Tag Archives: Organising

DWP Pay Award: Another kick in the teeth

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

Latest from the NEC: A victory for the National Campaign but a defeat for union democracy

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

At the initial NEC meeting of the year in June, the proposal of the NEC minority, led by the National President was not to hold an NEC meeting until the end of July. A whole 9 weeks after the national ballot results and the subsequent National Conference of the union.

The Coalition for Change majority agreed, that considering the ongoing political events and that the ballot mandates that we had secured were slowly running out of time, that it was imperative to have one earlier. So, invoking our right under the Standing Orders of the NEC we called an emergency meeting.

In calling the meeting we requested for this NEC to cover the following key issues in-line with both conference policy, the joint programme we were elected on and the key priorities of the membership:

  1. Progressing the National Campaign following the General election in line with Conference Policy.
  2. Implementing urgent, practical steps to support the sacked HMRC reps.
  3. Replacing the outgoing NEC’s Organising Plan which was rejected by delegates at conference.
  4. Beginning to improve the substandard legal services provided to reps and members.
  5. Rejecting the General Secretaries decision to spend members subs on huge pay-rises for senior Full-time Officers.
  6. Ensuring that the unions TUC General Council nominations reflected conference policy and the views of the majority of the union’s leadership.

For most of these, Coalition for Change NEC members had submitted amendments and motions (to be found here), outlining the direction forward and instructing the General Secretary accordingly.

In calling an emergency NEC, the Standing Orders outline that the purposes of the meeting should be summarised in the request. This was done.

Perhaps naively, we thought the National President would abide by the Standing Orders. However, immediately after opening the meeting he stated that he would be ruling the vast majority of our agenda out-of-order on the basis that he considered that only the National Campaign should be discussed.

As discussed in the report of the first meeting, the President continues to claim they can make any ruling and that a 2/3 majority of the NEC is required to overturn it. Despite having a significant majority, the Coalition does not have 2/3rds and so despite challenging the ruling on principle, it was upheld.

Your support in challenging this behaviour

Members and activists should be under no illusion. The Left Unity minority, having lost the election, are using purposeful misinterpretation of bureaucratic process to prevent the majority from progressing union business in support of the membership. It is, as was pointed out at the NEC, akin to the behaviour of the old right-wing moderate group in their attempts to prevent the then left majority from taking forward policy on the NEC.

We appeal to Left Unity members, including those on the NEC and specifically the new, younger members: Is this the sort of behaviour you came into Trade Unionism to enable and defend?

  1. Progressing the National Campaign

Graciously, the National President did allow the meeting to debate the national campaign.

Since the national ballot results and the union conference, there has not been the ability to take forward policy on the national union. The Coalition for Change, backed by Conference policy, knew activists and members were concerned about the inaction. This was backed-up by a timely email from a DEFRA branch to the NEC decrying the inertia and demanding their members be able to fight.

Taking this all into account, alongside the result of the General election, we submitted a comprehensive motion on taking the campaign forward which can be found here (Motion 2).

In summary, the motion sets out a timebound strategy of placing our democratically agreed demands on the government, allowing time for consideration, and ensuring that Labour understand that we are prepared to act if no meaningful ground is given.

This strategy or no strategy?

In contrast, the General Secretary’s paper offered no industrial strategy. As you can see, the recommendations asked for more consideration, further forums and in as much as there is to be communication with the new government it is to simply ask for more meetings.

This strategy amounts to inertia at a time that we have a duty to grasp the opportunity and put some timebound demands to the government, using the leverage of existing mandates and the threat of new ones.

Give Labour time?

We are glad that Labour beat the Tories. But we are not complacent, are acutely aware of the watering down of their commitment for workers rights and refusal to make commitments on public sector pay. We also don’t have short-memories and can remember the previous Labour administrations pay policy and the whooping of Labour backbenchers when Gordon Brown announced 100,000 civil service job cuts.

