Month: Feb 2022

DWP Group Executive Committee met over two days in January (26^th and 27^th) to discuss the key  industrial issues facing members. Despite doing their best to avoid confronting the mounting crises across most areas of the Department, from staffing to working conditions to COVID-19 safety measures, it was clear that the pressure being applied by dissatisfied branches and activists forced the GEC Left Unity (LU) majority into producing a self-congratulatory motion that offered a meek and mild commitment of “campaigning” on such issues.

Three motions were debated on the Thursday afternoon, one submitted by each of the three groups represented on the GEC, and the difference in the motions was stark. The motion put forward by the Left Unity majority failed to outline even a shred of detail about how they would campaign, whereas the Broad Left Network motion sought to commit the GEC to industrial action, building a campaign in an effort to win concessions on staffing, working conditions and health and safety. The IL motion called on the GEC to call an immediate statutory ballot, but that is a risky move considering the current leadership have not yet even placed formal demands on the employer and the necessary building work – mass meetings and leafleting – has yet to be done. The BLN approach was to place four demands on the employer:

1. That the employer engaged in a full re-negotiation of all COVID-19 safety measures
2. That the employer offers permanent jobs to the thousands of EO staff and remaining 183 AO staff on Fixed-Term contracts
3. That the employer commits to a root-and-branch assessment of working conditions in all areas of the Department
4. That the employer opens up negotiations to offer hybrid working arrangements to all staff, including those in front-facing areas, such as Jobcentres

The motion further called for immediate preparations for a statutory ballot across the whole of the DWP but on a disaggregated basis. This means that individual workplaces would be balloted and those workplaces that beat the anti-trade union legislation and achieve over a 50% ballot turnout would have a legal mandate for strike action, allowing for the union to commence a fightback in those areas where we are strongest but also ensuring resources can be targeted to specific branches and workplaces in any subsequent re-ballot. Any campaign has to include mass meetings, intense leafleting and other forms of high-tempo communication, such as social media campaigning led by the GEC leadership. During the debate, the BLN referenced an ongoing dispute in higher education between the University and College Union (UCU) and universities. The UCU’s Four Fights campaign tied together casualisation and excessive workloads and similar tactics have been used. A significant number of universities achieved a legal mandate for strike action when the union balloted all members across all universities on a disaggregated basis and then re-balloted others who initially did not achieve the minimum turnout. That approach allowed for a further 12 universities to beat the anti-union laws. Strangely, the national president, who sits on the GEC and moved the Left Unity motion, raised a point about the UCU campaign and declared there are significant differences but did not elaborate. Of course all disputes, especially in different sectors, have their differences, but the central points are almost identical and similar strategies pursued.

The motion was proposed by Broad Left Network activist, Craig Worswick, whose Greater Manchester Branch had convened a national reps and activist meeting to raise the urgent need for a national campaign that connects three important issues. The meeting was formally sponsored by a dozen branches (and attended by representatives of others) and two regions. This is indicative of considerable dissatisfaction amongst the activist layer working in the DWP and a statement calling for action was unanimously supported.

Unsurprisingly, given that Left Unity have the majority on the GEC, their motion was voted through and so it is clear there will be no central leadership, that co-ordinates branches and regions, and no meaningful attempt to mobilise our membership at a time when the government is showing immense signs of weakness. The leverage conditions are there for a victorious campaign, that wins permanent jobs for thousands of members, improves working conditions, and protects the health and safety of staff.  

Inevitably, the GEC majority have been quick to claim credit for the Department acting of its own volition when they announced that 6,000 AO staff would be offered a permanent job and that there will be a mass EO selection exercise and offers of permanency to lots of staff. However, there are still a 183 AO staff who face losing their job and, at this stage, the Department has committed to a “majority” of permanent offers to EO grades.

True to form, the GEC LU majority did not pre-warn branches of the nature of the announcement and their only comment has been to “cautiously welcome” the employer’s decision and to “continue to argue for all FTA EOs to be made permanent”. This, again, fails to recognise the balance of forces argument and that our collective power and willingness to act as one is what will knock the Department off balance and not the self-perceived brilliance of individual negotiators. It is plain to see that the negotiators have failed to mobilise members in a campaign backed up with the threat of industrial action. Shockingly,, no evidence has been produced from the LU negotiators to the GEC about when meetings have taken place or what precisely has been raised and discussed during employee relations meetings with GEC Officers and what, if anything, has been agreed. This, unfortunately, highlights a contemptuous attitude reflecting their continued ignoring of representations from branches and regions.

