Tag Archives: PCS

Left Unity Scrape The Bottom Of The (Pork) Barrel

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

We’ve said before that our opponents in the current NEC elections, Left Unity, are lacking in ideas of how the union might win for members.

Read their website if you don’t believe us. Wondering what LU will do about pay? Don’t worry, they’ll reach ‘an agreement on pay which restores members living standards to a decent level, tackling the scourge of low pay once and for all’. How? Unclear, and we would suggest they don’t know either. God knows they had 20 years to find a way, and have so far failed to arrive on something, anything. Perhaps because having a plan would entail them actually doing something, an anathema to a group of people who view trade unionism as a way to avoid work. 

They’ve tried nothing, and they’re all out of ideas.

So instead, in this election cycle, LU have dispensed with subtleties and have decided to engage in some good, ol’ fashioned pork barrel politics.

LU were planning for this year’s election to be all about pausing the levy – the levy that they previously introduced and which suddenly became an injustice to members when they didn’t have control of the union, and whilst the General Secretary and her coterie were doing everything they could to avoid industrial action during and after the General Election – sitting on leverage submissions that should have gone to the National Disputes Committee and NEC, to avoid them being actioned.

The problem for LU was, in February, the IL, tired of the politicking and acknowledging that LU would do everything they could to stymie the national campaign, paused the levy.

So, lacking an election slogan, LU has decided that ‘If elected, we will refund the levy’ (since September).

How much will this cost? And how will the Fighting Fund be effected?

LU likes to say that no money was paid out of the levy fund – this is untrue.

In 2024 the union expended £1,315,825 of levy funds on strike pay connected with the national campaign.

This leaves the levy fund (inclusive of sums collected under the previous LU levy of 2023) at £1,347,390.

Between September and December 2024 the levy collected £2,250,270, an average of around £562,568 per calendar month (we do not yet have accurate figures for January to March this year).

So, LU are proposing, should they win the election, to pay members some £3.9 million. More than double what remains in the levy account, and indeed a fair chunk of the £ 4,558,744 which is in the general fighting fund.

Before you even get into questions of practicalities (will you pay members who resigned? how? is there anything in the PCS rulebook that empowers the NEC to pay bungs?) ask yourself – if LU want to pay out 66% of the £5.9 million in the combined fighting fund accounts, leaving just £2 million in the accounts when the government are looking to cut jobs and give the rest of us a crap pay rise. It won’t be enough.

LU have no plans to attempt to amend the rule which sets out a 50p contribution to the Fighting Fund, and they have, for political reasons, made temporary levies poisonous. Sure, they could top up the fighting fund by drawing the £3.9 million from the general reserves, but that would leave those depleted too, after Heathcote has already bled them for her undemocratic staffing structure which saw her personally get a £12k pay rise.

And to what end? A payment of between £12 and £35, in exchange for your union ceasing to have sufficient funds to support strike action in a dispute.

Effectively what LU are saying indirectly they do not intend, or envisage fighting a national pay or jobs and conditions action this year.

Vote to end this madness

The Independent Left are not here to offer you ridiculous bungs – we opposed the taxable, pro-rated £1,500 quid ‘cost of living payment’ in 2023 which LU offered instead of a fight for decent pay rise; we oppose their (hopefully dishonest) promise to financially cripple our fighting fund for their electoral gain now.

Instead, we and our partners in the Coalition for Change offer an actual plan to make the union more democratic, build a campaign and fight the employer as they attempt to immiserate us further, and win a decent pay rise.

This NEC election is a simple choice between the Coalition for Change, who want a better union, one you deserve, or leaving Left Unity in control, which means more stagnation and no effective resistance.

So, What Have We Achieved?

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

“What have you achieved?” is a legitimate question that members will put to the Coalition for Change (CfC), particularly in light of our opponents’ claim that we are the Coalition of Chaos (ho-ho-ho) and that we have not achieved anything.

Well, despite the best efforts from Left Unity’s General Secretary (GS) and President to obstruct us, the CfC has actually managed to get things done.