There is a need to put the new government to the test right away. They are already publicly dealing with the BMA, having been forced to do so by their ongoing ballot and strike action. They have said they want to negotiate with the unions and made the point during the campaign when confronted on the question.

At the NEC, Left Unity members were divided on the issue of how much time Labour should be given before we act, but they all wanted to allow some extended honeymoon period. The Coalition was not: The government has the ability right now to begin negotiations around the upcoming remit – if they are willing to then good, but if not, we must be ready.

When it came to the vote, the General Secretary’s strategy was voted down and the Coalitions Motion was passed. We will ensure as much as possible that the instructions are carried out.

2. Supporting sacked HMRC reps

Many members, particularly in the revenue, will be aware of the grotesque behaviour of that employer in sacking trade union activists at Benton Park View.

For both the branch and the Coalition, the response from the leadership, encapsulated by the General Secretaries paper to the NEC, has been too little, too late.

The Coalition submitted an amendment to that paper (Amendment 2), outlining practical steps which should be taken to support these members. Steps which were supported by the HMRC branch. Namely:

  • That steps would be made to move to industrial action.
  • That materials and speaker’s, chosen by the HMRC GEC and BPV Branch should made available.
  • That the NEC should support a mass lobby of key HMRC buildings.
  • That the Geneal Secretary report back to the next NEC to discuss escalation.

Despite being supported by the majority on the NEC, the National President ruled these amendments out of order.

We were left with the decision of either supporting or voting down the General Secretaries paper, which despite being wholly inadequate did commit union resources to the campaign. Obviously in that situation we voted to support the paper.

The decision of the President will no doubt be met with glee by HMRC management, even if it’s met with despair by our members and reps.

3. Replacing the rejected Organising Plan

National Delegate Conference rejected the outgoing NEC’s organising plan.

While growing in actual members since 2020, with a recent dip, union density, which is the main metric we measure our industrial strength has plummeted since 2015.

We know that we can’t be a proper representative body with these numbers and understand that we have much less leverage in negotiations if this situation continues.

The outgoing NEC’s organising strategy fell because it was largely a copy and paste job from previous years, attempting to do the same things again expecting different results. With the dire situation the unions density is in, we don’t have the luxury to continue this way. An alternative strategy is required.

While fixing the situation is not going to be done overnight, we need to start with the right objectives. Continually telling ourselves that 50% density will be enough is a lie. That is derecognition territory and does not provide enough leverage for us when we take strike action. Equally, while lip service is paid to joining the two, we do not treat bargaining and organising as co-dependent forces, and this certainly was reflected in the rejected Left Unity organising strategy.

On that basis the coalition produced a motion (Motion 3) to commence the development of a new strategy.

Again, despite being supported by the majority on the NEC, the National President ruled this motion, key to the future of our union, out of order. The union continues not to have an organising strategy.

4. Beginning to improve the substandard legal services provided to reps and members.

Members and reps alike will know the state of the union’s legal services. In the hustings during the GS and AGS elections it certainly was consistently raised. Advice is untimely, sometimes inaccurate and far too many cases are rejected.

As a result, the coalition ensured that improving legal services was a central plank of our joint platform.

We wanted to make some quick wins for members, so we submitted a motion to the NEC (Motion 4) instructing the General Secretary to:

  1. Ensure that arrangements are made to ensure claims are responded to and regular updates are provided.
  2. That branches are to be notified that they can appeal decisions they think are wrong to the Senior Officers Committee of the union.

In future we also want to discuss the SLA we have with Thompsons and whether it is fit for purpose as well as moving towards a more risk tolerant and combative position when it comes to legal cases, especially novel ones or ones done on matters of principle where we might want to test case law.

Again, despite being supported by the majority on the NEC, the National President ruled this motion, so important to the welfare of our members out of order. We will attempt to bring it to the next NEC.

