Month: Aug 2024

As previously reported, a special NEC, held on 12 August, saw the union’s General Secretary “welcome the concessions won during the campaign so far on pay, jobs and the civil service compensation scheme”, to “pause any plans for industrial action” and then to “seek membership endorsement of our (her) strategy in a consultative ballot”.

This position was one of surrender – a direct repetition by the General Secretary of the strategy of delay implemented in June 2023, when the government offered a £1,500 one-time, non-consolidated, pro-rata payment and the union’s then-leadership, didn’t ask for more and promptly cancelled all strikes, all ballots and the union’s strike levy.

Total surrender was blocked by the 19 members of the NEC who are supporters of the Broad Left Network, the Independent Left and independent socialists; these 19 are a majority on the 35 member NEC. Collectively, they proposed an alternative: to regroup through a Special Delegate Conference and to prepare the ground amongst members and reps for the battle that will come.

This alternative included a delay to delegated pay talks while the union’s national negotiators – Heathcote and Cavanagh in particular, who blocked any attempt to appoint better negotiators – were sent back to the Cabinet Office to demand more than 5% and guarantees around funding for the pay remit, to removethe threat to jobs. They could and should have done this in the weeks preceding the publication of the remit and in the days afterwards – without the delay and filibustering we are experiencing now.

Left alternative vetoed by Cavanagh on 12 August

The left alternative was unilaterally vetoed by the President. Cynically, two Senior Lay Reps forums, held the following week, were used by the General Secretary to one-sidedly argue that the NEC majority was the barrier to a serious campaign, rather than the bureaucratic wrecking tactics used by Heathcote herself and her puppet President.

The vetoes implemented by Cavanagh go far beyond the tactics that the National Moderate Group of CPSA and latterly PCS infamy used. Reps who have served the union for decades are proud of the defeat of the Moderates – exposed as being funded by the CIA, by journalist Paul Foot – but even Marion Chambers did not behave the way Cavanagh has behaved in simply blocking every chance at debate.

Reps attending the first Senior Lay Reps forum, representing areas with a mandate, made it clear that they were unhappy with the significant period of inactivity which left them feeling isolated and leading them to conclude that they should enter into delegated bargaining talks.

Reps attending the second Senior Lay Reps forum in particular, largely made up of reps from areas which did not get over the strike threshold in the union’s national ballot in May 2024 were concerned at the lack of campaign activity and said they should be permitted to go in to delegated pay talks so they could get the best deal for members with what was on offer.

Anger of lay reps completely justified

In part, this reflects the anger of the rep layer at the constant obstructive tactics of the General Secretary and the President. They blocked action during the General Election, they have vetoed dozens of motions and amendments that touch on everything from the levy to what guidance to issue to branches and members.

Reps remember that Heathcote, Cavanagh and their faction, the mis-named PCS Left Unity, which is neither left nor fosters unity, failed to build a serious strategy of national action when we won a mandate in November 2022, failed to get us over the line in May 2023 and then immediately bailed on a campaign at the first opportunity.

They then did nothing from June 2023 until March 2024, leaving branches and reps across the union to face questions from members about what the union was doing on pay, or with the mandates that had been won in some areas. This was worsened in May 2024 when some areas won yet another mandate and were nothing was done to use it, or to engage properly with the reps in those areas.

Thinking that they could exploit the anger of reps for factional purposes, the General Secretary and President called a further NEC on 27 August, to re-table the proposal for total surrender.

Showdown at the NEC of 27 August – further veto by Cavanagh

Recognising the anger of reps, arising from the obstruction of our national campaign strategy, the majority left – consisting of Broad Left Network, Independent Left and independent socialists – agreed that delegated pay negotiations should be allowed to commence.

A motion proposed by BLN supporter and national vice president Dave Semple, seconded by independent socialist Annette Wright, outlined a clear approach which BLN, published on this website prior to the NEC meeting. Here

This involved rejecting the 5% as insufficient, demanding full funding from the Cabinet Office and fighting for pay progression, eradication of low pay and fighting to secure the best possible deal for members. It also involved producing key guidance for negotiators, monitoring of the progress of delegated talks and retention on a reduced basis of the strike levy, pending a review, to build up our fighting fund.

This was vetoed by Cavanagh without discussion, the fourth time a motion relating to industrial strategy had been vetoed. In his contribution justifying the veto, the President even had the temerity to cite the “unanimity” on pay at the NEC of 17-18 July, when parts of a Heathcote-proposed paper passed…after Cavanagh vetoed the left alternative.

Each time this happens, the President misuses the NEC’s standing orders, indicating his view that no motion or amendment can be moved that disagrees with the General Secretary’s proposals. This is wildly anti-democratic and preposterous. This time he went further and stated that the veto was on the basis that the matters proposed had been discussed within three months.

They hadn’t, but it was revealing that the General Secretary opened her moving speech on her surrender proposal – which was defeated on August 12 – by saying that although the issues she was raising in her paper had been dealt with in the last three months, the difference was that there had been “a significant change in circumstances.”

So blinded by power-hunger and desperation to block the left from establishing democratic control and oversight of the union, Heathcote does not care what nonsense she spouts so long as she gets to do what she wants – to the detriment of our union’s campaigns and to the interests of union members.

Delegated pay talks on 2024/25 pay agreed

During a three-hour NEC meeting, Cavanagh vetoed 9 amendments, and 3 motions proposed by the majority left coalition.

Faced with either voting for the line in Heathcote’s paper that agreed delegated pay talks or with the NEC ending with no decision – thereby leaving in place the previous instruction unilaterally implemented by the General Secretary that there should be no delegated talks yet – the majority left voted to agree delegated pay talks.

