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: news
Confronting Left Unity’s Fake Optimism
In PCS’s most recent update, ‘News from the NEC – December 2025’, you will read Left Unity negotiators express “cautious optimism over [PCS’] core demand to end delegated pay bargaining and to introduce more coherence through national pay bargaining.” However, they also quietly admit there is “nothing concrete” at this stage.
As the Independent Left (IL), we look past “warm words” and analyse the material reality of these talks. Therefore we are extremely sceptical that any genuine progress is being made toward national bargaining; our scepticism is based on two realities: money and a total lack of union pressure.
The Economic Reality: The Cost of Equalisation
If the Cabinet Office is actually signalling a move toward national bargaining, that promise is only meaningful if it leads to the equalisation of pay across the Civil Service. Currently, the system is a mess of delegated authority where different departments pay vastly different rates of pay to staff in the same grades. Levelling everyone up to the highest pay point per grade would cost hundreds of millions of pounds. This is money that has not been budgeted for in the current Spending Review. So ask yourself: is it likely that this government, which is actively seeking to reduce the cost of the Civil Service, will spontaneously agree to a massive, unforced increase in the wage bill?
The Power Gap: Lessons from the BMA
Left Unity is asking you to believe that the Cabinet Office might possibly overthrow 40 years of established industrial practice simply because our negotiators have put forward good arguments!
Compare our situation to the BMA Resident Doctors. They have taken extensive industrial action and have won significant pay rises. Even then, they are still forced to fight on for full pay restoration and for more training places. The government only moved because they faced a genuine crisis in the NHS and a union willing to exert maximum pressure.
If the government moves this slowly when faced with a high-profile crisis and massive strikes, why would they give PCS anything when we aren’t applying any pressure at all? There is currently no threat of industrial action, no legal challenge, and no political leverage being applied. In that vacuum, Ministers have no incentive to concede anything.
Pre-Election Spin vs. Real Solutions
We believe Left Unity is spinning these “discussions” because the NEC elections are on the horizon. Senior Managers may well acknowledge the “concertina effect”—where the rising minimum wage is crushing pay differentials for AA, AO, and EO grades—but acknowledging a problem is not the same as actually solving one.
A real solution would require an agreement that as the minimum wage rises, the wages of AAs, AOs, and EOs would also rise to maintain pay differentials. This would effectively mean automatic pay increases and there is no evidence that the government is prepared to agree to such a radical shift.
We suspect that once the NEC elections are over, and if LU wins, we will discover that these claims of progress had no substance.
For us, the only way to win national bargaining and equal pay is through a serious strategy of industrial, legal, and political action. But Left Unity, as they have proved in their decades of being in control of the union, are incapable of such action.
If you believe that such action is needed then vote for us in the upcoming elections and consider joining us: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/
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.
An extraordinary National Executive Committee
On Tuesday 4th June, PCS held its first NEC since a majority of candidates from the Coalition for Change, including IL members were elected.
It was an extraordinary meeting, and not just because the NEC had not yet agreed its calendar for the year, but because of the way Left Unity, including the National President, conducted the meeting.
Or indeed didn’t conduct the meeting, because the meeting was a truncated one, suspended unilaterally by the President for over an hour, despite the pressing business this Union has before it.
The President suspended the meeting because it could not agree standing orders (the rules governing how the meetings are run).
NEC members elected as part of the Coalition of Change slate had proposed a series of amendments to the standing orders such as making the NEC more accessible and removing gagging order preventing NEC members speaking to members publicly about debates.
IL have believed for years that NEC members being prohibited from reporting on NEC meetings is undemocratic, prevents accountability and removes a key method of engaging the membership on important decisions.
We should be able talk to members about proceedings in a proportionate way, without undermining the communications strategy of the union; and to fulfil our elected mandate of democratising the NEC and the wider union so that a President who represents a minority of NEC members cannot ride roughshod over the majority. A copy of our proposed standing orders are below.
Two of the key standing orders (SOs) we wished to amend were the ones concerning how amendments to standing orders are made, and another dealing with amendments to or motions on the same topic of papers moved by Senior Full Time Officers (SFTOs: the General Secretary and Assistant General Secretary).
SOs 12.1-12.3 state that a two thirds majority is needed to adopt or amend the standing orders themselves. The Coalition moved an amendment that would mean only a simple majority was needed. This would be a democratic step that would attempt to avoid the farcical scenes we witnessed this week: where an NEC convened under standing orders that grant enormous and far-reaching discretion to a President who is himself a member of the NEC’s minority, and able to frustrate the majority with these powers.
SO 11.4 states that amendments or motions counterposed to those moved by a SFTO, ‘shall not directly negative the substantive recommendations’. Who decides if they do? It is, of course, the President. Our proposed amendment would have allowed NEC members, with the same democratic mandate as the General Secretary (just not the £100k+ salary) to have their alternative papers and motions heard in general debate, with the NEC deciding democratically which was preferable.
The current standing orders allow the General Secretary and President to shoot down NEC-proposed motions on any given topic or issue simply by proposing their own, and then ruling “substantive recommendations had been negated”. You couldn’t make it up!
