised on a class basis: led by organised workers including the trade unions, and not attempting to build phoney “unity” with others who, whilst not fascists, attack the working class in other ways such as through cutting jobs and rolling back hard won rights.
Various dedicated anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations exist, such as the Anti Fascist Network, Stand Up To Racism, Hope not Hate, etc. Within and between those groups, there are political differences about how fascism and racism should be tackled, as well as legitimate criticisms of the behaviour of some of them and of the parties behind them. We believe that such positions should be addressed robustly and honestly, whilst not resorting to simple sectarianism. We also don’t believe that the trade unions should seek simply to outsource our anti-fascist work to such organisations.
It is past time that we saw the growth of a mass anti-fascist movement led directly by organised workers. A movement that is able to confront the far right both physically and ideologically.
When fascists are on the march, we should seek to block them and shut them down. When they attack our meetings and our picket lines, our events should be stewarded in such a way that they are heavily defended. And when their propaganda spreads, we should be actively inoculating the working class through education and organisation.
Fascists latch on to the fears and insecurities of those who feel abandoned in order to turn them towards racism and hate. It is a movement built on hate which sees the organised working class as its enemy. A confident and well organised workers’ movement should be able to repel the threat they present and offer up a militant, progressive, solidarity-conscious alternative.