Of course, not in getting a national campaign off the ground. Between the General Secretary’s effective refusal to carry out the National Executive Committee’s (NEC) instructions and the President ruling CfC motions out of order, Left Unity (LU) ensured we have not really or effectively challenged the Labour government despite its attacks on the Civil Service. In later postings, we will set out why we think that was so, but for now, it is enough that it is so.

Despite all that, we have managed:

  • To draft PCS’ first-ever green claims, in which, the union, for the first time, makes demands on the UK Civil Service with regards to net zero and the green transition.
  • To draft a model AI and Robotics agreement, that places demands on the employer to ensure AI and new technologies are implemented in consultation with the union and sets out protections for staff.
  • To draft a disability rights agreement.

Again, though, the dead hand of LU holds things up. The President and the GS don’t want the NEC to meet to progress issues. Although the NEC is supposed to meet every month, this has not happened. Each NEC should last a day, but they have refused this as well. Despite all of the above agreements having been drafted and submitted for discussion, not one has been heard or discussed by the NEC. They just get moved from one NEC to another. They are still waiting to heard and agreed.

Even when motions are heard and agreed upon, the General Secretary doesn’t action them; partially because the union bureaucracy is incompetent. The GS obviously forgets what was agreed, but also because LU doesn’t want to do the work; they are lazy.

Nevertheless, the CfC pushed through a motion on pay and terms and conditions for digital staff, a group of members that LU has wholly ignored, and a motion adopting the four-day week as a demand – which, by the way, LU opposed!

We passed a motion instructing the GS to collect pay data so that we can equality audit the UK civil service and a motion instructing the GS to actually work up strategic legal cases, such as taking equal pay claims.

The CfC ensured that PCS actually replied to the Civil Service’s consultation on Trans rights. Not only did we make sure that we lodged a response, but we also ensured that Pride was properly consulted as to how the union would respond, and that our response reflected union policy.

The CfC prevented the GS from spending even more of your money on staff. The General Secretary, without informing the NEC, let alone talking to them, paid out over £600K on redundancies to create a new, top-heavy with senior managers, staffing structure which costs £1M more in salaries than the previous structure. Without the dogged resistance from the CfC, the GS certainly would have gone further.

Of course, if we have a majority on the NEC and the President’s position, then we can actually have a national campaign, ensure that equal pay claims are lodged, make sure we put the AI agreement to management, lodge our green claim, and so much more.

This, of course, all depends on your vote and the work you can help to put in on the ground to get the vote out to support of the ambitions of the CfC.

This NEC election is a simple choice between the CfC, who want a better union, one you deserve, or leaving Left Unity in control, which means more stagnation and no effective resistance.

London Faces A Jobs Massacre

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

“Places for Growth”

 Late last year, without any fanfare, the Cabinet Office published an evaluation report on “Places for Growth” (PfG). PfG is the Tory initiated program, started in 2020, to relocate 22,000 roles outside of London by 2027 and to have 50% of UK-based Senior Civil Servants (SCS) based outside of the capital by 2030.

The real purpose of the plan, however, was to move civil service jobs into constituencies that the Tories wanted to win in the general election; of course, that plan failed miserably.

For us, the key conclusion in the report is (emphasis ours):

Conclusion: At risk: The ministerially agreed principle to reduce the number of civil servants based in London to 75,000 by 2030, a key aspect of the Plan for London program, is currently at risk based on current headcount data. It is noted, however, that the increase in Civil Service headcount in London should be viewed in the context of the increased demands preparing for EU Exit, and then management of the pandemic response during this period.

YearLondon (Headcount)Outside London
201778,070334,150
201883,530339,110
201989,100348,460
202091,660356,100
2021101,930 (FTE 98,000)375,470
2022104,830 (FTE 100,955)398,250
2023103,735 (FTE 99,790)409,820

Up until now, PfG has been relatively painless as the civil service was expanding at the same time as roles were supposedly being relocated out of London. Following recent announcements, however, we know that overall civil service headcount is set to reduce and, on the face of it, 25,000 jobs will have to be cut in London to meet the 75,000 target for London headcount.