Schrödinger’s Standing Orders
The NEC begins by agreeing its standing orders for the year. Because the new standing orders are not yet in place until agreed, the previous years are used to convene the first NEC meeting. The coalition began the debate by asking the President a question, if no standing orders were carried by a two thirds majority, would the previous years remain extant?
At first, the President, suggested they would. The coalition proposed our amendments, and while they were supported by a clear majority of 17 for and 14 against, they did not get a two thirds majority to be carried – the LU minority were obstructing what we believe is our democratic mandate for change.
When the Left Unity minority lost their motion to keep 2023’s standing orders (again 14-17) the President changed his mind. Apparently, the NEC cannot continue until there are new SOs agreed. Why the Damascene conversion? We believe, for factional reasons.
This is despite the fact that principal rule 8 and supplementary rules 7.1, 7.11, and 7.12 do not imply the need for standing orders – the NEC can conduct its business as it sees fit, within the rules. Sometimes the rules are silent – and that silence is the President’s discretion. But, their silence is for the NEC to determine. Rather than allow this, the President suspended the highest democratic body of the Union at a time when there were (and indeed are) vital issues that must be decided.
Successes for the coalition
After twiddling our thumbs for an hour, while refusing to leave the NEC Zoom to make sure we knew if the meeting was reconvened (we certainly weren’t told when it was going to happen) the Coalition reluctantly adopted the existing standing orders without being able to pass our vital amendments.
We collectively decided that it was more important to get to the substantive business of the membership. Th coalition reserve the right to attempt to democratise the Standing Orders in the future, and it’s likely that rule change motions to next year’s Annual Conference will be put.
Unfortunately, the President had other ideas, and immediately ruled that proposed changes to the NEC’s domestic arrangements, which would have made papers more accessible for disabled members, were not up for discussion.
We then moved to business which couldn’t allow Left Unity to invoke super-majorities and abuse of Presidential discretion to subvert the majority.
Firstly, the allocation of sub-committees. The Coalition, committed to a democratic, radical union and industrial strategy now have a majority on the NEC’s key committees. These include the Policy and Resources Committee which sets the Union’s strategic direction, the UK Civil Service Bargaining Committee which directs negotiations with the Cabinet Office, and the Organising committee which we want to use to develop an ambitious plan to grow and strengthen the membership after years of decline.
The National Disputes Committee, which decides on industrial action, is made up of the President, Deputy and Vice Presidents, the General Secretary and Assistant General Secretary, now also has a Coalition majority. This will be key in setting a program of action, selective or otherwise, which makes the most of our mandate while we assess and prepare to re-ballot other employers.
Next, the meeting then moved to General Election strategy. The General Secretary spent an unreasonably long time basically reciting their milquetoast paper on the topic. The PCS website has some initial details of the Union’s non-committal approach. If you’re expecting the information that it states is forthcoming to be much more scintillating… then you are likely to be disappointed.
There were another three motions from Coalition NEC members on alternative General Election strategy – which would have reaffirmed the right of branches to back candidates who had a track record of supporting our demands and values, with NEC approval, and in two cases stated the simple fact that it was likely Labour would win and that, while we are under no illusions that Starmer will enact socialism, his party in government would be preferable to another five years of the Tories.
The President ruled them out of order as is his prerogative under the undemocratic Standing Orders of the NEC.
An utterly bizarre decision. Annual Conference was not able to discuss the wider General Election strategy and now the NEC has also been prevented from doing so.
Nonetheless, an IL motion was heard and unanimously passed which will inject some reality into PCS’ political strategy at this critical time. After IL motion A12 was overwhelmingly carried at ADC, this motion called on the General Secretary to rapidly carry out its instructions and write to the Labour Party stating our industrial demands, asking for their commitment to them, and that they urgently meet with us, informing the membership of the responses we receive, or Labour’s silence.
The Coalition is clear – this is a NEC which will be active, radical, democratic, and not work in isolation – every motion will include instructions for the General Secretary to consult with and update groups, regions and branches – the true democratic locus of our union.
PCS Left Unit have labelled us the ‘Coalition of Chaos’. The NEC meeting demonstrated that we constitute a cohesive majority. We will have disagreements, this is healthy, but we have a passion for delivering our programme for the membership and we will continue to push for it regardless of the bureaucratic blockers placed in our path.
Centralism without democracy
But it won’t always be easy. We planned to use the first NEC meeting to demand detailed updates on the National Campaign, and on what was being done to assist the sacked HMRC reps at Benton Park View, neither of which were on the agenda. Indeed, the President only accepted that the victimised reps should be discussed as part of Any Other Business after Coalition for Change NEC members wrote to him en masse to request they were.
However, due to the President’s suspension of the NEC and his insistence that the meeting had a ‘hard finish’ we didn’t get to them. We are now hoping to hear about another extraordinary NEC this month to deal with this and other issues. If we don’t hear, then the majority will demand one, as is our right under the standing orders.
During the NEC elections, we joked that Left Unity were practising the old Stalinist gospel of democratic centralism without democracy. This has now been proven, with the National President presiding over the NEC not for the benefit of the Union, but the minority faction.
