Doesn’t The DWP Ballot Mean That Left Unity Isn’t As Bad As You Claim? No.
We’re tempted to leave it at that, but no doubt a Left Unity loyalist will demand proof positive of the No. So here goes.
Firstly, we must recognise the very narrow focus of the demands set out in the ballot: use available funds to temporally move staff off the min wage and introduce some pay differential between AAs and AOs etc. We say temporary as LU admit that with the monies available it means that in 2027 we will probably be back in the same mess as we are now; that is staff will be caught up by the min wage again.
Then there is the timing; right before AGMs and the GEC elections. This is standard procedure for LU, begin a dispute/ballot/campaign before/during elections. So the ballot is partly an election ploy.
All the leading LU leaders in DWP, as far as we can see, are on 100% facility time. That materially cuts them off from the shop floor. Despite this insulation though they are susceptible to membership pressure. So they recognise that year after year, more and more people in the department are clustering at the legal minimum wage. This is felt by them. The ballot is part reaction to this.
Probably equally important however is that they are personally affronted by the disrespect that senior managers in DWP show in dismissing the arguments put forward by them – after all they are important people! So the ballot is part about reasserting that the leadership should be respected.
We would do things differently if we were in charge – we would aim for a different type of a dispute – one that would tackle head on the systematic problems we face in DWP:
• end the multi-tier work force
• no Saturday working or late night working unless overtime is offered
• guaranteed progression for HEOs and above;
• arrangements put in place so that AAs are always above the min wage – on a real living wage – and that there are real pay differentials between AAs, AOs and EOs.
We need a leadership that looks beyond the next few months and fights for a long-term settlement that respects the work we do.
If you want a union that fights for that rather than a temporary fix, vote for the Independent Left and others in the 2026 DWP GEC elections.
Tag Archives: DWP
The Budget and the DWP Employee Deal: Why it still matters and why members should vote ‘Yes’ to action in January!
The chancellor has announced a rise in the statutory Living (minimum) wage for workers over 21 years old of 4.1%, to £12.77 an hour. For Civil Servants in the DWP who are contracted for 42 hours a week, this translates into an annual salary of £27890
This rise will take place in April.
Below is this year’s pay settlement for the 3 most junior grades in DWP. We have included the number of staff in each grade from the Government’s published figures.
Note that the London Living Wage as calculated by the Mayor of London stands at £14.80. This would translate into an annual salary of £31,168 for DWP staff contracted for 40.5 hours in London.
The figures include those who opted out of the Employee Deal, some of whose salaries are even less.
| AA | Opt-out | Spot Rate | Staff in Post |
| National | £27,774 | £27,774 | 140 |
| SLPZ | £27,774 | £27,774 | |
| Outer London | £27,774 | £27,774 | 10 |
| Inner London | £27,774 | £27,774 |
| AO | Opt-out | Spot Rate | Staff in Post |
| National | £27,799 | £27,844 | 19515 |
| SLPZ | £27,799 | £27,844 | |
| Outer London | £27,799 | £29,722 | 955 |
| Inner London | £27,799 | £29,722 |
| EO | Opt-out | Min | Max | Staff in Post |
| National | £27,849 | £32,137 | £32,137 | 39825 |
| SLPZ | £27,891 | £32,137 | £34,429 | |
| Outer London | £27,992 | £35,615 | £37,016 | 5290 |
| Inner London | £29,688 | £37,016 | £37,016 |
Our members know what this disgraceful situation means for them. But here are the headline figures:
- 19,655 DWP staff (or around 22% of the workforce) are currently paid below the announced minimum wage.
- All London based AA’s and AO’s are paid between £1,446 and £3,394 less a year than the London Living Wage.
- All London based staff in all 3 grades who opted out of the Employee Deal are paid less than the London Living Wage.
- Nationally employed AO’s who have to work weekends and earlier and later in the day as part of the Employee Deal, are only paid £45 more a year for the privilege.
- The employer will be forced to increase the pay of 22% of it’s workforce in April because it won’t be paying them the statutory minimum.