We in the Independent Left take this seriously. Labour is desperate for savings and in many ways, they are more ruthless, callous, and rigid than the Tories.

This is amply demonstrated by today’s announcement that the Cabinet Office, mostly London-based, expects 2,100 out of its 6,500 jobs will be cut or moved to other parts of government over the next two years. Pat McFaden, the Minister in charge of the Cabinet Office, has been explicit that moving jobs out of London is “where the state can get better value for money.” Where the Cabinet Office goes, others will follow.

Also highlighted in the report is the target:

“London estate reduced to 20 buildings by 2026 and consolidation of regional estates into hubs”.

The report says of this target:

Evidence: The current count of buildings in the London estate is 63. This is expected to fall to 40 buildings by 2026 based on disposals planned, compared to a target of 20.

Such a sharp reduction in the number of buildings threatens our members working in facility management jobs. It stands to reason that you need fewer security guards, catering staff, cleaners, etc. if you have 20 buildings rather than 63 buildings.

What is to be done?

The Independent Left propose the following:

  • We ask the Labour Government to drop the 75K target, insource all FM work, and give a guarantee of employment for all FM workers. If they don’t, then we campaign in London, targeting Labour MPs in particular to support us;
  • We educate and agitate around this issue with London staff with an explicit goal to recruit civil servants and FM workers and to build an expanding cadre of civil service/FM activists;
  • Under the auspices of the London and SE Regional (LSE) committee, regular meetings are held with impacted London branches. FM worker reps must be part of these meetings. The LSE to be given a campaign budget so that local campaigning can be undertaken;
  • All relevant Groups, National branches, London branches, and the national union meet together regularly to plan bargaining and campaigning;
  • All the above is undertaken with the aim to build and win strikes in London.

If Left Unity wins a majority on the NEC, will any of the above happen? We are doubtful.

In DWP, where the LU has had complete control for decades, their standard operating procedure when faced with mass office closures/staffing cuts is to place the burden on individual branches to fight the closures/cuts on their own and to exclude local branches from any talks with management about local offices.

They will do the same with London

With a Coalition for Change NEC, our proposals stand a chance of being adopted. So, if you work in London, vote Cfc in the NEC elections.

“Our Work, Our Way” – No to Arbitrary Office Attendance Mandates, Yes to Workers’ Choice

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

Labour Ministers reiterate the Tories’ office attendance mandate
In November 2023 the Cabinet office, under the direction of the then Conservative Government, issued the instruction that Civil Servants must return to in-person office based working for a minimum 60% of their working time. At the time the PCS Independent Left set out the unequal, unnecessary, and unworkable, nature of this arbitrary decision.

We highlighted how a Tory Government empowered by its earlier imposition on the Civil Service of the lowest pay award in the Public Sector during that year’s pay round, sought to rain down further blows upon Civil Servants to shore up its voting base and divert attentions from its own failings. We provided key equality and other arguments for a more flexible approach that covered members in operational roles and that would protect the rights of the many members who need to attend their workplace for personal or other reasons.

A year later, on 24 October 2024, despite General Secretary Fran Heathcote’s claim that she would hold their feet to the fire, Keir Starmer’s Labour Government has, in complicity with the Cabinet Office, reiterated the Tories decision that Civil Servants should spend a minimum of 60% of their contracted hours working from the office: irrespective of the nature of Civil Servants’ work and their personal circumstances or preferences, despite technology allowing for more flexible working practises, and ignoring the demonstrable successes of remote working during and since the COVID19 pandemic and the flexibility and adaptation shown by workers in delivering vital public services.