5. Rejecting the General Secretaries decision to spend members subs on huge pay-rises for senior Full-time Officers.

The NEC is constitutionally empowered by Supplementary Rule 8.3 to approve all staff appointments and terms and conditions.

Last month the General Secretary announced significant changes to the unions staffing structure without informing the NEC or the wider membership. These changes include:

  • An increase of the total number of Full-time Officers (FTOs) by three.
  • The possibility of voluntary redundancy, with posts being backfilled.
  • The creation of a new ‘super grade’, 6A, without advising anyone on how the vacancy process for these new positions would be filled.
  • The possibility of some NEC sub-committees, and the Assistant General Secretary’s office having less or in some cases no formal FTO support.

We are in principle against more of members subs being directed towards staffing costs, especially if they are directed to creating a new band of super-paid full-time officers, paid well in excess of the salary of an average member.

According to the latest pay scales (page 66 of the 2024 Financial Report) these new staff will be paid in excess of £76k a year from membership subs which would otherwise go on things like strike-pay.

But even if you don’t share this principle, the changes will increase the proportion of income spent on staff costs. At 34.5% of income, the union is already in breach of 2021 conference motion A9 and the financial objectives of the union, which both rightfully ensure that staffing costs are kept at or below 33% of subscription income.

The potential for the AGS’ office and NEC subcommittees like Bargaining and Organising to be stripped of FTO support, presumably in favour of centralising power in the General Secretaries Office, is also concerning from a democratic perspective and is likely to deepen the ‘Jobs for the Boys’ culture endemic in the trade union movement in general and PCS in particular.

If there is any evidence more damning for that it will be the appointment to the new super-grade positions of the failed candidates in the 2019 and 2023 Assistant General Secretary elections, while John Moloney, twice elected, continues to take home the average worker’s wage.

We submitted a motion (Motion 5) to stop this, which was again ruled out of order by the National President.

6. Ensuring that the unions TUC General Council nominations reflected conference policy and the views of the majority of the union’s leadership.

The National Executive Committee has the duty to agree who from the union sits on the TUC General Council each year.

This year the General Secretary produced a paper which made a recommendation to the NEC that she should take the seat.

Considering the behaviour of the National President in this and the previous NEC, the Coalition for Change were not confident that the democratically decided positions of the National Union reflected in both National Conference Policy and the majority of the NEC would be faithfully represented at the TUC if this was agreed.

We therefore opposed this recommendation and submitted an amendment to the paper (Amendment 4), as is our right, for the Assistant General Secretary, himself with a mandate exceeding that of the General Secretary, to sit on the Council for this year.

The President, disgracefully ruled this amendment out of order, ruling that it was his opinion that the rule stating that the General Secretary should be on the TUC congress delegation meant that the General Secretary should also always hold the GC position. An outrageous, intentional abuse of his power.

If this was the case, why each year does the recommendation for the General Secretary to sit on the Council come to the NEC?

Clearly, in this situation we voted down the recommendation that is be the General Secretary. This left us with no nomination for the position.

In an extraordinary act, the President then ruled that *despite* being voted down by the NEC, he was simply going to ignore the vote and state that he was deciding against the will of the NEC that the General Secretary shouldn’t be the unions candidate.

We believe this goes one step further than the previous rulings. This is not the behaviour of a democrat. It is tyrannical behaviour which demonstrates a particular arrogance and contempt for union democracy, the votes of the members and the rules of the union.

What next?

Members and activists from all factions and none should be very clear about this. The semblance of democratic due process of the Mark Serwotka years are over. If you think this behaviour is beyond the pale, please make your voices heard.

You will not find a report like this from the central union, who’s staff is still controlled by the General Secretary. We were elected on being as transparent with the membership as possible, which is why we think it’s important you can read as much of the discussion and the relevant papers debated.

There is a face-to-face NEC next week where the Coalition for Change will continue to push the priorities above and those of our joint programme. We will of course report back.

I the meantime, please consider joining us.