Tag Archives: politics

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.

An extraordinary National Executive Committee

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

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

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

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 NEC election results: A win for the Coalition for Change

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

The PCS NEC election results have now been published.

The Coalition for Change, which brought together the PCS Independent Left (IL), Broad Left Network (BLN) and other groups and independents, has secured a clear NEC majority on a principled programme that addresses the key issues facing members and our trade union.

We thank the many branches that nominated Change candidates, the activists and members who voted and campaigned for them, and all the members who took part in PCS’ democracy.

Members have clearly voted for change in these NEC elections, confirming the mood for radical change within PCS that was evidenced during last year’s senior officer elections.

There is a great deal of work to be done by the incoming NEC, not least because:

  • Civil Service pay is in unprecedented long term decline.
  • Tens of thousands of members are stuck on and near the legal minimum wage.
  • The civil service is strong arming members into office working pattens that are unnecessary and discriminatory.
  • Non-civil service members all too often have poor terms and conditions, woeful employer regimes, and are under organised and under supported by national union. 
  • Membership levels are too low, damaging our leverage.

The Coalition NEC members cannot overnight put right all that has been put right wrong, but they can and will start that work.

Our most immediate challenge is to respond to the results of the civil service wide ballots on pay and other issues, which will conclude on 13 May.  It is unfortunate that we will have to undertake that task when the decisions of Left Unity NEC members and senior PCS officials have left our union in a weaker position today than we were in a year ago, but it is vital that PCS begins to rebuild the purchasing power of our wages.

Independent Left NEC members will:

  • Seek sharp debates on policy issues and collaborative working on delivering for members.
  • Place equality genuinely at the heart of everything PCS does.
  • Seek to end the spin culture that has too long dominated PCS and insist on timely, comprehensive, national negotiating reports to members.
  • Never forget that the lives of PCS members are affected by events outside of our workplaces and that social and international solidarity must be a PCS lode star.

IL supporters have long played a critical role in PCS. We pioneered equality impact assessments of employer policies; established that the Crown is the legal employer of all civil servants; pioneered cross departmental equal pay claims; led fightbacks against office closures; argued alone for many years that a Fighting Fund War Chest and paid selective action must be vital parts of PCS’ armoury; sought the contractualisation of terms and conditions so that they cannot be arbitrarily changed by our employer, and have long fought for a membership led union. Please join us.

IL Statement On DWP Elections

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

At present, the joint Independent Left/Broad Left Network candidate standing for DWP President, Bev Laidlaw, will be omitted from the DWP Group Executive Committee ballot paper on the stated grounds that she did not accept the nomination within the deadline. 

Bev does not agree with this view and decision. Without going into all the detail here, Bev indicated her acceptance within the deadline, stating  “please find attached my election addresses for DWP Elections 2024; DWP Group President and Ordinary GEC member.” On any reasonable reading a candidate stating that are attaching election addresses and identification the posts they cover is a statement that they do accept nomination for those posts. 

Supported by IL and BLN colleagues (who are also standing as part of the Coalition for  Change in the NEC elections), Bev has challenged this decision, although the “procedure” allowed for challenge is not one we would recommend and the HQ decision, as it stands at present, will mean that the LU candidate will be elected unopposed.

The wider view we take, and that Bev has expressed, is that trade unions should favour the maximisation of democracy, reduce obstacles to candidates standing, and promote contested elections rather than omit candidates for reasons unconnected to the key issues of whether a candidate is in membership, is a member in the relevant constituency, has been properly nominated, and has accepted nomination. Going forward after the election, we will therefore be looking to ensure PCS’ election arrangements reflect these fundamental democratic principles.

In the here and now, it is crucial that everyone of us, who wants change in our union, who is serious about winning on pay and wants democratic, accountable leaders, redouble our efforts to vote for and campaign for BLN/IL/Change candidates in Group and National Executive Committee elections.

You can read our programme here, and see the candidates we endorse here.

Vote for change.

PCS National Campaign Strategy: Sabotage or Incompetence?

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The PCS NEC met last week to discuss last minute proposals from the General Secretary for this year’s national campaign strategy.

Observant members will notice that last year’s national campaign, which we were told was merely ‘paused’ has, as we predicted, been swept under the carpet, never to be spoken of again. But as a reminder – we settled on the lowest pay offer in the public sector and a £1500 bonus which the failed candidate for Assistant General Secretary told bargaining units to accept being paid pro-rata’d.

The NEC decided on a pay-claim and a national consultative ballot for strike action, which they have described as a ‘survey’, which would be carried out over 2-weeks from the 20th of February, which may or may not result in a disaggregated Civil Service statutory ballot before May.

Ballot timetable

To put this in context, branches were asked to agitate around a consultative ballot on pay, which would commence less than a week after it was announced, would last only 10 working-days and who’s demands have been sprung on members and activists at the last minute without any consultation or rationale.

The formula of a short, rushed consultative ballot with little preparation time and minimal rank-and-file engagement, followed by the potential of a statutory ballot if the response is positive is paint-by-numbers Left Unity industrial strategy. But this timetable is particularly galling.