The woeful spectacle of the largest government department being a poverty pay employer lies at the feat of the DWP management team and the Permanent Secretary. Who continually refuses to put a business case to the Cabinet Office to address structural low pay.
It’s nothing short of a scandal that the workers on the ground delivering social security aren’t even paid the minimum the government themselves believes is enough to live on! That the management of the department continue to refuse to address it is beyond contempt.
But PCS and specifically the leadership of the DWP Group have questions to answer here too.
In 2016, the current leadership negotiated and cheer-led for the DWP employee deal. They claimed that 4 years of above inflation pay rises for those who agreed to sell their weekends and evenings to the employer would address low pay in the department for the most junior grades.
PCS independent Left were the only group in the union that opposed the deal at the time. Among other criticisms, we made the point that the pay settlement was not future-proof and being handed over for the high-price of *permanently* selling off weekends to the employer wasn’t even ‘jam today’. The danger was that pay deals beyond the 4 years were not inflation proof, and the employer would return to bargain basement offers without a fight.
The Employee Deal was agreed (narrowly) and there has been no meaningful fight.
We have been criticised for bringing this up again, but it’s important in understanding the current situation.
Members will rightfully ask, why a unionised workforce, which are told repeatedly that PCS is a fighting union, are paid below the minimum wage and why we have negotiated and supported deals in the past that have ultimately resulted in this situation?
Why aren’t members who wish to take action over hybrid working and staffing, been armed with the opportunity by their leadership?
Unfortunately, union density in the DWP is waning as members answer these questions themselves.
We don’t think leaving is the right thing to do, in fact the only way to turn the tide on defending and extending our conditions and pay is having as many members in the union as possible.
We have the opportunity in the upcoming statutory ballot to demonstrate the strength of feeling of the rank-and-file on pay.
Members should vote in the ballot, encourage their colleagues to join and get involved in turning out members.
Branches should continue to agitate and organise members on the basis of their concerns, be it pay, hybrid working or jobs and staffing. And use that mobilisation to put pressure on the Group leadership to act.
And ultimately, when it comes to next years Group elections, branches and members should consider the long-term record of those in charge an whether the strategy has worked.
A Better Deal for PCS members in DWP: Vote for a new leadership in 2025
The union in DWP is collapsing and becoming more irrelevant to staff.
The proportion of members in the union is the lowest in living memory and continues to fall. The employer is able to implement one of the most unequal pay settlement in the civil service without adequate challenge and nothing is being done about the departments draconian attendance management policies – one of the worst and most discriminatory in the public sector.
To reverse this, we need to become relevant to the needs of members and begin to fight and win on issues specific to our members in DWP. We also need an independent industrial strategy which includes targeted paid strike action and action short of strike where necessary to win.
If you agree with us, please nominate and vote for these candidates in the upcoming DWP Group Executive elections. These candidates come from a variety of different groups, including the Independent Left, and some are independent. What brings us together isn’t a single factional loyalty but a commitment to the following ideas and programme for members:
Pay
With many members on the minimum wage, DWP is poverty wage employer. Since 2009 our pay has been cut in real terms by 30% on average. The principle of pay restoration needs to be forcefully made to DWP management.
Alongside an immediate 10% pay rise, we will demand negotiations for a meaningful medium-term plan to reverse decades of pay cuts and an increase in the inadequate London weighting.
We will campaign to abolish the 2-tier workforce with staff restored to the highest pay scales and best terms and conditions.
Last year we accepted the lowest pay offer in the public sector and refused to reject a remit which demanded ‘efficiencies’ (job cuts).
We will not accept another top-down offer from DWP which gives our lowest paid members the smallest increases and keeps them on the poverty line.
Equality at the heart
The union formally has a position that equality is at the heart of everything PCS does. Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen nationally or at a DWP Group level.
We will insist that any changes to staffing, terms and conditions, pay etc is thoroughly equality impact assessed. We will not accept deals which further entrench inequality among our membership, including offers which sell terms and conditions for crumbs in pay.
We will utilise all legal avenues to address the poor compliance in the DWP with Equality legislation and proper application of DWP policies and procedures to support staff and back this up with campaigning work with our branches to mobilise our members to know their rights and stand up together against all forms of discrimination and bullying and harassment.
