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.