Following an approach from PCS officials about the fighting fund this is the response from the PCS Broad Left Network
Thank you for your email message on the fighting fund and apologies for the delayed response but you know that I’ve been away.
Having received your note, I subsequently confirmed that it was inviting the BLN to discuss with you the current fighting fund arrangements. As promised the BLN Steering Committee has now discussed and agreed our response.
It would have been helpful if you had included the proposals you have in mind since you indicated that you wanted to discuss these with us. If you can do that, then that would be great – I assume these proposals reflect the position of the union’s current leadership, but we remain unclear as to what that is.
Notwithstanding our recognition of your good intent, we do not believe it is appropriate for paid officials of PCS to be approaching the different political groups formed by the elected lay reps of the union to try and sort out an approach with no reference to the union’s NEC or other elected lay bodies. This method also excludes elected reps not in those political groups. This is not democratic. BLN assumes that you are acting under instructions from the General Secretary, and we’re concerned that this approach has never been discussed with the elected NEC.
In 2024, the General Secretary, using powers we don’t believe exist under rule, refused to table at the NEC, proposals agreed by the elected, coalition-led Finance Committee. She also more than once blocked or re-wrote papers submitted to the NEC by the elected Assistant General Secretary, who is also the treasurer of PCS. To then approach us a year later, presumably under instruction from the GS, to discuss a responsible approach to building the fighting fund, after the vitriol she and her Left Unity faction stirred up around the previous levy, is astounding.
We also find it very strange that, given the absolutely outrageous briefing sent to members in 2024, over the heads of the elected NEC and completely without democratic authority, by the General Secretary and her co-faction leader Martin Cavanagh, claiming that our finances are very healthy, that there is now this pressure to find a solution to a problem she and Left Unity denied existed. At the very minimum we would expect the £2.58m surplus reported to the November NEC to be redirected into the strike fund, while the elected lay leadership of PCS and the union’s Conference agree longer term solutions.
It would also be remiss of me not to point out that securing rep/membership support for changes to Fighting Fund rules is made more difficult by the appalling approach to the levy by the Left Unity/Democracy Alliance in the period leading up to the 2025 national elections. This followed Martin Cavanagh and Fran Heathcote blocking each and every attempt by the NEC Coalition majority to immediately lessen the impact of the levy on our lower paid members and to bring forward changes to secure better funding arrangements for the future. I first raised this at the NEC in July 2024. This was carried, but nothing taken forward. Moreover, they blocked all attempts to launch the badly needed national campaign to defend our pay, jobs and conditions and then argued against the levy (which they had introduced) being collected to support that campaign. To the contrary, the NEC Coalition Majority argued for the implementation of conference policy to build a serious campaign to win and exercise the mandates to strike which meant the levy had to continue to fund the campaign we were fighting for. Then worse, a cynical election bribe with Martin Cavanagh promising to refund levy payments, which has further discredited arguments for building the union’s strike funds.
We recognise that, against this background, it will not be easy to secure a Conference ⅔ majority to change the fighting fund rules. We also recognise that an agreed approach amongst leading activists and groups is likely to make this more easily attainable. We believe this is best achieved by an open, democratic discussion at the NEC with proposals from NEC members freely debated and without the restrictions that are all too often used by the current NEC majority to restrict debate.
Our position remains, in terms of the current fighting fund arrangements. We agree, they are not satisfactory, not least because the arrangements currently in place do not generate enough income to support ongoing strike pay/ hardship payment needs. Additionally, we agree that we must build the finances required to fund larger scale paid action. We would support increasing the regular payment(s) on a basis where the amount paid is dependent on salary earned, with protections put in place for our lower paid members. We would also want a commitment to the full examination of union income/expenditure to ensure our priorities are properly aligned with our needs re the fighting fund.
But we continue to recognise that a major piece of action may require topping up finances by means of a levy – an option we would want to retain. The “problem” of the current levy was not the idea of a levy itself, but the way in which the union leadership at the time (the Left Unity/Democracy Alliance), introduced it – with little meaningful consultation, discussion or explanation. We would support the development of a mechanism to activate a levy, but what this mechanism should be, requires thorough consultation with final agreement by Conference. We recognise this is difficult and requires work, but nothing about moving into a battle with the employer doesn’t and we have to be straightforward with our membership about this.
This outlines our position. As stated above, we would welcome details of the current union leadership’s proposals and would be prepared to participate in an open, democratic NEC discussion on the future fighting fund arrangements to try and achieve an agreed position. This discussion is long overdue, should have started when I first made proposals on this as it would have been better to have had something to put to branch AGMs.
Marion
PCS Broad Left Network 