The international and domestic attack on DEI has not been opposed robustly enough by the current union and group leaderships. We will defend and extend effective Diversity, Equality and Inclusion policies.
Simply recruiting a more diverse workforce to poverty-wage, administrative roles is not an adequate answer to inequality or the rise in racism. We will ensure the equality agenda is explicitly linked to all areas of bargaining including pay.
For a proper campaign on Staffing
DWP are recruiting, but it’s too little too late. The union needs to urgently address the worsening staff to manager ratio. At present this is anything up to 1:15 – at this rate managers are unable to provide the support staff require. We will demand this is reduced urgently to 1:10 and the department urgently recruit to meet demand in operational roles and recruit permanent, skilled civil servants into corporate and supporting roles instead of continually wasting public money on private contractors.
We will campaign for all staff to be made permanent, promotion exercises to be run to utilise the experience of members rather than competing with everyone in external exercises and will end the misuse of TDA.
We are acutely aware of overcrowding in many Jobcentres, leading to a stressful and unsafe working environment. There is no room on the ever-shrinking estate for the staff they want to recruit, let alone the amount we need. We will negotiate for proper, flexible and hybrid working for staff and demand the re-opening of appropriate sites to better serve and provide jobs to our staff and our communities.
The principle of Flexible working
Staff should have the ultimate flexibility to choose to work from home or the office, including operational staff where this can be enabled by technology. When we stepped-up and delivered during the pandemic, we proved that this was possible.
For most job roles, a policy of mandating any arbitrary percentage in the office is unnecessary, unworkable and inequal.
The current leadership did little to oppose the implementation of the arbitrary 40% office working dictat. We will organise an evidence-led campaign, including industrial pressure to oppose any attempt to increase 40% office attendance and to make the case for flexible working, based on workers choice for all staff where it can be enabled by technology.
A 4-day week
The principle of a 4-day week with no loss-in pay is a fast-growing demand with an increasing number of successful trials taking place across the world. Despite it being an overwhelmingly popular policy, the union has not attempted to negotiate with the DWP on this issue.
We will make demands on the employer for a trail of a 4-day week with no loss in pay, employing evidence from similar trials and the ever-growing number of academic papers conducted on the subject.
The use of Artificial Intelligence
The threat of Artificial Intelligence to our jobs is very real, but it doesn’t have to be. We will demand AI is only implemented in a way which serves citizens and staff, that reduces work, not jobs, and acts as an enabler for a reduction in the working week with no detriment to members.
We will start by immediately seeking an agreement with DWP that AI systems only be implemented with consultation with the union and that they should meet strict criteria on their use.
Organising outsourced workers
It’s essential that we organise our outsourced security, cleaning, and facilities management workers and fight for them to be insourced onto DWP contracts.
These workers are some of the lowest paid in our workplaces with the worst terms and conditions yet have some of the most industrial strength. Without them, our offices could not function.
Unfortunately, the union in DWP did not share this view until recently and even now has no robust strategy to win for our member.
In London, reps have recruited more than half of all PCS organised G4S guards on the DWP contract in the UK. Last year members formed demands on pay, holiday & sickness allowances and union recognition and have taken part in an unprecedented wave of strike action. This dispute should continue to be supported and extended.
The DWP Group leadership initially blocked them from carrying out a statutory ballot. The reasons given were that they hadn’t recruited outside of London and that it would anger the GMB.
Saturday and unsocial working hours
It’s been 9 years since the start of the Employee Deal and we are still feeling the hurt. This leadership permanently sold our weekends and evenings to the employer for a pay deal which has now been totally wiped-out by the rise in the cost of living.
Anyone who works in Jobcentre or Service Centre understands that is no legitimate business need to keep staff away from their friends and family on a Saturday. The 2-tier workforce created between those who must and those who don’t is an affront to basic trade union principles.
Having supported the Employee Deal, the current leadership feel unable to revisit this with the employer. We have no such qualms.
As part of a wide DWP campaign on flexible working and a reduction in hours we will renegotiate ED and include demands to reduce and phase out Saturday working and working after 5pm, to be supported by industrial action including action short of a strike where appropriate.