It is absolutely clear, however, that the total dysfunction at the top of the union is a direct result of wrecking, obstructive tactics of the President and General Secretary and thiscannot continue. Members will be further angered by the blatant dishonest and factional use of official union comms by the General Secretary, shown again in the Members Briefing that was put out after this week’s NEC.

BLN members across the union are already working in branches and groups to ensure that we get the most out of this round of pay talks, including by raising in discussion a number of strategic objectives on pay, pay restoration, pay progression within grades, a minimum pay of £15 per hour and a wide range of improvements for members.

We know, however, that real progress is not going to come except through a serious fight – the fight we were blocked from having in mid-2023 by Heathcote and Cavanagh, and the fight they again directly prevented in Summer 2024 by their obstructionist tactics. We must prepare the union for that fight.

We call on all reps to support us in this endeavour, and to join the Broad Left Network, to help us build a fighting, democratic trade union, to defeat those who seek only personal position regardless of all else, and to implement socialist, campaigning policies that can win.

We also call upon reps to support a demand for a Special Delegate Conference to unblock this mess caused by the GS and President supported by the Left Unity minority on the NEC. To rebuild a serious national campaign on pay, jobs and conditions, determine who runs the union – the bureaucracy or members – and the fight against racism and fascism.

Starmer and Co have already been clear that it will “get worse before it gets better” – that means more cuts, more attacks on conditions and more low pay. We must be prepared for the struggle that must come.

Motion 1 – delegated talks and the national campaign

This NEC notes that despite having no agreement from the NEC, the General Secretary has circulated her views to members regarding pay, namely: 

• That the 5% pay remit should be accepted 
• The National Campaign should be abandoned  
• Delegated pay talks should go ahead 

The NEC further notes the General Secretary confirmed in her reply to the debate which took place on the 17th of July NEC, her opposition to the alternative strategy which had been proposed. She deliberately failed to notify members in her recent email of that alternative nor that the President refused to allow this to be discussed or put to the vote. Rather, he proceeded to close the meeting.  

The alternative strategy included: 

• The Civil Service pay remit of 5% to be rejected nationally    
• Demands posed by conference motion A315 – considering previous conference    policies such as the reduction in the working week – are placed without delay.  

The NEC notes that the senior lay reps’ fora accepted the NEC majority position that the remit of 5% is not enough, and that other elements of the National Campaign should have been pursued. Concerns were raised that the lack of funding for the pay remit will mean cuts in jobs and services, burdening an already overworked and underfunded workforce. 

The NEC agrees we: 

1. Urgently seek further meetings with the Cabinet Office to make clear that 5% is not enough 
2. Reopen discussions on the remit and PCS’ other negotiating priorities 
3. Ensure the negotiating team reflects the views of the NEC and that the Senior Officers Committee should determine the composition of that team 

The NEC shares the concerns expressed at the Senior Lay Rep meetings and asserts that the failure of the GS to appropriately press PCS’ demands on pay and other priorities combined with the President’s obstruction of any alternative to the GS proposals has created a situation whereby reps feel they have little choice but to engage in delegated pay bargaining talks.  Unhelpfully, the national MAB instructing negotiators not to engage in delegated talks was distributedwithout the agreement of and prior to the NEC meeting to consider its response to the pay remit. This instruction (in line with those issued in previous years) would have been correct had the GS told the employer that 5% is unacceptable and committed to building a campaign capable of winning. Rather than a cynical attempt to undermine the NEC. 

Given the actions of the National President, and the General Secretary, the NEC can only conclude that they have no intention of allowing any debate which will lead to a strategy which would prepare the ground for the battles that will come on jobs, pay and conditions. The Committee believes this to be an abuse of power and an affront to our democratic traditions. 

Given this context, the NEC believes that it is in the best interests of our members to proceed with delegated talks and agrees to:

1. Authorise reps to engage in delegated pay talks
2. Notify groups and national branches without delay
3. Produce guidance for pay negotiators that makes clear they must continue to challenge the pay remit in line with union policies including that PCS does not accept the 5% pay remit, the lack of progression, eradication of low pay, alongside seeking to secure the best possible outcome for members.  Full disclosure must be sought from employers as to how pay will be funded given there is no new money.
4. Ensure the NEC is notified of progress and outcomes of delegated discussions.
5. Pledge full support to any area that wishes to exercise its strike mandate and/or ballot areas who wish to move into dispute on pay and/or pay related issues. 

The NEC notes some reps at the SLRF questioned the need for the levy, which was imposed by the previous NEC without any consultation. The NEC understands these concerns but also recognises the need to build the union’s current fighting fund which is not sufficient to support the action we can anticipate in support of our national campaign.  

The NEC agrees to:

1. Instruct the GS to write to the Minister making it clear that PCS rejects the “up to 5%” set out in the pay remit, set out why we are not content with the guidance, state that we expect any pay award to be fully funded. This letter will be agreed with the SOC and published to members
2. That the levy should continue, but at a reduced rate of £1 for our lowest paid members effective immediately, i.e. those earning below £25,000. Additionally, the review, already agreed by the NEC should begin immediately. Income from a reduced rate of 50p, £1 and £2 is to be modelled and shared with the NEC urgently, and a final decision taken by the National Disputes Committee. Thereafter a wider review of the levy to commence, overseen by the National Disputes Committee with proposals put to the NEC in advance of the November meeting.  