Such a rushed ballot strategy presents 3 key issues:

Firstly, the incompetent administration of the ballot is already causing problems. From members not being sent the links on the day the ballot started, to being asked for their National Insurance Number rather than membership number to vote and hosting the ballot site on a none ‘https’ secure server. All are unnecessary barriers to participation and will reduce turnout.

Secondly, a predictably poor turnout does not provide an accurate measure of members feelings. It also provides those who would rather not move to a statutory ballot the ammunition to argue that members are not sufficiently prepared for action. The leadership have used this argument previously not to move to a statutory ballot and we should be conscious this may be the case again.

Thirdly, running potentially 2 ballots in such a short space of time is a recipe for unnecessary confusion and fatigue among members and activists. Members are potentially being asked to take part in two ballots, asking the same question within weeks of each other, and activists are being asked to turnout the vote twice over. As both ballots are conducted in different ways, more confusion is likely.

The Academic Study

The foundation of the pay claim was an academic study commissioned by the union on pay trends in the civil service overtime, but specifically since 2007. For transparency, we attach the study at the bottom of this article.

This was received by the union in January, but not shared with the NEC until just before the meeting and not shared with branches until this week.

The study illustrates the serious loss in real-terms wages since 2007, summarising that just to restore real-term earnings to 2010 levels, an average of 35% pay increases at grades AA-EO would be required.

This figure does not surprise us. Independent Left comrades both in branches and on the NEC have consistently argued that pay restoration is a key demand and that to continually carry over the same pay claim year-on-year while pay shrinks, is a tacit endorsement of real term pay losses. Historically, this has been met with ridicule, with the leadership stating that members would find a 35% pay demand to be absurd.

Pay Restoration

They say good things come in groups of 3. During the last years national campaign, the union adopted 2 tactics we had been advancing for years. Namely selective/targeted action in areas which were industrially disruptive and a levy on members subs to ensure such action could be supported.

This year, the NEC has rightfully adopted the demand of pay restoration, although one could argue too little too late considering years of real-terms pay degradation.

Pay restoration is a key demand. It’s not an arbitrary percentage rise which has no basis in the material reality of members experiences, and which isn’t tied to the increase in the cost of living. It’s asserting the principle that workers’ salaries should at a bare minimum always keep up with the cost of living. It is good it’s finally been adopted.

Lowest paid left out

Why then, hasn’t the £15/r under-pin for our worst paid members been uprated? £15/hr was in the 2022 claim and since then, we’ve had historically high inflation. It would be excellent if we simply won on pay restoration, but if we don’t achieve that, the point of the underpin was to act as a separate bargaining point for our lowest paid.

They have been sadly ignored by this claim.

Hybrid working

Many thousands of our members have since the end of the pandemic, little choice by to attend the office daily, despite proving during the pandemic they were able to do much of their work from home.

One of the key issues for hybrid workers is the move to increase office attendance from 40% to 60%. This is a widely and deeply held grievance, which if included in the claim would help to increase participation.

For non-hybrid workers a specific demand advancing the principle for flexible working where possible should be included.

Exclusion of FM workers

Once again outsourced and facilities management workers are left out of the claim. We understand this pay claim is for Civil Service Workers, but there is no reason why the demands we’ve made nationally for our outsourced workers should not sit-beside them in a joint campaign.

As it is we have a national campaign, into which most of the union’s effort is focussed with a much more secondary and in many groups like the DWP, non-existent campaign for Facilities Management workers. Workers which hold significant industrial power in our workplaces and who through a coordinated campaign could bolster leverage for all members.

So, incompetence or sabotage? Or a mixture of both?

The question for us is, is this strategy designed to sabotage the campaign from the start or is it simply a poor, incompetent plan? We will give the new leadership the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter, but there may well be members of the leadership faction who do have the inclination or capability to fight an industrial campaign.

What is telling, is that numerous NEC members have admitted in various forums that they hadn’t even read the study before voting on the claim, preferring to simply accept the claim as presented by the general secretary. Whatever your faction, the role of an NEC member is to scrutinise decisions based on the total amount of evidence. It is depressing, but not surprising that NEC members do not think this is important.

Regardless, we have a lot of work to do over the next weeks to ensure the maximum membership turnout. Vote Yes to industrial action.

What’s the alternative?

If the aim is to have a live mandate by conference in order to be able to take action in a timely fashion during this year’s pay round, we should have begun the process much earlier, on the safe assumption that the pay-remit would not be acceptable to us.

As we are where we are, we believe a better option would be to use the coming weeks to continue to ensure the foundations in branches are prepared for a statutory ballot, not to agitate around a superfluous consultative ballot.

In terms of the claim, pay restoration is good (but needs to be explained to members), but the refusal to uprate the underpin and the omittance of one of the key workplace issues of the day – flexible working – are serious oversights which could have been caught if the process wasn’t so rushed or we had a different leadership.

pcs-pay-studyDownload