Tag Archives: unions

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.

John Moloney re-elected: The fight for the future of the union has begun

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

The results of the election for the unions General and Assistant General Secretary have been announced this afternoon.

Fran Heathcote, the existing union President, and candidate of the leadership won General Secretary, only beating Marion Lloyd by 783 votes or 3.9% in the closest run General Secretary election in the union’s history.

Remarkably, John Moloney of the Independent Left defeated full-time officer Paul O’Connor by 11,705 votes to 8,152 to be re-elected as Assistant General Secretary.

The closeness of the GS result and the defeat of Paul O’Connor are remarkable for several reasons. They occur in the context of Fran and Paul being the anointed successors of Mark Serwotka, the union machine being used to profile both candidates throughout the campaign and the patronising and sometimes unedifying and desperate spectacle of celebrity endorsements.

Despite the ongoing leadership claim that PCS is a member led union, the turnout in the election was appallingly low at 11.5%. Much lower than the 19% 5 years ago, and a statistic which puts the bed the justification for bringing the elections forward made by Mark Serwotka that it would increase turnout.

In this respect the election was a failure for all candidates and damning indictment on the state of the democratic deficit in the union. If barely 1 in 10 members feels any purpose in returning a ballot for the leadership of the union, something much more fundamental than simply standing in elections with decent politics is required to rebuild the rank-and-file in PCS.

Clearly, the election of the unions first woman General Secretary is a good thing. It was, of course, a foregone conclusion before the ballots were even issued as both candidates were women.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence that the result of the GS election is going to better the material conditions of women members or members more widely for that matter.

What we heard during the campaign, echoed in the closeness of the results and overwhelming return of John Moloney as AGS, is that many members are acutely aware of the dire state the union is in and the inability and unwillingness of the leadership to change or fight for better. 

In the countless members hustings events Marion and John spoke to throughout the country, most of which were boycotted by Fran and Paul who preferred to seek support from the likes of Steve Coogan, members wanted change or through debate were convinced by the alternative as laid out by Marion and John.

Members are acutely aware that this leadership strategy this year has led to the worst pay-rise in the public sector alongside a pro-rated £1500 payment which the unions own negotiators didn’t equality check, and which therefore was disproportionately lower for part-time workers and negatively impacted UC payments. Members are also aware of the Orwellian ballot to ‘continue the campaign’ on 23/24 pay, which despite members voting ‘Yes’ has now, as predicted by us, been well and truly buried.

Throughout, Fran and Paul’s campaign vaunted the increase in pay in certain departments, not mentioning that in many cases the pay-rises had nothing to do with the union and everything to do with the rise in the minimum wage and forgetting that most members listening were profoundly conscious – particularly at this time of year – that they only got a 4.5% rise.

During the campaign, members were told of ongoing talks with the Cabinet Office on 23/24 pay, but true to type these haven’t produced a result. Largely, as predicted, because the leadership strategy has given up any leverage we had by shutting the dispute. Additionally, members haven’t had an update on talks because of the unions longstanding insistence to keep much from members for as long as reasonably possible.

On both issues, the alternative presented by Marion and John, of re-energizing the national campaign, with a more creative and combative industrial strategy and of ending secretive negotiations and opening them up to membership control won many members over.

We hope that considering John’s large mandate, he will be given the remit to carry out his platform, including that of bargaining. It’s the democratic thing to do. But we also know that to really change the union we have to win the leadership.

The combined votes for the candidates for change, Marion and John, exceeded those for Fran and Paul by nearly 2770 votes or 7%. We’re not stating this to claim Fran shouldn’t have won, but to illustrate that despite everything, our ideas got through to members.

This coalition, which throughout the campaign saw many new individuals and groups of activists join, needs to maintain the same level of unity going into the NEC elections next year.

If you agree, please consider joining us at the PCS Independent Left.