Motion 2 – delegated pay talks

The NEC shares the concerns expressed at the Senior Lay Rep meetings and asserts that the failure of the GS to appropriately press PCS’ demands on pay and other priorities combined with the President’s obstruction of any alternative to the GS proposals has created a situation whereby reps feel they have little choice but to engage in delegated pay bargaining talks.  Unhelpfully, the national MAB instructing negotiators not to engage in delegated talks was distributedwithout the agreement of and prior to the NEC meeting to consider its response to the pay remit. This instruction (in line with those issued in previous years) would have been correct had the GS told the employer that 5% is unacceptable and committed to building a campaign capable of winning. Rather than a cynical attempt to undermine the NEC. 

Given the actions of the National President, and the General Secretary, the NEC can only conclude that they have no intention of allowing any debate which will lead to a strategy, if implemented, which would prepare the ground for the battles that will come on jobs, pay and conditions. The Committee believes this to be an abuse of power and an affront to our democratic traditions. 

Given this context, the NEC believes that it is in the best interests of our members to proceed with delegated talks and agrees to:

1. Authorise reps to engage in delegated pay talks
2. Notify groups and national branches without delay
3. Produce guidance for pay negotiators that makes clear they must continue  to challenge the pay remit in line with union policies including that PCS does not accept the 5% pay remit, the lack of progression, eradication of low pay, alongside seeking to secure the best possible outcome for members.  Full disclosure must be sought from employers as to how pay will be funded given there is no new money.
4. Ensure the NEC is notified of progress and outcomes of delegated discussions.
5. Pledge full support to any area that wishes to exercise its strike mandate and/or ballot areas who wish to move into dispute on pay and/or pay related issues. 

Motion 3- levy

The NEC notes some reps at the SLRF questioned the need for the levy, which was imposed by the previous NEC without any consultation. The NEC understands these concerns but also recognises the need to build the union’s current fighting fund which is not sufficient to support the action we can anticipate in support of our national campaign.  

The NEC agrees to:

1. Instruct the GS to write to the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office making it clear that PCS rejects the “up to 5%” set out in the pay remit, set out why we are not content with the guidance, state that we expect any pay award to be fully funded. This letter will be agreed with the SOC and published to members
2. That the levy should continue, but at a reduced rate of £1 for our lowest paid members effective immediately, i.e. those earning below £25,000. Additionally, the review already agreed by the NEC should begin immediately. Income from a reduced rate of 50p, £1 and £2 is to be modelled and shared with the NEC urgently, and a final decision taken by the National Disputes Committee. Thereafter a wider review of the levy to commence, overseen by the National Disputes Committee with proposals put to the NEC in advance of the November meeting.  

• President rules motion with fighting strategy out of order, leaving PCS without a position on pay
• General Secretary’s strategy to end pay campaign voted down by NEC      
• Join our fight for a union that supports members including lay-led democracy
• The views of the democratically elected Left Coalition NEC majority will not be silenced by presidential decree
• Support our demand for a Special Delegate Conference, where members can democratically discuss and decide our union’s strategy on pay, jobs and conditions
• The NEC majority must be allowed to present their vetoed strategy to the Senior Lay Reps’ Forum.

On 29 July, the Cabinet Office published the civil service pay remit. This allowed departments to increase pay budgets by an average of 5%. This figure, still not enough, is the concrete result of brave workers, including PCS members, taking determined and sustained industrial action.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has made the Government’s position very clear when she said: “There is a cost to not settling, a cost of further industrial action”. This statement alone signals what the government is about – buying us off and preparing the ground to impose ruthless austerity. The maintenance of the 2-child benefit cap and the removal of the winter fuel payment for pensioners – which will impact on at least 10 million people – is just the beginning. Labour has come to power during a severe economic crisis – unlike the 1997 Blair government – and they are already making cuts.

Further evidence of this is in the detail of the pay remit. No additional money is provided for departmental budgets to cover the pay increase – budgets which were set in 2021 before the massive spike in prices (inflation) of 2022 and 2023. Separately 2% savings in admin budgets have been announced (job cuts) along with £3bn off departmental budgets to pay for public sector pay. We must be alive to all this and prepare accordingly.

Union President vetoes PCS national campaign and welcomes job cuts

A special NEC was called for Monday 12 August to discuss the union’s response to the pay remit announcement. But no decision was reached due to yet another undemocratic ruling from the National President not to allow any motions or discussion that are at odds with proposals put by the General Secretary.

The Left Coalition majority motion set out in detail a response to the pay remit guidance – imposed with no consultation with PCS – together with a clear strategy to put to members and reps. This strategy included:

• A firm rejection of the 5% and an instruction that our national negotiators go back into talks for more: we should not accept the first offer.

• That demands are placed on pay, but also on issues such as jobs, working environment, pensions and a claim for those members who come under the DDAT pay framework,

• A major programme to re-engage members and reps across the whole union, rebuild the confidence to fight and win, including discussions with those in Scotland and Wales to determine their involvement in a fresh campaign on pay, jobs and conditions. It is crucial we rebuild the confidence lost by the actions of the outgoing leadership that we can fight, and we can win.

• That the levy continues in the immediate, but at a very reduced rate for our lowest paid members whilst a more thorough review (already agreed but not yet actioned by the management structure of the union) is undertaken to replenish our campaign funds

• That strike mandates should not be triggered but left on the table to review as the picture unfolds.

• That reps are urgently consulted about the remit, the levy and whether we engage in delegated talks

• A further NEC is called following that to review if/how we need to adapt our tactics and if/when a Special Delegate Conference is called to discuss this issue, but also our anti-racism and anti-fascism strategy together with the whole issue of democracy and who is running the union – the elected NEC or the machine.