Labour’s League Table of office attendance
The Labour Government simultaneously reinitiated the publishing of departmental attendance data, despite the numerous flaws and inconsistencies with, and between, departments’ attendance recording systems, the intrusiveness upon staff, and the gap between the data and reality. The purpose of this competitive league-table approach is obvious: . Departments which frogmarch and cajole their workers back into offices are to be praised, whilst those who value a flexible approach to hybrid working, who trust their staff’s judgement as to how they might best work, are to be spotlighted, admonished, and pressurised.

Legal entitlement
Permanent Secretaries should have properly considered, and publicly set out their reasoning, whether civil servants who have long worked from home for 60% or more of their contacted hours have a contractual or custom and practice right to continue to do so. Instead, they have essentially ignored these legal issues and reserved their “right” to require greater than 60% workplace attendance in the future.

A weak response from the PCS General Secretary and her allies
The response from the PCS General Secretary, and her Left Unity allies – who together run PCS without regard for its rules, its democracy, and the views of the majority of PCS NEC members – has been poor at best. We will return to their failure in a future posting. Here we focus on key policy issues and what needs to be done.

PCS’s default position – “Workers’ Choice”
PCS’ default position must be that civil servants should have ultimate flexibility to choose whether and when to work from home or the office, including operational staff where this can be enabled by technology.

Protecting civil servants who need or prefer to attend the office
An essential aspect of this in principle position of “workers’ choice” must be that members who wish to attend the office, or need to do so for well-being reasons, should be provided with good quality accommodation, with appropriate H&S measures in place, and, where appropriate, with reasonable adjustments. They should also have the right to decide how long they will be in the office for on any particular day, making time up at home on the same day or later if that is their preference or need, especially if it enables them to avoid expensive, crowded, peak hours travel and more easily care for dependants.

Support the local disputes but launch a national campaign
PCS should have already launched, but must now launch, a collective national response to the mandating of 60% office attendance. Our employer’s decision is a national one and we should respond on the same level.

Existing campaigns by groups and branches within PCS such as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), His Majesty’s Land Registry (HMLR) and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), and, most recently, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, who have incorporated demands regarding the 60% office mandates within their respective live disputes, are to be commended.

However, this issue cuts across all parts of the civil service and the government decision announced in October 2024 was declared to be a cross civil service decision, While national PCS should vigorously support all “local” campaigns against enforced office attendance, those struggles should be incorporated into an effective national campaign with clear, civil service wide demands and a civil service wide critique of the 60% policy.

The Independent Left believes:

  • Those who undertake their work know best how to structure that work.
  • Civil Servants, including operational staff with appropriate technological support, should have ultimate flexibility to choose whether and when to work from home or the office.
  • Member’s choice, the need for managers to trust and respect staff’s judgment as to when and where they undertake their work from, should be the lodestar of a nationally initiated and coordinated campaign, supporting business unit level PCS representatives with key National actions, messaging, and guidance.
  • Members’ choice must be the genuine lode star of a real PCS campaign, not some “nice to have” paper policy that occasionally gets read out as a “sound bite” by the Left Unity General Secretary.
  • That gains from technological developments must be shared by the workforce, and that jobs must be safeguarded for staff where technological developments are made.
  • Civil Servants should, where they choose to, be able to work from offices that are safe, comfortable and be afforded all the proper equipment and all necessary reasonable adjustments.
  • Civil Servants should, in accessing offices, be able to do so in a flexible manner, attending at the hours appropriate to them, allowing them to travel and plan around caring and other responsibilities.

How should the union develop its campaign?
On the basis of the above points, not least the need for a national campaign, PCS must:

  • Insist that the Cabinet Office comply with its duty to consider and publish, in consultation with PCS, all the equality evidence relevant to the 60% mandate.
  • Demand that the Cabinet Office produces a post-implementation impact assessment, which it can and should do from the November 2023 Tory decision to date.
  • Must demand that each Department works with the unions in equality impact assessing mandatory attendance, including differential impacts between operational staff and Corporate Centre/HQ staff.
  • Ask in each department for a breakdown of, for example, part-time and full-time workers, by grade, ethnicity, gender, and “disability” and consider the differential impacts of 60% office working by length of contracted hours.
  • Carry out its own equality impact assessments where possible because, even where PCS is nominally consulted, employer assessments are likely to be substandard.
  • Provide guidance and training to full time officers (FTO) and lay representatives and instruct FTO and the PCS legal department, to identify and pursue legal test cases.
  • Insist that workers should not be worse off than colleagues elsewhere because of the office they work in, noting that the Cabinet Office and individual departments have acknowledged that some buildings lack the space for 60% office working.
  • Produce guidance and templates for members who have caring responsibilities, health and other grounds for challenging mandatory attendance “rules”, with associated training provided to representatives and a default presumption of PCS support for legal challenges.
  • Use all communication avenues not just to publicise opposition to the latest attack but to make the political case for flexible working for civil servants and workers more generally, highlighting. The positive impacts on individuals and public services whilst pointing out the hypocrisy of;
    • MPs, who are not legally or contractually required to attend Parliament, ever!.
    • Successive governments, which have long reduced the civil service estate to “save money”, forcing staff to work in ridiculous conditions or work from home, but now demand that squeeze into our offices.
  • Enshrine terms and conditions, including rights to flexible working, within contracts of employment, as was done in the old DCLG, subsequently DfT/MHCLG, by Independent Left supporters, including the current AGS John Moloney, to ensure that they could not be unilaterally worsened..

The above positions should be developed through membership consultation – the Independent Left want PCS to challenge the arbitrary nature of office attendance mandates and to truly embed flexibility within the terms and conditions of Civil Servants.

Whether it be office attendance, or the rota-ing of shifts, we recognise that it is those who do the work who know best how to structure that work. Workers having a say in how their work is carried out is the basis of Trade Unionism and should underpin a nationally initiated and coordinate campaign, supporting business units with key National actions, messaging, and guidance on that basis.

“Our Work, Our Way”!





A Better Deal for PCS members in DWP: Vote for a new leadership in 2025

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

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.

Being accountable for how PCS members’ subs are spent

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

Members elect the NEC to carry the responsibility for scrutinising the budget of the union and how your subs are spent.

At the NEC on the 7th of November, at hours’ notice, the meeting was asked to endorse a set of budgetary parameters.

In short, the NEC majority was not prepared to endorse a set of budgetary parameters, presented to the NEC on the day of the meeting, which ignored the recommendations of the unions finance committee and which coupled with a potential pause of the levy, created a blackhole for the fighting fund, rebalanced money away from services towards an unscrutinised staffing re-structure and demanded an additional 5% in membership subscriptions from members to pay for it.

Following the meeting the Left Unity minority on the NEC posted a series of denunciations online of those NEC members opposed to these parameters.

As it happened the General Secretary, following opposition to some or all of the parameters from members across the political divide, withdrew them. So, for all the bluster, the NEC reached unanimous agreement on the way forward.

However, if this hadn’t happened the NEC majority had called for them to be remitted. We would like to offer to reps and members, with evidence and context, our rationale for doing so.

Members and reps deserve to know what your subs are being used for.

The uniliteral imposition of a new staffing structure

In a union where thousands of our members are on the minimum wage, Left Unity’s priority is to create 2 new ‘super-grade’ roles at salaries far more than the average member, and indeed, in excess of all existing full-time officers of the union.

The NEC on the 7th of November was the earliest opportunity we’ve had a finance paper which reflects the financial impact of this decision and the consequential balance of members money being spent on it.

Below are the top salary bands of PCS employees in 2023 from the publicly available 2024 Financial Report. The new ‘super-grade’ (B6a) sits between the top of B6 and within the B7 scale.

The successful candidates for both new positions were coincidently long-term allies of the General Secretary and supporters of Left Unity. They have seen massive pay increases.

For context, the General Secretary is the only staff member who takes home the top B7 band, as Assistant General Secretary John Moloney continues his election pledge to only take the wage of an average PCS member.

