Special NEC to Debate 2025 National Ballot

A special meeting of the National Executive Committee (NEC) is scheduled for Thursday, October 23. We expect a recommendation from the General Secretary against holding a national ballot of UK civil service members.

If that happens, it will be challenged by the Independent Left (IL).  We argue that PCS should re-start preparations for an industrial action owing to the political and economic climate we face. IL recognises though, given the lack of action from Left Unity that there needs to be a proper run up to a ballot. Realistically we think therefore the vote will have to be next year.

Factual Basis for Proposed Ballot

Here are the concrete developments driving our demand for a national ballot in 2026:

•              Government Policy: Labour is committed to implementing cuts to departmental administrative budgets. The government has acknowledged these cuts will result in job losses.

•              Future Political Pressure: Both the Conservative and Reform parties have publicly committed to “massive cuts in civil service numbers,” creating a political climate that could pressure Labour to adopt deeper cuts.

•              No Job Protection: The existing Jobs Protocol redeployment process is “wholly inadequate,” providing no guaranteed protection against compulsory job losses. We need real guarantees around job security.

•              Pay Dispute Justification: The “objective conditions” for a pay ballot are met, as evidenced by:

o             The outcomes of the 2025 pay round which resulted in living standards falling for most members.

o             The high number of members on or near the minimum wage.

o             The continuing gross inequalities in pay systems and terms and conditions across the UK civil service.

Due to the Labour government’s “self-imposed fiscal rules,” talks alone won’t secure an adequate pay award in 2026 or address systemic pay disparities, including the failure to uphold the principle of equal pay for work of equal value across the UK civil service.

Independent Left’s Proposals

We want policy of “aggressive industrial preparation” and will argue:

1.            Immediate Preparation: The union should begin working immediately towards preparing for a national ballot in 2026 of UK civil service members concerning pay terms and conditions, and job security.

2.            NDC Tasking: The National Disputes Committee (NDC) should be formally tasked with planning for this national ballot.

3.            Reporting Deadline: The NDC must present an initial, comprehensive plan for the 2026 ballot to the December NEC meeting for review and approval.

So we are not committing the union to calling strike action immediately; we understand the mood of members and activists, but we have to put in place the machinery for a ballot, and we actually have to campaign around pay, jobs, terms and conditions and national bargaining.

PCS’ Social Media and Persona Non Grata

Those with a keen eye will have noticed a conspicuous absence in PCS’ recent social media postings during the recent TUC Congress that expose an unacceptable and ongoing abuse of the union’s media channels. Whilst PCS officials found time during conference to interview a former Deputy President of PCS, long gone from the civil service, seeking his views on the Employment Rights Bill, the actual Deputy President, Bev Laidlaw, who was also in attendance, was not featured in a single post during conference. The reason for this is not hard to identify; Bev is Independent Left, not Left Unity. This fact alone seems to make her persona non grata in the eyes of those who control PCS’ publicity and media platforms.

This is not just an oversight. It is a repeated, calculated practice. To date, Bev has never once been interviewed or even properly acknowledged on union social media in her role as Deputy President. At the same time, LU-aligned officers and NEC members feature regularly, boosting their profile and boasting of their activities within the union. This amounts to nothing less than factional censorship, using the union’s own media resources to build up one group while erasing the existence of others.

Such behaviour is a betrayal of the membership. Every PCS member pays their subs; every elected officer is chosen by a democratic vote. PCS media is not the private property of one political grouping. It belongs to the whole union. Yet by manipulating coverage LU is treating official channels as a propaganda arm for their slate. This grossly undermines the principles of democracy and transparency on which trade unionism depends.

The consequences of LU’s actions are not minor. When members can see plainly that communications are skewed, trust in PCS leadership is eroded. When the second most senior elected lay officer in the union is deliberately excluded because of her affiliation, it sends a signal: your vote only counts if you support the ruling faction. This is not representation; it is control by omission.

As Orwell warned in 1984, the tactic of making opponents into “unpersons” is a tool of authoritarianism. For PCS to engage in such behaviour is shameful. Our union should be leading by example, modelling fairness, inclusivity, and respect for democracy. Instead, it mirrors the very injustices we are supposed to oppose in the workplace.

This practice must end immediately. PCS communications should serve the whole membership, not the narrow factional interests of those who presently dominate the NEC. To continue down this path is to hollow out democracy itself.