All this taken together, means that we send a clear signal to the government that we are not fooled by their attempts to buy us off. It means further talks to try and force better and fully funded pay rises. It means we raise demands on other issues such as jobs, conditions and working environment. It means turning outwards to re-engage and properly discuss with reps and members and effectively prepare the ground and build support for the struggle that will come and is inevitable.

The meeting had barely started when the National President, ruled out of order this motion therefore vetoing – yet again – any discussion which disagreed with a paper from the General Secretary.

This paper, published barely hours before the deadline for amendments, amounted to total surrender of the union’s national campaign and pushed any serious challenge to government into the long grass. This is in blatant defiance of the policy set by Conference in May 2024.

The General Secretary sought to “welcome the concessions won during the campaign so far on pay, jobs and the civil service compensation scheme”, to “pause any plans for industrial action” and then to “seek membership endorsement of our strategy in a consultative ballot”. The only strategy put forward was one of immediate surrender, euphemistically encouraging members to “bank” the 5% and then seeing if we could get more. Members and activists will know from previous years that asking for more after accepting a deal is, in reality, giving up.

This replicates exactly events in 2023. The NEC received the government’s offer of a £1,500 non-consolidated, one-time, pro-rata payment on June 2^nd. On June 5^th they called off the national campaign and moved to ballot members to “agree the strategy” – whilst admitting that if members voted yes, the campaign would stop. Lies about “continuing the campaign” and then silence followed, for ten months.

Welcoming the Pay Remit is welcoming job cuts – fight back!

The majority left view is straightforward as set out in the motion – the 5% is not enough, we should fight for more and for our other demands on pay, jobs and pensions. This does mean a lot of work, but victories are not just handed to us on a plate – we must fight for them.

The Cabinet Office-imposed civil service pay remit of 5%, was not subject to genuine negotiation. Most importantly, it is not enough. While 5% is currently above inflation, our consolidated pay rises over the last two years have averaged about 7% in total, at a time of prices rising by around 20% over two years.

The 5% pay remit is also unfunded. This means it is almost inevitable that departments will face job cuts. To agree an unfunded mandate would mean welcoming job cuts. In some departments – such as Transport and Education – those job cuts are already being put into motion. We will need a major campaign to save jobs.

We believe the national pay team should go back into discussion with the Cabinet Office to argue for more, to argue that it should be funded and to insist that pay not be contingent upon job cuts. This is a bare minimum.

This has some immediate consequences. We should not agree to delegated pay talks going ahead at Departmental level at this stage. We should seek further movement at Cabinet Office level and make it clear we will not tolerate job cuts to fund pay rises.

The left sought to turn the NEC outwards towards branches and groups, calling for mass members’ meetings to be organised, at which NEC members would lay out the situation and argue for a robust campaign to defeat the government. Other meetings to discuss strategy – such as a Senior Lay Reps Forum – were also called for.

We understand that some members will, at least initially, think that 5% is passable. But once this results in job cuts and workload increases this view is likely to dissipate. And particularly when it is already clear that 5% won’t go very far when – inflation, already rising, begins to bite, winter hits and energy prices soar. So, to “welcome” 5% is extremely dangerous.

The key thing, however, is whether members believe their union can fight and win more. We have argued consistently that we need to win the activist layer, win the members and pivot to a re-ballot, taking action in those areas with a mandate (with full discussion with reps and members in those areas) to create momentum and pressure on the government. We argued this should take place to maximise leverage during the General election period itself. But that was another discussion vetoed by the National President.

Left Unity attacks member-led democracy of PCS

BLN supporters on the National Executive have reported back after every meeting that the president is routinely vetoing motions being proposed by the majority. This is his only strategy, as the Left Unity minority (of which he is part) are unable to win a vote, so they just refuse to have a vote by eliminating motions that disagree with them.

The majority left coalition motion to the National Executive on 12th August allowed for consideration of a Special Delegate Conference this year, to reconvene Conference, given the change in situation since our pre-General Election May 2024 annual conference.

The decision by the president to veto the entire alternative strategy makes a Special Delegate Conference now imperative. PCS is rapidly losing our once proud claim to be a member-led union, with decisions taken outside the NEC and not even reported back to the elected leaders of the union.

General Secretary blocks discussion of PCS finances

In the short period since taking up her post in February as General Secretary, Fran Heathcote has begun to make a lot of far-reaching changes to PCS, not even one involving a discussion with the elected committees that are officially in charge of the union.

Heathcote has promoted two staff by creating a brand-new higher grade in the PCS staffing structure. Both those were decisively defeated and rejected by members in national elections and are key Heathcote supporters.

Heathcote has also radically expanded the number of senior managers in PCS, from 6 to 12. BLN supporters have warned since the final term of Mark Serwotka about the increased centralisation within the union, blocking out the voices of the elected committees of PCS and playing favourites amongst the employed staff.

On top of these moves, there have been an unknown number of promotions and new appointments within PCS. Again, the NEC has not been consulted, despite the constitutional requirement that any hiring is undertaken based on procedures agreed by the NEC.

Leaving aside what we see as a sinister attempt to create a base of personal loyalty to the General Secretary inside the structures of PCS, there is an even more serious implication of all these moves – the cost.

The General Secretary has blatantly broken PCS Conference policy, which set out what proportion of the union’s revenue should be available for hiring – so that enough money would be available for campaigns. A spike in costs will also result in a spike in pension contributions – and this is an area of serious vulnerability for PCS.