These changes represent an ongoing liability for PCS members, and a permanent increase in the balance of membership subs paid on staffing. A liability, as Table 1 below illustrates which represents an additional 55p plus a month per member than last year. And that’s in August, the number is likely to increase.

(Again, the union’s finances are a matter of public record)

The strategic decision to alter the structure of the union and expand the staffing budget was not scrutinised by the NEC as it should have been before it was introduced.

We were not prepared to endorse this rebalance of the union’s finances away from services and onto new, highly remunerated staff.

It is worth stating that the staff union, GMB were rightly consulted on the changes and accepted them. But there is a significant democratic deficit when the GMB have more of an say over how your subs are spent than the elected PCS National Executive Committee, accountable to you.

The levy

£900k has been spent from the general fighting fund to fund the courageous and escalating action of our FM members across departments. There is consequently an over £100k deficit in that account.

As you can see below, the additional levy is in the black. The only way we can continue to sustain funding for FM dispute is to borrow against this account.

With or without the levy we must find a way to fund current and future action, or we stop it.

Left Unity would simply have us cancel a sustainable source of funding completely.

We have consistently proposed reducing and reconstituting the levy. But if we want to continue to fund and grow these disputes, as the coalition does, we need to fund them.

Where do Left Unity propose to get this money? Or do they want to wind down the outsourced workers action?

Not only would Left Unity have us cancel the levy, but they also want us to fund their unnecessary and unaccountable additional staff burden with no new money.

Increase membership subs?

The unions Finance Committee, which contains a majority of Coalition for Change members, refused to recommend a members subs increase to the NEC. However, the paper presented to the NEC by the General Secretary ignored this and recommended a 5% increase from January.

There was rightfully opposition from Left Unity members at the NEC to this proposal and thankfully the General Secretary on considering the opposition agreed to withdraw the recommendations.

The question for Left Unity comrades now is, how do you want to fund the General Secretaries new staffing structure alongside the – hopefully increased – action of PCS FM workers?

We don’t accept increasing the subs you pay to the union to fund these unnecessary new, super-paid members of union staff.

Keep the Levy vs increases unions subs

The levy and the remainder of the budget of the union, paid for by the bulk of your subs are separate things.

The levy is earmarked for supporting industrial action, members know where that money is going. The rest of the budget is around agreeing a set of spending priorities which are often strategic and political.

As mentioned, the majority of the NEC doesn’t agree the spending priorities of the General Secretary, which have been imposed unilaterally, without scrutiny.

It’s our responsibility as the custodians of the unions finances to continue to argue this point.

‘Tory austerity’?

Left Unity claim that refusing to endorse their budget is akin to ‘Tory Austerity’.

To be absolutely clear, the union is not the same as the Government. The union cannot print money, sell bonds or raise taxes on the rich. Nor is it a profit-making corporation.

PCS is a membership organisation, funded entirely by the subs of its members, many of whom are on the minimum wage.

We don’t believe that such insults or comparisons are correct or helpful. However, as they have now been levelled at us, we offer a more accurate analogy.

Members will remember the government using the pandemic as an excuse to agree wasteful contracts, furnishing their allies in the business world with £m contracts for worthless PPE without any parliamentary scrutiny.

We refuse to allow such unaccountable mismanagement to occur in PCS.

It is, of course also true that Left Unity have consistently voted for cuts in budgets and staff. When the union had to tighten budgets and cut staff when the impacts of check-off hit, did comrades cry ‘austerity’ or claim the budgets read like an employer paper or as claimed a Tory budget. Of course not.

‘Too honest’

IL supporters made these points in contributions to the debate at the NEC on the 7th. We were criticised in the General Secretaries right of reply and in subsequent Left Unity articles for being ‘too honest’.

The NEC will will revisit the question of the budget at December’s meeting, but no member should expect that NEC members should roll-over and accept unilaterally imposed financial pressures on creating an even greater layer of staff to the detriment of members services.

We will make no apologies for doing so and will continue to be open, transparent and ‘too honest’ about the situation.