For active, not passive pay meetings

Pay meetings are a powerful opportunity for PCS branches to put union democracy and organising into practice. These sessions should be more than an exercise in top-down, passive reporting—they are a space for real dialogue, decision-making, and mobilisation for winning a fair deal for our members.

Branches do best starting by distributing background information and campaign materials in advance, so the meeting time is focused on open discussion and action. For the best results, avoid spending too long recounting what’s already happened or why the meeting is being held; let members bring their own ideas and priorities to the table.

Meetings work best when everyone feels able to contribute. Borrowing from American union best practice, adopt the norm: “Challenge ideas, not people.” PCS, rightly, is asking branches to invite non-members to the meetings. So encourage not only PCS members, but also non-members and new joiners to speak—this helps ensure meetings are welcoming, and aids recruitment. Certainly at the meeting, any non-members should be asked to join.

Critically, meetings must address the fundamentals: the need for a ballot, readiness for strike action, and transparent planning for collective campaigns. Even if PCS’ leadership is reluctant to discuss these topics, members should insist they are aired; otherwise what’s the point of hold the meeting?

Finally, end every meeting with clear, agreed next steps: forming ballot committees, planning leafleting, organizing solidarity actions, or even practice picketing. Keeping meetings member-driven and outcome-focused is how PCS branches can build the strength needed to secure decent pay for all.

Whether it’s pay, hybrid working or wider political issues, PCS and other unions usually default to a passive top-down mechanism for engaging with members. This isn’t the way things need to happen and it doesn’t reap the best results. We know many branches are already taking the steps laid out in this article, but we hope more will do so. It’s imperative we change our organising mindset if we are going to win as a union.

If you agree, please consider joining the PCS Independent Left.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Activists’ Forum

We’re meant to be organising for a ballot right now. But Left Unity doesn’t want to.

The pay remit was announced in May, as ADC was closing, another real-terms kick in the teeth of 3.25%. At Conference, motion A383, supported by the IL and its (then incumbent) NEC members was passed. This acknowledged that the pay remit was likely to be crap, set out a model claim/list of demands to aim for, and instructed the NEC to engage with members immediately to “re-win” support for our key demands and prepare for a ballot by mid-September if there was not satisfactory progress made to meeting our demands. 

Have you heard from the NEC about the national campaign since May? No, me neither, unless you count the General Secretary telling delegated negotiators to go and get what they could, without any meaningful support or guidance.

At the 23/24 July meeting of the NEC, something (at least), seems to have happened. White smoke emerged Falcon Road: the NEC, divinely instructed by Fran, were beginning the national campaign in earnest, ‘a comprehensive ballot-ready strategy to be put in place over the summer’. 

On 11 August a branch briefing relating the proceedings of the NEC was released and telling us that we would be treated to NEC speakers at members’ meetings (that we were to arrange), and that there would be two installments of an “activists’ forum” (find someone who looks at you like Left Unity look at a vaguely named meeting with no democratic locus, etc. etc.) on 19 August. This is all quite late in the summer, particularly given that we are meant to be balloting in one form or another in a month. 

What follows below are my reflections, as an activist of over a decade’s standing, a current branch secretary, and a former member of the NEC, of the afternoon edition of the the activists’ forum. To summarise – it was very disappointing and confirmed to me that Left Unity are not serious about balloting.

The meeting began with Fran speaking (as is her wont in such ‘consultative’ fora) for about 30 minutes (half the allotted time). She detailed motions A383 and A2’s demands, her talks with the Cabinet Office, our academic research and the fiscal as well as moral case for pay restoration, and detailed some of the pay settlements which delegated bargainers have achieved.  Effectively this section of the meeting was a dramatic reading of the 11 August branch bulletin on the subject (BB-29-25).

Fran also talked about ballot-readiness. The meeting was all about, she said, getting activists’ opinions on whether their branches and groups were ready for a ballot, although there was no way to indicate other than by asking a question. She touted the ballot ready schools that activists were encouraged to attend, with a week’s notice, in the middle of the summer holiday. But she cautioned that the NEC were unsure of the ballot-readiness of the union for September. I’m sure if you ask Left Unity, this state of affairs is the fault of the activists, and of their political opponents.

Then we moved on to questions. Several people raised the functionalities lacking in PCS Digital around contacting their members – the same old answers about ‘data protection’ and vague promises of a solution were provided by the national President, Martin Cavanagh. 

