The Bank of England has now announced its 13th raise in interest rates, pushing them up to 5%, with many forecasters predicting that they will further increase rates to 6%. This will increase mortgage repayments and lead to increased rents. In other words, most of us will be even worse-off.

A few days ago, the Office of National Statistics announced that inflation was still running at 8.7%.

The increase in the price of staple goods is much higher.

The Guardian has usefully set out the percentage changes in the average price over the 12 months to May for the following:

• Sugar 49.8%
• Eggs 28.8%
• Low-fat milk 28.5%
• Pasta products and couscous 28.5%
• Flours and other cereals 23.6%
• Ready-made meals 16.8%
• Fish 16.6%
• Bread 15.3%
• Butter 14.1%
• Tea 14.6%
• Coffee 11.6%
• Gas 36.2%
• Electricity 17.3%

It’s against this context of increasing prices that we have to evaluate the government’s announcements on pay to civil servants. Those were ‘departments are able to make average pay awards up to 4.5%’ and ‘departments have flexibility to make awards up to an additional 0.5%, to be targeted at lower pay bands.’ – direct quotes from the 2023/24 Pay remit guidance.

Then there is the one-off payment of £1,500.

The Addendum to the pay remit says of this:

In addition to this, for 2023/24, departments…..have flexibility to make a fixed non-consolidated [gross] payment of £1,500 per full-time employee for those in delegated grades, subject to eligibility.

Currently departments are taking, what is obviously the plain meaning of the phrase ‘payment of £1,500 per full-time employee’ as being that part timers will get the £1,500 as a prorated payment. Given that the great bulk of part-time workers are women, we are facing blatant and obvious sex discrimination.

Remember, the £1,500 is being billed  as “recognition of the pressures” faced by staff in 2022-23. The cost of living crisis is, and was, no less for those working part-time. Therefore the sex discrimination is compounded.

So how did we end up here?

We now move into the realm of speculation – PCS is not a transparent organisation. We understand though that Mark Serwotka had direct, secret talks with the Cabinet Office and from these emerged the £1,500 which was just announced to members.

Normally negotiators go back to the relevant committee – the Senior elected officers at a minimum – and get a sense check as to whether what is being proposed is on the right track, but to also to look for pitfalls. In this case, the pro-rating for part-time staff, the deduction from UC payments, student loans etc.

We can assume this did not happen, although Mark Serwotka could publish to members a timeline of what happened, when and with whom to set the record straight. He won’t, because it didn’t.

We believe the leadership were either so anxious to get something, or our negotiators were not sufficiently experienced enough, that they didn’t do the necessary due-diligence to look at what was being given and make the appropriate challenge. They didn’t even do a basic equality impact assessment.

“The best concessions in the history of the union“

Despite all this, the union leadership continue to state that the £1500 it is a historic achievement. Think about that. What does it say about our union and it’s leadership over the last 23 years, that this is the pinnacle of its achievement?

The unions leadership is not trying to pretend that the pay award and the £1,500 is sufficient or indeed good, in but they are now moving into project Fear mode and seeking to scare members into calling off the dispute. That will be for an article for another day.

What next?

The ever worsening financial situation for our members means we cannot afford to settle for the current concessions. PCS Independent Left supports the PCSsayNo campaign, a collection of branches who’s members are saying they want the dispute to continue. We encourage members and branches to support the campaign and follow them on twitter.