Author: pcsbln

Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) has finally had a reply from the government, the same government that in its run up to election, had stated they would support compensation for women disadvantaged by rapid and often confusing changes to pensions under the previous Tory government. Disgracefully the Labour government has said no: no, they will not, that people should have known about the changes and acted accordingly.

The Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman has “investigated complaints that, since 1995, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has failed to provide accurate, adequate and timely information about areas of State Pension reform.” (Women’s State Pension age and associated issues: investigation summary | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO))

Their investigation showed maladministration and injustice.

Women of retirement age had clearly lost benefits due to a series of poorly communicated changes. The ombudsman also makes it clear that it is very rare for organisations where they have proved maladministration to not pay up.  But they recognise that given the stance of the DWP this was unlikely to happen which is why they referred it to the Government.

Women, older women, the ones discriminated against in the workplace from finding suitable replacement jobs and not minimum wage work, have suffered financially and mentally due to the stress of their planned retirement being changed within one year of retirement when the goalposts were suddenly and significantly moved by the Government.

Yet the senior Labour politicians who categorically said they supported compensating these women, prior to being elected to Government, have now stated they will not.

These are our colleagues, people we’ve worked with, women in our communities, perhaps a family member. 3.6 million women are affected.

And we need to defend them. I would ask all BLN members to reach out to their local councils, their own GECs, asking for a clear statement of support for the WASPI campaign. We can still bring pressure to bear on the government to do what the Ombudsman has recommended and partially compensate these colleagues and comrades.

The two-day National Executive Committee of the union opened on 4 December with two major rows and a threat by the President to adjourn the NEC, which he did not carry out. Marion Lloyd, NEC member and Group President of DSIT Group, intervened before the main agenda to query the absence of a report on the branches that had submitted motions calling for a Special Delegate Conference (SDC).

Since September, union reps and members across PCS have been asking questions about the lack of any serious campaigning action from the union on pay, pensions, redundancy rights and – ever more importantly as Labour tighten the screws on departments – jobs. This inaction is not for want of trying by the NEC majority, 19 out of 35 NEC members, which consists of supporters of the Broad Left Network, the Independent Left and independent socialists.

In consequence of this inaction, however, branches have been debating the question of an SDC, to hold the leadership of PCS – especially the President and the General Secretary – to account for their actions. This has met with undemocratic bureaucratic manoeuvring by Cavanagh and Heathcote, including through their use – without agreement of the NEC – to put out messages to all members in branches passing a motion calling for an SDC to attack the views of elected reps in those branches.

Cavanagh, in the chair of the NEC, responded to Marion by arguing that all the submissions from branches calling an SDC were being treated as correspondence because the vast majority (he alleged, without providing figures) had refused to stipulate whether their call for an SDC or their passage of a motion calling for a SDC had been passed by a branch Extraordinary General Meeting.

There is no requirement for a branch EGM to be held, to vote for a Special Delegate Conference, so this is an attempt by the President to raise the bar to be able to throw out the requests by branches for an SDC. This provoked immediate anger.

Gemma Criddle, Annette Wright, Fiona Brittle, Bev Laidlaw and Marion herself each intervened to point out the deep flaws in what the president had said. Marion highlighted how she had made clear, in writing to Cavanagh and to General Secretary Heathcote, that her motion calling for an SDC had been passed by a branch meeting and yet had still not been circulated to the NEC as per 6.2 of the NEC Standing Orders.

Annette Wright, in particular, skewered the spurious argument of the President that he “cannot be sure that these motions were passed at valid EGMs, I only have your word to rely on for that” by pointing out that her branch EGM had passed two motions, and one of these had been circulated to the NEC (i.e. it was clearly accepted as valid), whereas the one calling for an SDC had not been circulated to the NEC.

Gemma Criddle pointed out that, in Revenue and Customs Group, the GEC had voted to write to branches to suggest that they should call EGMs to discuss the question of an SDC. This decision was blocked by the unelected Group Secretary, an employee of the union. Similar decisions to block decisions by Group Executives, e.g. in Education Group, were likewise blocked by unelected staff of the union.

Fiona Brittle rightly pointed out that the real matter at issue here was the absolute unwillingness of the Cavanagh and Heathcote to call a Special Delegate Conference.

The whole discussion descended into farce when Cavanagh kept repeating that a member of the NEC majority had submitted a motion to the NEC calling for an SDC, so the question of an SDC was on the agenda.

The President had evidently forgotten that he had vetoed a motion at the previous NEC on 7 November, containing exactly the same instruction, but, even more ridiculously, Cavanagh was directly asked, “can we have an assurance that you will not veto that motion and will allow it to be debated?”, he replied, “We’ve not gotten to that part of the agenda yet”.

Annette Wright insisted that Cavanagh put to the vote a suggestion that all the motions passed by branches be reported to the NEC for debate before the NEC adjourned on 5 December. Cavanagh would not make that commitment and would not put the proposal to a vote, as he would have lost. At this point tempers began to fray, as the majority have faced 7 months from May to December of wholesale obstruction by Cavanagh in his role as President.