Attendance Management
The DWP has one of the most draconian and discriminatory attendance management policies in the civil service.
We will bring legal and industrial challenges to the Department to increase trigger points and abolish unfair attendance management procedures.
DWP Pay Award: Another kick in the teeth
The long-awaited delegated pay award for DWP staff was published today, weeks after most other departments.
The worst many of our lowest paid members were expecting was for the 5% to be applied evenly across the grades. Across the rest of the civil service the union has largely managed to ensure that the award is either spread evenly, or that our lowest paid members are given a greater increase, such as in HMRC.
Not in DWP.
Unequal, unfair and top-heavy
The headline figure is that the lowest paid AA grade will see an increase of only 4%. Most AA’s to HEO’s on legacy contracts will only receive 4.5% increases, while SEO’s and Grade 7’s will receive a 6% increase to their minimum.
From the Depoartment’s perspective they have at least resolved one issue. Screwing over the most junior grade fixes the problem with the overlap with the AO pay scale… by making AA colleagues even poorer relatively. We’re not convinced this race to the bottom is going to improve staff morale as we are asked to implement the new governments welfare agenda.
A humiliating bonus
Most staff will receive a £90 non-consolidated ‘bonus’. Which for many will be wiped out by tax, student loan repayments and Universal Credit deductions.
It appears you can put a price on all the hard work we are told we are performing, and it can be counted in 2 figures.
Further pain for members
If this insult wasn’t enough, a further kick in the teeth for the lowest paid comes on payday and next April.
Due to the length of time it’s taken to conclude ‘negotiations’, the backdated award will be paid in a lump-sum in November. As with the ‘cost of living’ lump sum of 2023, this will screw with the UC payments that thousands of DWP employees are disgracefully forced to claim to keep up with the poverty line. An issue remarkably left completely out of the union’s members bulletin, much as it was an after thought in 2023.
In April, the National Living Wage is likely to rise. If it does so by the same as last year the DWP will be forced to increase the pay of AA’s and AO’s. And once again, the workers on the front-line of delivering social security will be paid the lowest their employer is legally allowed to get away with.
The role of PCS DWP Group negotiators
This bizarre trickle-down approach to the pay structure is unfortunately not new behaviour from DWP, but it does raise the question what did PCS negotiators argue for?
Showing DWP our hand
When the 5% Cabinet Office remit was announced back in July, the majority of the union’s NEC were clear that it should be rejected and plans drawn up for a national fightback on pay, pensions, flexible working and staffing amongst other issues.
We have continued to argue that we couldn’t accept the lowest pay offer in the public sector, and that rejecting a remit which demanded ‘efficiencies’ (job cuts) in exchange for the money should be a trade union red line.
There was and is the need for continued industrial leverage across employer groups on pay and the other priorities of the membership.
The National President, who is concurrently a DWP Group Vice-President, has ruled out of order each and every motion or amendment supporting this position from the majority.
As a result, union negotiators across the civil service in general and in DWP specifically, went into these negotiations having one hand tied behind their backs by the National President and DWP Group President.
With a tacit acceptance of the 5% remit, and no intention to campaign for anything better, we had lost all leverage and it’s now painfully clear that the DWP smelt blood.
But why is it worse in DWP?
There is no way of sugarcoating this award. Despite the national picture, it is an obvious bargaining failure.
The Group have stated that it could have been ‘much worse’, but that’s little succour to the thousands of members faced with the reality of the final award.
The bulletin put out to members does not criticise the cabinet office pay remit – the direct cause of this pay award, because the Group leadership accepts the remit.
It rightfully rejects the award but offers absolutely no strategy for how we can improve it, because the Group leadership have consistently opposed and undermined any attempt by the NEC majority to devise a strategy to do so.
Finally, the Group use a union bulletin to wage a factional war, wrongly implying that an NEC majority decision would have prevented them from pushing back against an earlier offer.
If DWP management can continue to be such an outlier in the civil service and propose such ludicrous top-down pay offers, it is due to the bargaining and organisational weakness of the union in DWP caused – in part – by decades of poor leadership, not the NEC majority who have no responsibility for these failed negotiations.