There were a fair few comments about how there’d been very little communication about the campaign until now, and why we were holding these fora and the strikes schools in the same week in the middle of the summer holidays, at 7 days’ notice. In response to this, Fran seemingly blamed A383 for setting an unrealistic time scale, while Martin noted that the overlap of the Scottish and English summer school holidays means that there about 9 weeks of comparative quiet. You’ve had since May, comrades! 

One activist asked why we had entered delegated negotiations when we were also saying the remit was crap. The General Secretary said it was necessary to prevent other civil service unions grabbing up cash at PCS members’ expense. If meetings such as these were not designed to ensure that the General Secretary and President always get the last word, by prohibiting meaningful dialogue, someone might have pointed out that if Left Unity had not presided over a precipitous decline of PCS’ density and bargaining power, we could prevent delegated negotiations from going ahead without us by threatening industrial action.

An activist in DWP made the point that AA/AOs can’t take national action cos they’re paid so little, and requested targeted action be utilised instead. in the case of successful ballot. To this, Martin seemed to suggest it was too expensive to have targeted action in DWP. Perhaps he should have allowed one of the IL’s many motions to the 2024/25 NEC about building a sustainable fighting fund to be heard… 

Constructive answers were not forthcoming. “How will we contact members?”, someone asked – you’ll have to go to a different meeting about that, or talk to your as yet assigned dedicated ballot FTO, came the answer. We closed with Fran admonishing us for the low attendance, and instructing us to engage our members more.

It was a very boring and disheartening way to spend my lunch break, if I’m honest. It felt as if nothing had been done to organise or agitate since ADC. Seeing the pictures of the General Secretary, President, NEC members and senior FTOs (who are mostly Left Unity members) living it up at the Big Meeting, the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival and the other big events of the labour aristocracy’s summer calendar, I wondered how much actual work they’d been doing. Not much, on this evidence. 

I could not help but think throughout that the subtext of all of this is that quite soon the NEC will conclude that we are not ballot-ready. And this will precipitate no reflection on their part, because they don’t want to have a ballot.

A Ballot Ready NEC?

Left Unity (LU) does not want a strike ballot over pay and other critical issues. 

Their reluctance comes from: 

•    low union density (the proportion of members to non members), making collective action less effective. They believe the union is weak.
•    LU is intent on keeping good relations with the Labour Party, fearing that a ballot or strike might strain those ties, and their hitherto ineffectual national talks. (Labour Ministers are well aware of the huge gap between the General Secretary’s bombastic claim that she would hold their feet to the flame and the total absence of national campaigning since they entered Government last year).
•    They prefer a quiet life presiding over weakness than the busy and stressful life that is required to turn the union around and fight for improved terms and conditions.

LU’s mindset means that it responds negatively and with hostility to members and activists who push for more union ambition, a meaningful bargaining agenda, and for stronger action. Rather than engaging with members and activists, seriously challenging, for example, the lack of progression pay, they are wholly focused on maintaining internal control of PCS and preventing rivals from gaining influence. In the process they abuse the structures of PCS.

Whatever criticisms one might make of the British Medical Association’s leadership, the current contrast between that union and PCS is stark. 

They have a long term agenda, most notably restoration of the value of their pay; activists won that agenda and the leadership have repeatedly called action on that basis (delivering the highest pay awards in the public sector), having carefully explained the reasoning and need for restoration to members; membership has risen as a result. Doctors know that the BMA is serious about the demands.  

Government has been repeatedly told that the BMA needs clear proposals for rebuilding resident (formerly “junior”) doctors’ pay – not necessarily in a single year but delivering on the demand. In face of foot dragging by the Tory and now the Labour government the BMA shows a willingness to fight, they have a campaign plan, and they are always looking to build their membership.

PCS’ “left wing” leadership, however, projects a different image. ‘We implore the government to review the roadmap and work constructively with trade unions’ so says the President after the announcement that many of the provisions of the Employment Bill won’t be enacted until late 2026, early 2027. Yet he doesn’t have a concrete plan for what the union will do if ministers refuse to budge. This is not only around the Employment Bill but in fact on all things. PCS tends to beg, not fight. This gives the public impression of a union acting more as a humble petitioner than as a force ready to confront power. 