The DWP staffing announcement has predictably riled many of our members, with reports already of staff in tears, in an anxious state or lambasting the employer for their walking-us-up-the-garden-path approach. Moreover, the announcement does not deal with the response from permanent members of staff, who will quite understandably be worried about what their daily working conditions will be like if thousands of staff are removed either from employment or redeployed to other areas of the organisation. The GEC needs to respond urgently and build the campaign to bring together all staff and build for action involving all staff and wage the fight on permanent jobs for all and improved working conditions for all. Only a highly charged and energetic campaign, which brings together all members, will help reverse the years of rotten decline that has hampered the union’s ability to extract significant, well-meaning and lasting concessions from the employer. A victory would galvanise the membership, recruit hundreds, if not thousands of members, and help re-build branches by the identification of new activists.

In the absence of  leadership it is now necessary to reconvene the meeting of reps to discuss next steps given the pitiful response from the GEC. This meeting needs to focus on how branches can meaningfully work together to develop the campaign and co-ordinate their activity, such as identifying areas of strength, calling mass meetings and working together to ensure the necessary correspondence is completed to enter into a formal trade dispute.

In developing the campaign we need to follow the lead of  strike waves that has developed outside of the civil service during the last few months of 2021 that is growing in 2022. It has claimed significant victories for workers. The stored-up anger that has developed through the Covid pandemic has started to burst open. Yet, at the beginning of Covid nearly two years ago, the unions in an official sense seemingly collapsed. Many union leaderships capitulated to the idea of ‘national unity’, the false claim by the Tories that there is a joint interest between workers and their unions on one side, and the employers and their Tory government on the other.

Virtually all official industrial action between March and July 2020 was suspended or cancelled, although many union reps and members heroically took, or threatened, unofficial action to ensure workplace safety. Even unions which in the past period have been seen as more militant succumbed to national unity. Notably, the Left Unity leadership of our own PCS civil service union ‘parked’ the union’s full national pay claim, even before the national executive had met. Only now, two years later, is the union even consulting members nationally on pay but still not linking it to safety and staffing key issues in DWP.

But we are serious about longer term change for the unions. Given the cost of living crisis and the continual attacks from a government who wants to make us pay for austerity and covid it is crucial that we elect a leadership at all levels of the union prepared to take them on. The Broad Left Network is asking you to nominate the following candidates and issue Branch recommendations for a new fighting leadership.  For a leadership what will work, coordinate and support Branches such as yours.

THE BROAD LEFT NETWORK IS ASKING YOU TO NOMINATE THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES FOR THE DWP GEC

PRESIDENT	Semple Dave
VICE PRESIDENTS	Heemskerk Rachel, Suter Paul, Williams Katrine
ASST SECRETARIES	Brown Ian, Burke Dave, Fearn Jill, Rees Dave, Tweedale Saorsa-Amatheia, Worswick Craig
EDITOR	Johnson Sam
TREASURER	Scott Emma
GEC MEMBERS	Brown Ian
Campbell William	Evison Chris
Fearn Jill	Hamer Peter
Heemskerk Rachel	Ilesanmi Yemisi
Johnston Sam	McGuckian Stephen
Semple Dave	Rees Dave
Scott Emma	Suter Paul
Toomer Catherine	Tweedale Saorsa-Amatheia
Williams Katrine	Worswick Craig

FOR THE NATIONAL ELECTIONS PLEASE NOMINATE THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES

PRESIDENT	Lloyd Marion: (BEIS)
VICE PRESIDENTS	Brittle Fiona: (Scot Gov), Brown Sarah: (Met Police), Semple Dave: (DWP); Rosser Jon-Paul
Bartlett Dave – MOJ	Brittle Fiona – SG	Brown Alex – NHS Digital
Bridges Andi – HMRC	Brown Sarah – Met Police	Davies Jaime – HMRC
Denman Kevin – Met Police	Dennis Alan – DSG	Doyle Nick – HMRC
Exley Matt – Culture Sector	Foxton Gill – DfE	Francis Sue – UKSBS
Heemskerk Rachel – DWP	Lloyd Marion – BEIS	McDougall Rachelle – Crown Office
Parker Nick – ACAS	Rees Dave – DWP	Ritchie Rob – Met Police
Rosser Jon-Paul – HMRC	Semple Dave – DWP	Tweedale Saorsa-Amatheia – DWP
Suter Paul – DWP	Williams Katrine – DWP	Worswick Craig – DWP
Young Colin DfE	Young Bobby – HMRC

Hi, please see the attached leaflet outline the Broad Left Network’s programme for PCS in 2022.

It’s been over a year since the R&C GEC voted to recommend HMRC’s offer of ‘Pay and Contract Reform’ (PACR). It was a split vote in the GEC, with concerns raised around a number of points especially the imposition of evening and weekend working across Customer Services Group (CSG) and that the detail on a number of issues yet to be agreed. To address these concerns, commitments were given by the negotiators that things would be resolved quickly and in a way that would be fair to members. The negotiators were also at pains to say this was the best members would get, and that rejecting the PACR offer would mean members getting a 1% or even 0% pay rise. Ultimately there was a slender majority in favour of supporting the PACR offer.