Have no fear. The Independent Left has remained committed to principles set out in our manifesto for over a decade – if you want to support our campaign to make this a democratic union that wins victories by empowering lay reps, you should join us.
PCS Annual Delegate Conference 2024
Following the election of a Coalition for Change majority NEC, this years Annual Delegate Conference was going to be very important for members and activists who wanted to secure that victory by ensuring the policy of the union reflected the change in mood amongst the membership.
In that regard, it was a success.
Ensuring motions were heard
The Standing Orders Committee had ruled out several motions for technical or constitutional reasons. Despite many years of conference choosing to ignore please to over-turn standing orders decisions, an unprecedented number of delegates rose to challenge the, this year and great many of them were then overturned by conference, and the motions re-added to the running order.
Conference was not prepared to have motions submitted by members and branches over-ruled on minor bureaucratic points.
The National Campaign
The outgoing Left Unity NEC proposed a motion in a self-congratulatory fashion, hailed the success of last year’s action, and the £1500 non-consolidated payment as a victory. It didn’t acknowledge any shortcomings in last year’s dispute and made no mention of any re-ballots.
The motion, and the leadership, received heavy criticism from conference floor, largely relating to the decision to pause action last year in response to the £1500.
Two rival motions were moved in opposition to outgoing NEC’s. There were some differences between them, but both condemned the NEC for its conduct of the dispute and for the misleading wording of the consultative ballot which led to the pause.
In the end, Emergency motion A315 was passed, defeating the outgoing NEC’s motion. It calls on the leadership to coordinate with branches to ‘develop a plan for sustained, targeted action across those areas with a mandate’ and to ‘maintain the mood for action in these areas while re-balloting elsewhere commences’. It also called on the union to make 100,000 additional staff and a commitment to hybrid working part of the dispute.
A solid basis for the incoming Coalition for Change NEC to build upon.
Organising
The leadership also lost its organising motion, largely due to criticism of how they have conducted organising so far. The motion refused to accept any issues with the current organising strategy which has led us to the lowest proportion of members in the union in living memory and puts us in a position in many areas where we have very reduced leverage when we strike and where we could potentially be at threat of recognition.
The incoming majority leadership recognise this and have put forward a strategy for changing the unions organising strategy.
Political Strategy
There was also a debate on the political strategy. There were 2 motions in this debate A12 and A13 moved by the outgoing NEC.
A12 called on the NEC to put pressure on the Labour Party over specific and identified goals for and demands for them to commit to and enact in government to improve our organising and bargaining positions and to implement the elements of its programme relating to expanding workers’ rights and trade union freedoms. It called to demand that an incoming Labour government should immediately impose its policy commitments in these areas on the Cabinet Office and Civil Service leadership, to repeal Departmental bans on onsite strike meetings and other anti-union restrictions.
A13 in contrast did not commit the union to any political strategy in the election and take a completely uninterested view in the outcome or the policies of the parties or candidates vying for members votes.
Solidarity with the Palestinians
In the international section, motion A99 committed the union to continue its opposition to Israel’s attack on Gaza, for ‘a free and independent Palestinian state’, and against the victimisation of our members who have spoken out for Palestine.
The motion condemned Hamas’ killing of civilians on October 7th, but also condemned the mass killing, starvation and displacement of civilians by Israel in response. It welcomed PCS’ decision to donate substantial amounts of money to Medical Aid for Palestinians, and it also called on the union to provide guidance to members on their rights to attend protests and express views in support of the Palestinians.
This motion had widespread support. To the extent that there was debate, it was in nuances expressed by speakers supporting the motion. The SOC ordered the motion, stating other motions were covered by it. This included a motion claiming ‘antizionism isn’t antisemitism’, an absolute which is patently untrue and potentially discriminatory as there are examples of antizionism being antisemitism. Equally, motions expressing a desire for a 2-state settlement were tagged alongside those calling for the destruction of Israel. These positions are counter-posed and it would have been better to have an open debate on the question if some activists wished to change the unions position.
Again, we hope this predicates a much more active year for PCS’ international solidarity work, which, especially over Gaza was slow to materialise.
Equality and Trans Rights
Motion A52, noted the Tories’ anti-trans scapegoating, and the leaked Cabinet Office guidance which would have led to the harassment of trans and non-binary people. The motion instructed the NEC oppose any guidance which would marginalise trans and non-binary workers, and to organise action to confront this guidance if introduced. The motion passed overwhelmingly.
Conference once again rightfully asserting it’s belief in trans rights over a historically poor leadership position on the question.
A worker’s representative
In the Finance section, Assistant General Secretary and supporter of the Independent Left, John Moloney, gave a run down on the union’s finances, which are soon to be boosted by the re-introduction of the strike levy. He also mentioned his pledge to take only an inner London EO’s wage on the basis that union officials should not gain financially by given the privilege of being elected. As a result, he has given the rest of the ridiculously high AGS salary back to the union. This has meant he has now paid back well over £100,000 to the strike fund.
PCS Independent Left 