It was for this reason that the National Treasurer, John Moloney, who is the union’s Assistant General Secretary, agreed with Dave Semple, chair of the finance committee, to put a paper outlining these concerns to the NEC, so they could be discussed. The General Secretary not only had the paper withheld from the NEC, but also had the item removed from the NEC agenda.

The blatant refusal to give the full NEC of 17/18 July any information, much less to allow it to have a say, is a clear and present danger to the democratic functioning of the union, and quite possibly a threat to the union’s financial security and existence.

Call a Special Delegate Conference: Pay, Jobs and Services not Racism!

A special delegate conference can break the impasse created by the constant vetoes of the national president and can halt the wrecking tactics of Left Unity.

It will hear activists from across PCS putting forward clear demands on pay, jobs and services – in opposition to the divisive racism of the far right. It can act to defend union democracy and can discuss how we win the mass of union members to an active, anti-austerity, anti-racist campaign.

We call on every branch committee to meet and to vote to call a Special Delegate Conference. A draft motion is included at the bottom.

Events have moved rapidly since Annual Delegate Conference in May, and the vaulting ambition of the General Secretary and President, to essentially run the union by decree regardless of what they can or can’t get passed by the elected National Executive Committee, is a massive danger to the union itself.

Broad Left Network stands for a fighting, democratic union, with socialist policies. Every word – fighting, democratic, socialist – has meaning stretching back to the origins of the modern trade union movement. We must have a union that is a vehicle for class struggle, to win for our members.

Bureaucratic obstruction is the polar opposite of class struggle. We urge all reps to defeat the bureaucratic obstructions of Heathcote and Cavanagh, and to join the Broad Left Network, to help us build a union that can fight and win a serious campaign on pay, jobs and services and can unite workers against racism.

Letter to the General Secretary convoking a Special Delegate Conference

“This branch notes with concern:

• The decision by the President to veto, at every NEC – on June 4, on July 10, on July 17-18 and on 12 August, detailed and serious motions put forward by the NEC majority on many issues including the national campaign, thereby delaying and damaging the prospects for a serious campaign covering the demands of motion A315.

• The decision by the General Secretary to block papers put to the NEC by the elected Assistant General Secretary, and her assertion that AGS papers must be cleared by the General Secretary. The AGS is elected independently of the GS and is accountable to the NEC, not to the General Secretary.

• The decisions by the General Secretary to make major financial changes in the union, without discussion with or approval by any elected body in PCS, in such a way as threatens the financial security of the union.

• The need for a more robust anti-racist, anti-austerity strategy: not merely to put safety demands on the Cabinet Office, or to encourage participation in the demonstrations against the race riots, but to link our opposition to racism to our class demands, to mobilise the entire labour movement and to more robustly demonstrate to civil service employers and the Cabinet Office,

This branch therefore invokes Supplementary Rule 6.6 of the PCS Union Rule Book. This states as follows:

“6.6. A Special Delegate Conference may be called by the NEC, or, on receipt by the General Secretary of a written application by Branches together representing one quarter or more of the membership”

This branch agrees that there should be a Special Delegate Conference and instructs the Secretary to write to the General Secretary, to demand a Special Delegate Conference, by forwarding this motion.”

Rachel Reeves, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced on 29 July that the civil service pay remit for UK government pay awards in 2024/25 would be set at 5%. Departments and the various bodies of the civil service have been instructed to increase their overall pay bill by up to 5%. The Government, petrified of further industrial unrest, is attempting to buy us off at a discount rate.

PCS negotiators, led by General Secretary Fran Heathcote and President Martin Cavanagh, met with the Cabinet Office for a series of meetings up until 29 July. The negotiating team was not agreed by the NEC but was imposed unilaterally by the President. No progress was made in these discussions and it is not clear whether our demands, including for a 10% pay rise were even actually put.

After the final meeting on 29 July, further planned meetings were simply cancelled. Each employer will now seek to negotiate the specifics with PCS and the other civil service trade unions within the 5% overall remit, against a background where our pay has been in long-term decline.

Inflation in 2022 and 2023 was in double digits for a sustained period of time. Pay “rises” in the UK civil service did not keep up, with a 2% average rise in 2022, and a 4.5% average rise in 2023. The 2023 award sat alongside a non-consolidated, one-time payment of £1,500, which was pro-rata for part-time staff. Both were a pay cut, given rising prices. And thousands of members were left feeling cheated – not only by their employer but by the previous national leadership.

Rachel Reeves published guidance alongside her speech to Parliament. This makes the case that by 2021, public sector pay was in the worst position relative to private sector pay in thirty years. Moreover, while inflation is lower this year than in 2022 and 2023, all this means is that the speed of price increases has slowed, not that prices have dropped.

BLN NEC members will argue that the NEC must consult with activists across the PCS to decide if the 5% offer from the government is sufficient. Invitations from UK government employers to begin delegated pay talks have already been issued in some areas.

No new money in the pay remit means a threat to jobs

The remit informs employers, including departments and associated bodies, that they “must ensure that pay awards are affordable within their current spending settlements”, i.e. within the money agreed by the Spending Review of 2021 (SR21). That is a way of saying that no new money will be made available by Treasury. Civil service employers are likely to be already strapped for cash and unable to soothe their workforce.  And even if they were they cannot go beyond an average increase of 5%.

Worse, because the pay remit is unfunded, there is a threat to jobs. Already across multiple civil service departments, swingeing staffing cuts have been announced. Transport and Education are early victims, but there is likely to be more to come. The funding pressures on departments, as the result of SR21, mean many departments will be faced with maximising the pay offer – even within the 5% – and job cuts.