No communication with members
The leadership of the DWP Group Executive have long been proponents of secretive negotiations and embargoed communications with members. But this pay round has been excruciatingly bad. There hasn’t been a single meeting since the commencement of pay negotiations with members and not a single branch bulletin providing an update, not even a holding message.
Secret negotiations and embargo agreements only benefit the employer, proven again by this years’ experience.
We need a union and a DWP group executive who will consult members throughout negotiations and communicate openly about their progress. Ensuring members could be mobilised to exert pressure on the employer rather than being treated by the employer and union alike as a passive observers to their fate.
Hybrid Working, Saturday opening, pay progression…
As the NEC majority has attempted with negotiations around the initial Cabinet Office remit. Other than tradition, there is no reason why these discussions have to be kept to pay.
If the employer claims their hands are tied on the remit, we should be demanding that negotiations are widened to include things like commitments on allowing hybrid working for all staff, phasing out Saturday opening, and re-introducing pay progression up the scales. Things we know the Department can change and all things that are currently deprioritised on the union’s bargaining agenda.
The current unimaginative and conservative approach to bargaining, done entirely on the employers’ terms is not good enough.
We need a Group leadership who understand this.
Where are the Labour ministers?
The Labour Party promised to ‘Make work pay’.
Does the Secretary of State and DWP ministers support what is being done in their name? The largest department, with the greatest amount of operational staff in the lowest grades being paid the minimum wage? Continuing to rely on Universal Credit to make ends meet?
We’d hope not and would hope the Group Executive Committee are targeting Labour ministers about this both directly and through the PCS Parliamentary group. We also hope Labour Party members and constituents are making this hypocrisy well known. There appears to be a desperate need for some goodwill towards the government at the moment.
The problem is bigger than DWP
This ultimate responsibility for this pay award and the pay awards across the civil service, the vast majority being the lowest in the entire public sector lies with the employer.
But at every step of the way the union has been lacking.
Because the General Secretary wanted to tacitly accept the pay remit, run-out live ballots and refuse to re-ballot, and because the National President has undemocratically blocked any attempt by the NEC majority to put forward an alternative strategy, our members have to put-up with the lowest pay-rise in the public sector and the government, and employers across the civil service have had a free-ride to implement the remit as they see fit.
Because the Group Executive has failed to stop the unions organisational rot in the DWP, leverage with the employer has waned.
Because the unions negotiators in DWP refused to open-up negotiations to the membership and prevented them from being involved, we were neutered from the very start.
What can we do?
We desperately need a new leadership and a new strategy. But in the immediate term we need to stop the NEC minority from blocking such a strategy.
That’s why we are calling on all branches to pass motions calling for a Special Delegate Conference, so members and reps start calling the shots, not a minority of the NEC.
IL Statement On DWP Elections
At present, the joint Independent Left/Broad Left Network candidate standing for DWP President, Bev Laidlaw, will be omitted from the DWP Group Executive Committee ballot paper on the stated grounds that she did not accept the nomination within the deadline.
Bev does not agree with this view and decision. Without going into all the detail here, Bev indicated her acceptance within the deadline, stating “please find attached my election addresses for DWP Elections 2024; DWP Group President and Ordinary GEC member.” On any reasonable reading a candidate stating that are attaching election addresses and identification the posts they cover is a statement that they do accept nomination for those posts.
Supported by IL and BLN colleagues (who are also standing as part of the Coalition for Change in the NEC elections), Bev has challenged this decision, although the “procedure” allowed for challenge is not one we would recommend and the HQ decision, as it stands at present, will mean that the LU candidate will be elected unopposed.
The wider view we take, and that Bev has expressed, is that trade unions should favour the maximisation of democracy, reduce obstacles to candidates standing, and promote contested elections rather than omit candidates for reasons unconnected to the key issues of whether a candidate is in membership, is a member in the relevant constituency, has been properly nominated, and has accepted nomination. Going forward after the election, we will therefore be looking to ensure PCS’ election arrangements reflect these fundamental democratic principles.