Cavanagh threatened to evict Marion from the meeting, then threatened to adjourn the meeting, realising he was trapped. After some back and forth, Cavanagh issued a ruling, that he would report back the motions voted on by branches to the NEC – but crucially, without stipulating that this would happen before the next NEC in mid-January 2025, much too late for an effective Special Delegate Conference.

The NEC majority at this point voted to challenge the chair’s ruling 16-14, but as this was not a two-thirds majority, the ruling stood. In a nutshell this is how every single NEC meeting has progressed. No matter what the left majority on the NEC put forward in respect of building the union’s national campaign, 90% of it is simply vetoed by the President, and his Democracy Alliance faction (16 of 35 NEC members) vote to uphold his decision, preventing a two-thirds majority from overturning the obstruction.

Heathcote and Cavanagh abandon the idea of a national campaign altogether

The first day of the two-day NEC also debated the question of the union’s “national campaign”. This is the title given to papers moved by the General Secretary that deal with our national fight, across multiple civil service departments, on pay, on pensions, on redundancy rights and jobs. Since Conference 2024, it also includes matters like hybrid working, office closures and the fight for 100,000 civil service jobs.

The paper put by the General Secretary contained one recommendation only. The recommendation was to “pause the levy” that members have been paying at a rate of £3 or £5 since June 2024, building up the strike fund for a major campaign.

It is preposterous that the General Secretary of the union would come to the last NEC of the year with nothing serious to propose to the NEC on our most important campaigns, except that we call off the levy that might fund serious action. It should not be surprising, considering that Heathcote has collaborated with the President to veto anything resembling a strategy that has been proposed since May. This extended to a motion proposed by the majority left to the NEC on 4/5 December.

Nevertheless, the question of the levy goes to the heart of the differences between the majority left and the Democracy Alliance rump, who lost their NEC majority for in May 2024 for the first time in twenty years. It is worth taking a moment to explain the full context.

The levy was originally introduced in February 2023, three months after the union won a national strike mandate (in November 2022) on our key demands for a 10% pay rise, for pension justice, for a reversal of the attack on the civil service compensation scheme and for a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies. This was used to top up several million pounds set aside by the then-NEC from the settlements won from UK government departments (esp. DWP) over the removal of our contractual right to pay our union subs by check-off.

The levy, along with the national campaign, was abandoned by the NEC in June 2023 at the time when the Tory government offered a £1,500, one-off, non-consolidated, pro-rata payment. Instead of doubling down and taking advantage of the government’s weakness, the NEC cancelled all strike action, cancelled the levy and cancelled all the strike ballots. An extraordinarily dishonest ballot was conducted in Autumn 2023 that told members to “Vote Yes to continue the campaign”.

Members voted yes, and the then NEC promptly used this as an excuse to cancel the campaign. Between June 2023 and March 2024, there was a deafening silence from the top of the union. Then in March, the then-NEC, still under the Democracy Alliance faction, launched a further national strike ballot without any serious preparation. That ballot was successful for 20,000 members, but did not meet the 50% turnout threshold for 110,000+ members.

That ballot result was received prior to the union’s Annual Delegate Conference meeting in May 2024, and prior to the outcome of national elections that began in April 2024, and which concluded in May 2024. The union’s NEC, with a month left in its term of office, voted to reinstate the levy. No attempt was made to explain seriously to members what the strategy would be, when this levy was reimplemented.

Two things then happened in quick succession. First, the Democracy Alliance-led NEC was ousted from office, reduced from holding 33 seats of the 35 seat NEC to 14. Second, the union’s Annual Delegate Conference demanded a much more serious strategy than had existed before, rejecting entirely the lackadaisical approach of the union’s leadership up to May 2024. This left the levy, which was not voted on by the new NEC or by the Conference, as being implemented by default.

The first time the levy was discussed at the union’s National Executive Committee, under the new majority, was in July when Marion Lloyd expressly attempted to propose that the levy be subject to a review, to make sure that it was fit for purpose and that the burden on the lowest paid members was not an undue burden. This proposal was agreed by the NEC. It was never implemented as, at the next NEC, it was missed off the Record of Decisions (RoD) by the General Secretary. An attempt was made at that NEC to amend the RoD was vetoed by the President.

At whiles since then, the question of the levy has surfaced at NEC meetings and at every stage, the view of the majority left has been consistent: the levy should be reviewed considering the industrial position and to reduce the burden on the lowest paid members of PCS. Every time it has come up, as part of motions proposed to the NEC by the majority left, it has been vetoed by Cavanagh as national president.

It came up again at NEC on 7 November, when the NEC minority made a half-hearted attempt to cancel the levy, and this was voted down by the NEC majority. That leads us to the NEC of 4-5 December, at which the only proposal from the General Secretary on the national campaign was to cancel the strike levy (again), on the basis that the strike mandate for the 20,000 achieved in May 2024 has now lapsed and there is no immediate move to a further ballot for action.