Reject the remit – 5% is not enough: send a message to the government

The Treasury Pay Remit announcement does not mean that all members will get 5%. This is the increase permitted to the overall pay bill for each civil service employer. Each employer then seeks talks with the civil service trade unions, including PCS. This is called delegated pay bargaining.

Last year’s pay remit was 4.5%. This meant, in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), for example, the largest government department, this translated to 5% for most AAs, 6.25% for AO grades, 4.92% for most EO grades, and 4.5% for the rest up to Grade 6. Staff working in Inner and Outer London received less, as did some staff who did not adopt the DWP Employee Deal.

To put this in context, even with a 5% pay award for AAs and a 6.25% pay award for AO grades, both sets of staff had to receive a further pay rise on April 1 2024 because their pay had once again fallen below the national minimum wage. This is the very definition of “not enough” and proves, if further proof was needed, that 5% is not enough.

Other areas went through different divisions of the money, reflecting different grade mixes, different ratios of London to non-London staff and so on. But little can be done to meaningfully address widespread low pay when the overall pot decided by the Treasury pay remit is so small.

Engaging in delegated level pay talks would ordinarily mean accepting the 5% treasury pay remit; the 5% cannot be changed. That is a national decision standing above each individual department. For this reason, there is a case to refuse to enter delegated pay talks while we seek to push for more at Cabinet Office level.

Pay negotiators understandably will want to get into delegated talks – because they will want to argue for PCS members to benefit from this to the maximum extent possible. An instruction from the General Secretary’s office has already gone out (without NEC discussion, but in our view correctly) telling negotiators not to go into talks till the NEC meets, and this has already provoked questions from negotiators.

Rushing straight in to delegated pay talks will send a signal to the employer that we are prepared to settle for the 5% and allow the Government to buy us off. Instead, PCS should be clear that 5% is not enough and if we are to settle then we need guarantees not only on pay, but jobs and conditions too. The NEC meets on 12 August to debate the way forward on the national campaign; we believe delegated bargaining should be held back, but that we should discuss the specifics of this approach with Senior Lay Reps and pay teams from across the union.

Context: Reps justifiably fed up with zombie national campaign

A significant number of our reps are fed up and disillusioned with the endlessly referred-to “national campaign”.

Much sweat and work went in to winning the union’s strike ballots in November 2022 and February 2023, only for the union’s leadership to abandon any further action in June, when the government offered the £1,500. Ten months of inaction followed, and then, ludicrously, another ballot was launched in March 2024 with zero preparation.

Reps threw themselves into winning it, even those who disagreed with how it had been called. Getting a mandate for 20,000 members was not nothing, but it was broadly seen as a defeat, and as a direct consequence of the failed leadership of Martin Cavanagh and Fran Heathcote – and for that reason, both got roasted by the union’s Conference in May.

BLN supporters on the union’s NEC put forward early on that we should bring out our 20,000 members with a mandate during the General Election, to join the junior doctors’ strike in an attempt to force Starmer’s Labour Party to address public sector pay more generally. This was vetoed by the President, Martin Cavanagh, making a difficult situation worse and rendering impossible the instruction in A315 that we should pivot quickly to action.

The new NEC majority did not give up.

At a special NEC on 10 July, and at a full NEC on 17 and 18 July, we outlined the potential to use the mandate won by 20,000 members over jobs, pay and pensions, to raise the political temperature, as part of moving towards a re-ballot in those areas where 100,000+ members did not reach 50% ballot turnout and who therefore did not have a mandate.

The motion on the 10 July was passed, but the follow-up motion put on 17/18 July was vetoed. In the meantime, the General Secretary has taken weeks to carry out basic instructions, and at time of writing, on 6 August 2024, the NEC remains in the dark about whether our national demands have even been tabled to the Cabinet Office, through a letter to Cat Little, Permanent Secretary. We do not believe that they have.

This should give reps some idea of the chaos unleashed at the NEC by an out-of-control President interpreting the Standing Orders and rules of the NEC in wildly perverse and undemocratic ways.

None of this background alters some basic facts.

Build our campaign from the ground up: Pay, Jobs and Conditions in 2024

Most basically of all, if we want to win concessions, we need a serious campaign. This will require strike action.

Equally basically, we know what the demands for that campaign would be. They were passed at Annual Delegate Conference in May 2024 as motion A315. They include a 10% pay rise and a £15p/h minimum wage, but they do not just cover pay. Jobs, workloads, contractual conditions and rights, equality, office closures and pensions are all covered.

Members and reps have divided expectations. A majority agree that 5% is not enough.

Some members and reps may be willing to take what they can get right now, others will believe it would be a betrayal of the union’s basic purpose, to accept the 5%. Grumpy acceptance of what we can get right now can switch rapidly to rage, however, as winter energy costs and other price rises bite later in the year and cuts in jobs and conditions loom. We must give a lead to members, to ready us all for a real fight.

Our first step should be to write to the Cabinet Office and reject the 5%, demand more, demand that it be funded, and then, finally – if we have not already – place all of the demands put forward in motion A315, and the other policies carried at ADC and discussed at the NEC such as the reduced working week.

An inevitable corollary of this is that we should not rush in to delegated pay talks. We should send national negotiators back to meet with the Cabinet Office to tell the new government that we will not be bought off so cheaply and to place our full demands.

As part of rejection and delaying delegated pay talks, we will have to consult with delegated pay leads and seek agreement from FDA and Prospect to likewise refuse to go in to delegated pay talks, to prevent the employers playing the unions off against one another.