In the here and now, it is crucial that everyone of us, who wants change in our union, who is serious about winning on pay and wants democratic, accountable leaders, redouble our efforts to vote for and campaign for BLN/IL/Change candidates in Group and National Executive Committee elections.
You can read our programme here, and see the candidates we endorse here.
Vote for change.
A New Deal for members in DWP: Vote for a new leadership
The union in DWP is dying. The proportion of members in the union is the lowest in living memory and continues to fall. To reverse this, we need to become relevant to the needs of members and begin to fight and win on issues specific to our members in DWP. We also need an independent industrial strategy which includes targeted paid strike action and action short of strike where necessary to win. If you agree with us, please nominate and vote for these candidates in the upcoming DWP Group Executive elections.
For a proper campaign on Staffing
DWP are recruiting into UC, but it’s too little too late. The union needs to urgently address the worsening staff to manager ratio. At present this is anything up to 1:15 – at this rate managers are unable to provide the support staff require. We will demand this is reduced urgently to 1:10.
We are acutely aware of overcrowding in many Jobcentres, leading to a stressful and unsafe working environment. There is no room on the ever-shrinking estate for the staff they want to recruit, let alone the amount we need. We will negotiate for proper, flexible and hybrid working for staff and demand the re-opening of appropriate REEP sites to better serve our staff and our communities.
The principle of Flexible working
Staff should have the ultimate flexibility to choose to work from home or the office, including operational staff where this can be enabled by technology. When we stepped-up and delivered during the pandemic, we proved that this was possible.
For most job roles, a policy of mandating any arbitrary percentage in the office is unnecessary, unworkable and inequal.
The current leadership did little to oppose the implementation of the arbitrary 40% office working dictat. We will organise an evidence-led campaign, including industrial pressure to oppose any attempt to increase 40% office attendance and to make the case for flexible working, based on workers choice for all staff where it can be enabled by technology.
A 4-day week
The principle of a 4-day week with no loss-in pay is a fast-growing demand with an increasing number of successful trials taking place across the world. Despite it being an overwhelmingly popular policy, the union has not attempted to negotiate with the DWP on this issue.
We will make demands on the employer for a trail of a 4-day week with no loss in pay, employing evidence from similar trials and the ever-growing number of academic papers conducted on the subject.
The use of Artificial Intelligence
The threat of Artificial Intelligence to our jobs is very real, but it doesn’t have to be. We will demand AI is only implemented in a way which serves citizens and staff, that reduces work, not jobs, and acts as an enabler for a reduction in the working week with no detriment to members.
We will start by immediately seeking an agreement with DWP that AI systems only be implemented with consultation with the union and that they should meet strict criteria on their use.
Organising outsourced workers
It’s essential that we organise our outsourced security, cleaning, and facilities management workers. These workers are some of the lowest paid in our workplaces with the worst terms and conditions, yet have some of the most industrial strength. Without them, our offices could not function.
Unfortunately, the union in DWP do not share this view. In London, reps have recruited more than half of all PCS organised G4S guards on the DWP contract in the UK. Last year members formed demands on pay, holiday & sickness allowances and union recognition and voted to strike.
The DWP Group leadership blocked them from carrying out a statutory ballot. The reasons given were that they hadn’t recruited outside of London and that it would anger the GMB.
We will support these members to strike and use their willingness to fight to recruit outsourced workers across the UK to join the action. Action they can’t take in the GMB as they signed a no-strike agreement!
Pay and the Employee Deal
It’s been 8 years since the start of the Employee Deal and we are still feeling the hurt. This leadership permanently sold our weekends and evenings to the employer for a pay deal which has now been totally wiped-out by the rise in the cost of living.
Anyone who works in Jobcentre or Service Centre understands that is no legitimate business need to keep staff away from their friends and family on a Saturday. The 2-tier workforce created between those who must and those who don’t is an affront to basic trade union principles.
Having supported the Employee Deal, the current leadership feel unable to revisit this with the employer. Having been against it from the start, we have no such qualms. As part of a wide DWP campaign on flexible working and a reduction in hours we will renegotiate ED and include demands to reduce and phase out Saturday working, to be supported by industrial action including action short of a strike where appropriate.