Members of the Broad Left Network were universal in opposing the PACR offer. While we recognised that some individuals would gain, we opposed gains being made to the detriment of other members. We knew that the PACR offer would have far reaching implications that would become clear over time. Sadly time has proven us correct.

The ballot

What happened after the GEC vote was inevitable: HMRC and PCS both pushed for a ‘yes’ vote. Criticism of PACR was marginalised and silenced as far as possible. Branches critical of PACR weren’t able to put out their views through any official HMRC or PCS channels, ensuring their reach was constrained.

Notably, HMRC encouraged staff to join a union to have a vote on the offer. PCS were overjoyed and made a big deal of the number of people joining PCS in early 2021. The exact figures are difficult to know, but it’s estimated that 4,000 people joined PCS to vote. But that’s the problem – many joined only to vote, not because they perceived PCS as representing them. In the three months after the PACR ballot HMRC lost in the region of 3,000 member, equivalent to 75% of the joiners. Most of those people never paid any subs to PCS.

Some of those 3,000 people will have been long standing members, maybe even activists, that resigned in disgust with the GEC recommending the PACR offer. We understand that strength of feeling, but resigning doesn’t change things. We would rather than disgruntled members stay in PCS and use their vote for Broad Left Network candidates in elections, or even stand on the Broad Left Network to provide an alternative on the GEC.

The consequences

A criticism of PACR was the lack of detail in some areas. There were various agreements in principle. Other parts weren’t even going to be negotiated until after the offer was accepted. This came with significant risks for PCS members. If HMRC decided the principles were incompatible with its vision, what was PCS to do about it? The GEC had already asked members to vote for the offer and it had been accepted. PCS had effectively tied its hands behind its back.

We don’t get to hear about the negotiations taking place. But we do get to see the consequences. There’s now a list of issues with the implementation of PACR.

It makes sense to start the list with one of the most contentious , Special Working Arrangements. These were supposed to provide members that can’t work to the pattern expected by CSG. Yet these have been rejected for part time staff, staff with disabilities, staff with caring responsibilities. A review agreed between PCS and HMRC hasn’t changed the process.

This flows into the operating hours for CSG. It’s nonsensical that CSG has mandated that no staff, not even the staff that aren’t customer facing, are allowed to officially start their working day earlier than 07:45 There’s no sign of CSG changing its stance and it’s unlikely to, as the CSG working pattern is used as an excuse for refusing Special Working Arrangements.

One of the celebrated aspects of PACR is the ability for everyone to work from home for at least two days a week if they are in a role that allows that. Reality is now setting in. Part time workers are being told that the two days is pro rata. The two days minimum is being treated as a maximum in a lot of areas.

The future of the AA grade is still unclear. PCS say that there’s still AA work to be done. But it’s difficult to see why HMRC would be happy for two staff sat next to each other earning the same pay but have one with lesser responsibilities.

Other issues include:

• The replacement for the MIS agreement;
• Trainee pay;
• Allowances;
• Which aspects of PACR apply to staff in Surge.

Looking ahead

This is the final year of the pay rises. Members will receive an average of 5% this year. Inflation in 2021 already matched that and this year inflation is expected to be even higher, driven by energy and fuel costs. The recent activist email for the national campaign got one point exactly right: “Irrespective of the pay deal, because of the cost-of-living crisis, your costs are rising far faster than your pay.”

Soon there will be an indicative ballot on pay and pensions. Broad Left Network members are encouraging everyone to use their vote and to vote for action. However we’re skeptical that the current Left Unity led NEC are serious about wanting to win the ballot. During their tenure PCS has lost 100s of reps. Branches aren’t given the tools to contact their members directly. Branches weren’t consulted on the timing of the ballot. No realistic plans are in place to be able to campaign amongst members that are still working from home due to COVID measures.

What we call for

Activists in R&C group have the urgent task to address the many issues resulting from PACR and fight for a pay rise. There’s no doubt that PACR will be a key point at Group Delegate Conference 2022. But it’s difficult to see how there can be robust debate until branches and activists are properly appraised of the current position and able to share experiences. Conference isn’t the place for that to take place. We also face the risk that dividing PACR into piecemeal matters in a variety of motions will fail to address matters properly.

To this end Broad Left Network members are calling on branches to write to the GEC to organise an activist meeting. We need an honest and thorough stocktake by the GEC of where we are with PACR. This needs to be provided to all branches in advance of the activist meeting so that we can have an informed discussion and debate amongst branches of what’s needed, including the potential for legal challenges and industrial action.

The Broad Left Network will be holding an open meeting – PACR one year on – via Zoom. Please note, we’re rearranging the date of this meeting at present and will confirm details shortly.