Second, we must turn outwards towards the mass of reps and members. The rejection of the 5% must be published. Members’ meetings must be held across the union to seek widespread support for this, and for the pivot towards a major campaign on our demands. We must take the demands out to members to actively build a mood for action.

This may also involve explaining the decision not to go in to delegated pay talks at this stage, and it may also involve explaining a continuation of the strike levy. BLN NEC members have proposed a review of current arrangements which was carried at the NEC. This, with a view for a reduced rate of the strike levy for our lowest paid members, recognising the strain on members of paying this when there has not been action. Unfortunately, the machine is again, yet to act on this.

At this stage, we would not seek to invoke the mandate for 20,000, while we see how events shake out – how the mood of members develop, how the reps come in behind the strategy, what solidarity is offered from the other unions on holding the line on delegated pay – but we would not rule out its use, for political or sector-specific purposes.

A number of alternative paths forward are possible – but as part of further building the mood amongst reps and consulting on the widest possible basis on our strategy, and to maximise engagement beyond the President-and-GS-led mass Zoom meetings, which are very top-down, we think a Special Delegate Conference will also be needed.

Preparation for this will require extraordinary general meetings in every branch across the union.

It will draw in the best members and pull every rep into a serious discussion. The special delegate conference will then take a decision, and this will hopefully minimise the opportunities for the ridiculous approach of President Cavanagh of vetoing 90% of what the elected National Executive Committee put forward for debate and discussion.

While our opponents on the union’s NEC – led by Cavanagh and Heathcote – have sought to do nothing but obstruct the new majority, we will not stop putting forward a positive strategy to take forward and win our demands. The majority left coalition on the NEC, made up of BLN, Independent Left and independent socialists, stands united against the undemocratic attempts by Left Unity to usurp the prerogatives of the elected NEC.

Our power is in our reps and members, and we turn to those to defeat bureaucratic obstruction. If you are interested in building a fighting, democratic union with socialist policies, join the Broad Left Network and get involved with us at every level of the union.

Broad Left Network activists have, over the last week, been attending demonstrations and counter-demonstrations across the UK. From the demonstration in London on 27 July to the many towns that saw peaceful anti-racist, anti-fascist demonstrations on 3 August. 

The violence, horrific attacks on hotels housing asylum-seekers, car burnings, vandalism of a local community, the attack on a mosque and the looting of shops first in Southport but now in towns around the country – have been provoked by a tiny network of racist, far-right activists’ intent upon using any tragedy – such as the murder of three children – to further their aims, irrespective of truth. On 29 July, these racist activists travelled to Southport with the explicit intention of causing violence. 

It would be a mistake, however, to believe that these actions – and any ability these racists have, to mobilise angry white people – exist in a vacuum. No one can doubt the rage seething in working class communities. From collapsing adult social care to falling staffing in schools, from a drastically under-resourced NHS to cost of living crisis, people can be in little doubt of the indifference of the political class to whether ordinary working class people in the UK live or die, are housed or unhoused, are healthy or are dying in the poverty that long term sickness can bring.

All of these are legitimate reasons to be angry. Wages and conditions of employment remain dreadful for millions of workers. At the same time, they cannot access basic services such as GPs, nor afford to pay for other needs like optometrists and dentists. This anger is being hijacked however, by far right thugs who seek to make everything about immigration and/or refugees.

Such hijacking is facilitated by politicians, by the media, and even by social media algorithms, which have long since been proven to promote any story that generates rage, in the same way as it generates profit for social media companies via advertising revenue. This is how an untrue post on a social media site claiming that the murderer of Bebe King (6), Elsie Dot Stancombe (7) and Alice Dasilva Aguiar (9) was a Muslim, rocketed around the UK, even though the original post was deleted after an hour.

Politicians and the media play into the narrative that immigration and refugees are a key problem with British society. This is how the ugly chant “send them back” turned up in Southport, even though the person accused of murder was not an immigrant but was born in the UK. Most politicians and their hangers-on, and the media, are funded by and depend upon the capitalist class; the owners of the British economy and the powerful social and institutional networks in British society that these capitalists have built. Racist tropes about immigrants and “integration” are a viable way for them to duck acknowledgement of the consequences of capitalist economics and capitalist direction of the state. 

The role that the fascists and far-right play in dividing workers on racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic grounds only benefit the bosses. History shows that these forces have been used to attack workers organisations such as the trade unions.

The leadership of the labour movement in particular, for which unity of the working class across lines of gender, sexuality, nationality, skin colour etc is a foundational principle, is not taking the anger at work in working class communities seriously enough. The union-backed Stand Up to Racism chant, “Say it Loud, Say it Clear, Refugees are Welcome Here” is one we agree with, but it does not seek to intervene with those whose anger is being manipulated to racist ends. It does not offer a fighting programme behind which to cohere on the basis of being working class.

Within PCS this week, a number of branches have passed a variation on a motion, included below, which calls for a different approach – for a serious TUC-led campaign on “Pay, Jobs, Homes not Racism”. Housing is a driver of protests against refugees and must be addressed by the state for everyone. Crap pay, crap jobs, the housing crisis and hyper exploitation likewise affect all races, all genders etc. Our communities are falling apart around us.

It is vital that the union movement takes the lead in building a united workers response, including by calling demonstrations, well-stewarded against the threat of the far-right.  