The General Secretary writes ‘“… government hostility to public service workers have made it clear that we can’t rely on employers or ministers to do the right thing …. It’s only through collective strength that we can shift the balance of power.” So, if the Government is hostile, how does our LU General Secretary plan to deploy our collective strength? She promised to hold their feet to the flame, how and when does she plan to do so? 

Not a word from her or the President or the LU NEC majority on such matters. LU hopes by playing nice this hostile government will give us concessions, and we will not have to use our collective strength. The results of their approach is obvious: members heading for standstill or below inflation pay awards; no pay progression; no return to national civil service rates of pay; no pay restoration; insistence on office attendance; job loss. If we want to make a difference as a Union we have to have the confidence to act like one. 

PCS is a minority union in most workplaces. More members would indeed bring more negotiating leverage. An ambitious recruitment plan to bring in tens of thousands more members, backed by real resources, will boost our ability to impose accountability on ministers and employers.

The NEC has supposedly adopted a “ballot-ready” strategy – after wasting all of June and July – and arranged members’ meetings. But months of inactivity mean members approach these meetings unprepared, with no strike plan to consider, and little momentum to carry forward. LU are secretly hoping to blame members and so avoid holding the ballot  mandated by the 2025 PCS conference.

Where is the National Campaign?

PCS is at a cross roads. For months, Left Unity (LU) has done nothing to build amongst members for action on pay, jobs and working flexibility, and have only yesterday, belatedly, announced an activists forum (August 19th) to discuss the issue with members.

Motions carried at conference called for a ballot to be held by mid-September, why have they silent on the campaign since conference? There is a real risk we won’t hold a ballot at all, sending all the wrong signals to the Labour government, and to our own members about the strength and seriousness of PCS. 

LU’s message of weakness is not simply about 2025/26. PCS has to have a meaningful bargaining agenda for longer term pay reform, addressing all the structural problems in civil service pay: wild variations in pay between the same grades in different departments and agencies; lack of progression pay arrangements; members trapped on the minimum wage; different grades of members being paid at the same rate of pay because they are all on the minimum wage; a lack of meaningful national negotiations over specialist members who are treated as a singleton specialism but within the delegated bargaining structure that breaks the civil service up in to a huge number of different pay systems.

Time for a serious plan

So, despite the LU leadership, what would “getting serious” actually look like?

First, it’s time for an all-hands-on-deck approach. Every full-time organiser and full time official needs to make the ballot their priority, putting aside non-essential work for now. At branch, town, and regional committee level, we should be calling urgent meetings and launching member discussions about the ballot. This can’t be business as usual anymore—everyone in the union needs to shift gears so we’re focused and ready to win.

But mobilisation isn’t just about what happens at the top. Communications need to be powered by activists and rooted in real-life experiences. HQ can’t reach everyone, and—let’s face it—mass emails from the centre are no substitute for a message from someone you actually know and trust. That’s why activists should be encouraged not only to draft their own messages, but to send them out, speaking in the language and style that members respond to. Local voices must take the lead. That’s how we build momentum and trust.

Of course, even the best-organised ballot is hampered by our low union density. We can’t shy away from recruitment—we have to bring more people into the union, quickly. That means inviting all staff—not just existing members—to meetings. Our message, our campaign, and our events should speak to everyone, showing them why joining PCS strengthens all of us. To build the power we need, every new recruit counts.

It’s also time to be honest about our demands. The current set simply isn’t connecting with enough members. We’re hearing that what really matters along with pay is meaningful progression, equal pay, the right to flexible and hybrid working, and a four-day week – let’s not forget: LU originally opposed the four-day week – now it’s clear we need demands that actually resonate with people’s real, everyday concerns. Consulting activists and using relatable, straightforward language will help us build a platform everyone can rally behind.

Above all, the strength of our union comes from the bottom up. Regional and town committees—along with branches—should be taking the reins on local ballot work, empowered with real resource and decision-making capacity. National leadership must support that by channelling power down, not hoarding it. Campaigns fuelled by members and activists at every level are the ones that win.

Yes, the hill we’re climbing is steeper because of past delays, but that doesn’t mean we can’t reach the top. If we keep our focus clear, act collectively, and trust in the power of our activists and members, we can still build a campaign that makes PCS a union everyone wants to join—and a force the government can’t ignore.

Let’s shift gears together and launch the campaign our members need and deserve.