Tag Archives: politics

Confronting Left Unity’s Fake Optimism

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

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/

PCS’ Social Media and Persona Non Grata

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

Those with a keen eye will have noticed a conspicuous absence in PCS’ recent social media postings during the recent TUC Congress that expose an unacceptable and ongoing abuse of the union’s media channels. Whilst PCS officials found time during conference to interview a former Deputy President of PCS, long gone from the civil service, seeking his views on the Employment Rights Bill, the actual Deputy President, Bev Laidlaw, who was also in attendance, was not featured in a single post during conference. The reason for this is not hard to identify; Bev is Independent Left, not Left Unity. This fact alone seems to make her persona non grata in the eyes of those who control PCS’ publicity and media platforms.

This is not just an oversight. It is a repeated, calculated practice. To date, Bev has never once been interviewed or even properly acknowledged on union social media in her role as Deputy President. At the same time, LU-aligned officers and NEC members feature regularly, boosting their profile and boasting of their activities within the union. This amounts to nothing less than factional censorship, using the union’s own media resources to build up one group while erasing the existence of others.

Such behaviour is a betrayal of the membership. Every PCS member pays their subs; every elected officer is chosen by a democratic vote. PCS media is not the private property of one political grouping. It belongs to the whole union. Yet by manipulating coverage LU is treating official channels as a propaganda arm for their slate. This grossly undermines the principles of democracy and transparency on which trade unionism depends.

The consequences of LU’s actions are not minor. When members can see plainly that communications are skewed, trust in PCS leadership is eroded. When the second most senior elected lay officer in the union is deliberately excluded because of her affiliation, it sends a signal: your vote only counts if you support the ruling faction. This is not representation; it is control by omission.

As Orwell warned in 1984, the tactic of making opponents into “unpersons” is a tool of authoritarianism. For PCS to engage in such behaviour is shameful. Our union should be leading by example, modelling fairness, inclusivity, and respect for democracy. Instead, it mirrors the very injustices we are supposed to oppose in the workplace.

This practice must end immediately. PCS communications should serve the whole membership, not the narrow factional interests of those who presently dominate the NEC. To continue down this path is to hollow out democracy itself.

A Ballot Ready NEC?

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

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?

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

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.

Why PCS should refuse to abandon our commitment to Ukrainian brothers and sisters

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

In February, PCS sent a delegation to Kyiv as part of the unions continued commitment to solidarity with Ukraine and Ukrainian workers. A position that PCS Independent Left were central in ensuring was taken-up in the wake of the Russian invasion.

On the second evening, Kyiv came under ballistic attack from Russian missiles – now a weekly if not daily occurrence for the citizens of Ukraine.

2 ballistic missiles got through the Ukrainian air defences, causing the destruction of infrastructure and several fatalities and more casualties. Chris Marks, NEC member and delegation participant made this video the morning after.

On this evening, these 2 missiles were part of a wider attack of 8 – Ukrainian Air Defence was able to knock out the other 6.

It was only able to do so due to the weapons provided to Ukraine by other nations, including the UK. Weapons which have consistently been called for by all Ukrainian workers unions, including PCS’s sister unions since the beginning of Russia’s imperialist invasion in 2022.

Just like the Republic in the Spanish Civil War, the Ukrainian people have the right to ask for arms to defend themselves from tyranny wherever they can get them, as the Ukrainian unions do.

Not because they have any trust in the governments they come from, but because they are in a life and death fight against a much stronger imperialist power which has the self-stated desire to conquer and oppress them and destroy their democratic rights.

It is therefore wholly regrettable that the National Executive Committee decided by a slim majority to endorse motion A30, being debated at Annual Conference, which draws the same false moral equivalence between the Russian imperialists and the Ukrainian defenders that has been made by Donald Trump recently and forces the union to campaign to ‘end arms to Ukraine’.

The union hasn’t taken an explicit position on ‘arms to Ukraine’ until now. Some of us would argue that it should have done, but not doing so also allows the union not to conflict with the calls of our Ukrainian counterparts.

It is such a truism, it shouldn’t even need stating: If arms to Ukraine were successfully stopped, Ukraine would loose and the Russian imperialist venture will be victorious.

If PCS passes this motion, it will send a very dangerous message to our members, give a – however minor – propaganda victory to the Russian war effort and will represent a betrayal of our Ukrainian brothers and sisters.

Who are we to try and prevent the very thing the Ukranians are telling us they need?

The motion was only able to be endorsed because the Socialist Party joined all Left Unity NEC members in voting to support it. This was a huge mistake and has allowed the authoritarian international politics of Left Unity to win out for a motion which purposefully doesn’t reference the Ukrainian workers movement or any class demands.

It is a mistake to move PCS away from its position of consistent international solidarity and support of workers fighting imperialism. A position which has been recently re-iterated by the former General Secretary.

If you agree, please ensure:

  1. Your branch is mandated to oppose motion A30 and references back the incorrectly E-marked motion E194, which re-iterates the unions position in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Please get in touch if you’d like support in doing this.
  2. Vote for candidates in the ongoing NEC elections with the record of consistent international solidarity.

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.