Therefore, only a united labour movement, putting forward strong class demands, will be able to force the new Labour government to act. The vote for Reform also is a warning of how vital it is to build a working-class political voice that fights for socialist policies. A first step would be for our union to call on PCS General Secretary, Fran Heathcote, to use her position on the TUC General Council to call for the TUC to organise properly stewarded mass demonstrations across the UK as well as to call on PCS’s parliamentary group of MPs to support this ‘Pay, Jobs and Homes – not Racism’ approach. A party based on the organised working class that fought for anti-racist, anti-war, socialist policies – for the pay, jobs, homes and services we all need – would undercut support for far-right groups.

Our motion will be sent to branches, groups, regions and national executives and we hope this will be the start of a conversation about how we draw the mass of union members into the fight not just against racism, but against the despair off which it threatens to feed.

PCS Broad Left Network firmly rejects the disgusting, irresponsible and divisive article published in the 4 August 2024 edition of the Mail on Sunday regarding respected senior trade unionist, socialist and BLN member Saorsa-Amatheia Tweedale. 

The entire article hinges on a very small number of staff who work with Saorsa in the DWP writing to the Mail as they don’t like that Saorsa is a trans woman, that she advocates for trans rights and anti-discrimination, and have labelled her black, goth-style clothing as “fetish wear”. Along with contributing to a prevalent culture of abuse against the goth community and anyone who doesn’t dress in a “mainstream” way, this spotlights a centrepiece of transphobia – insisting that everything a trans person does or wears, and the very core of their existence, is some kind of sexual deviance. This is inaccurate and immoral, and is exactly the same argument that has been levelled against cis gender lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people, amongst others. The absurd claim of “sexual deviance” has also historically been used to justify hatred and discrimination against Black men and Jewish people, and is a mainstay of the far right’s abusive and highly emotive and dangerous arguments of “what about the children/(white) women who these people will convert/defile?” 

It is becoming increasingly obvious even to those not actively involved with the issues, that Gender Critical beliefs threaten the freedoms and rights of all women, both cis and trans. Surely we, as a society, should have moved beyond policing women’s clothes, what a woman “should” wear and “should” look like? Furthermore, unwanted comments of a sexual nature about someone’s clothing is sexual harassment. All women are collectively harmed and controlled by enforced sexualising of our clothing and behaviour – schoolgirls are told to cover up so men and boys don’t sexualise them, women are told to watch what they wear in case they’re perceived as “asking for it”, they are told not to run at night…the list goes on.

Those “unnamed sources” attacking Saorsa are aiding and abetting the Mail in their attempts at dividing workers and are deploying unfounded claims and bigotry to do so. The BLN notes that they have gone to a newspaper renowned for stoking up hatred and funnelling attacks at vulnerable people, be they women, LGBT+, people seeking asylum, disabled people, ordinary workers striking, or any other group they decide to target for their divisive rhetoric. The Mail’s opinions on these groups that they target comes undoubtedly from the far right of the political spectrum. Ironic, as most Gender Critical “activists” attempt to cast themselves as feminists and reject the label of being far-right despite the views of their allies. One need only look at the comment section of the article to see the damage and misinformation that pieces like these can create.

Rather than engage with the worker-led, socialist programme that Saorsa and the BLN champion for all workers including women and LGBT+ people, the Mail would prefer to print personal, irrelevant and inaccurate things about her identity. They probably hope that workers are too stupid not to see this for what it plainly is – bullying someone for their appearance. That hope is, however, a forlorn one as proven at PCS annual conference 2024, where our majority-female union once again resoundingly voted to protect trans rights Conference rejected the unscientific, secondary school biology argument that women are no more than their body parts, which the Mail seeks to promote alongside their allies in the unelected House of Lords. 

All ordinary workers are at risk from the Mail and their toxic agenda as they stir up hatred as a smokescreen to stop people asking fundamental questions such as: “why isn’t there a wealth tax?” or “why aren’t energy providers being forced to lower prices?” The Mail is a paper of big business, and as such encourages workers to believe they must fend for themselves while the rich get richer and poor people are isolated and divided from each other. How will eradicating trans people or asylum seekers finance a revival of the NHS to tackle waiting times? Why isn’t the government imposing rent controls to allow ordinary workers to afford to live where they choose depending on their workplace and family location? All of these questions are contrary to the Mail’s agenda of obfuscation and division, pretending, in this case, that all the world’s ills are based on what a small group of women wear while they go to work, contribute to society, and pay their taxes. 

Saorsa, like all good PCS reps, acts at work to enforce existing equality policies and laws, and advocates for everyone to feel able to come to work without facing discrimination. The judges in the 2021 Forstater tribunal appeal case ruled that, while individuals may hold protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, “this judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity.” Subsequent tribunal cases such as Mackereth v DWP and McBride v Scottish Government clearly show that expression of these beliefs in a way that harms or negatively impacts the rights of others may still constitute discrimination. It is clear that those holding Gender Critical beliefs have no right to use those beliefs to witch-hunt trans people in the workplace or attempt to hound their employers into dismissing them. It is right that any member of staff should be able to come to work without having to debate or defend elements of their core identity, regardless of whether a small number of their colleagues have beliefs to the contrary. 

Both trans women and cis women are under threat from narrow, rigid and regressive definitions of womanhood. We are all allies and comrades in the same fight, to break free from outdated stereotypes of femininity that centre on fertility and visual appearance. We are all injured by the same prejudices such as those peddled by the Mail. So much more unites than divides us, as is the case amongst all ordinary working- and middle-class people regardless of race, religion, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability, immigration status, or any other feature through which the likes of the hateful Mail try to divide us.

Saorsa is a staunch advocate for the equal rights of all and has the full support of the PCS Broad Left Network.