Put another way, Heathcote and Cavanagh have actively caused a massive obstruction to and delay of our national campaign, and are now using that delay to argue that, as we’re not planning for immediate targeted strike action, there is no need for the levy.

Why maintain the strike levy if there is no immediate strike action planned?

This is the way Cavanagh and Heathcote and their supporters are framing the question, and we have no hesitation in answering.

You don’t take the bullets out of your gun when a shoot-out is looming.

After taking office, the new Labour government offered a sop to civil servants, by setting a civil service pay remit of 5%. This does not automatically translate as a 5% pay rise, it is permission to Departments to increase their pay bill by 5%, without offering them extra money to pay for it. This means that Departments can offer 5% if they can find cuts in other areas, including public services, or can go higher than 5% at this or that grade if it is balanced by savings elsewhere in the pay bill.

Faced with an offer of 5% in late September 2024, and with most areas having failed to get through the 50% ballot turnout threshold in May’s strike ballot, many reps across the union were willing to take the 5% and settle. The NEC left majority would have preferred a campaigning posture, but at every stage – including in the calling of Senior Lay Reps forums – this approach was undermined by the attitude of Cavanagh and Heathcote, defaulting to their “oh well, if you want to put in a strike submission go ahead” attitude to groups and branches, abdicating any responsibility of leadership.

Temporarily, therefore, pay has receded as the most pressing issue facing members. The key word is “temporarily”. The 2% average pay rise in 2022, the 4.5% average pay rise in 2023 and the 5% average pay rise in 2024 must be set against cumulative 17% rise in costs over that period, to say nothing of more than a decade since 2010 of pay freezes and 1% pay rises that have eroded civil service pay.

This has been relied upon by the Democracy Alliance minority on the NEC, with quips such as “look at how well Home Office have done, they aren’t going to want to take strike action, are they?”

Yet inflation has not gone away, and winter is coming, with heating bills and transport costs that look set to dramatically increase in price, well beyond the average rates of price inflation. If this is met, in early 2025, with a clamp-down on civil service pay, pay will very quickly flare back up again. The fastest way to encourage such a clamp down is to step down the major source of funding for our targeted strike action even before discussions have begun between the Cabinet Office and PCS on civil service pay.

Heathcote even reported that there are “pay and reward” preliminary discussions scheduled to begin in the next few weeks with the Cabinet Office. What a signal to send to ministers just prior to crucial talks, that we aren’t prepared to fight on pay.

There is another key issue facing civil service departments over the next period. Jobs. Motion A315, passed at Conference in 2024, outlined the need not simply to fight for a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies, but to fight for 100,000 additional civil service jobs. This is contrast to the government, which has moved to redundancies in the Department for Transport, and which is cutting jobs across the civil service-including the MOD which has just announced 5,600 job cuts which come on top of a recruitment freeze which was due to end in 2025.

Johnson and Sunak each announced headline job cuts in the civil service – the intention to cut between 66,000 and 90,000 civil service jobs. Labour have removed that headline aspiration but have not withdrawn the funding straitjacket that underpins the logic of job cuts.

At present, most areas are gradually running down staffing levels via “attrition”, i.e. where people leave through retirement, ill-health, taking other jobs etc, which impacts staff by redistributing the work of anyone who leaves on to those who remain. Higher workloads and higher stress are hardly what the doctor ordered for the UK Civil Service, so this is bad enough, but the option for redundancies and even more swingeing job cuts has not been ruled out by the new government.

This is to say nothing of the possibilities of further cuts to office estates, and the consequent impact to staffing and workloads.

This government is not the friend of workers, and anyone who imagines that gains will happen for civil servants – or any other section of the working class – simply by osmosis, is wrong. We must be ready to fight on defensive issues like further pay cuts relative to inflation, further erosion of our rights, attacks on our jobs or attempts to offload higher workloads on to hard-pressed civil servants.

A well-stocked levy is an insurance policy that the union has the wherewithal to resist attacks and to take on a government that repeats Tory or New Labour tactics of trying to force government workers to suffer as the result of wider economic maladies.

This is not to say the levy is perfect; we continue to be concerned that a significant burden is being borne by low paid members in those bargaining areas that are part of the national campaign, and where the levy is therefore being paid. We remain committed to a review to limit the impact of the levy on the low paid. The logic of a levy to support sustained strike action to wreak maximum disruption on the government to force them to bargain properly with the union is unimpeachable.

We are not prepared to surrender such a weapon at an absolutely crucial part of the bargaining cycle, while the Comprehensive Spending Review is under way (setting budgets for civil service departments for at least a year), while preliminary discussions on pay and reward are pending, and while no meaningful engagement has taken place on any of the key priorities of the union in the civil service has yet taken place.

The whole-day NEC meeting on 7th November followed a by-now well-worn format. The left majority on the NEC proposed a motion to demand steps be taken to rebuild the union’s national campaign on pay, pensions, jobs and rights. This was immediately vetoed by national President Martin Cavanagh so that no discussion could take place.

The motion, proposed by PCS Vice President Dave Semple, and seconded by independent socialist Annette Wright, urged the calling of a Special Delegate Conference. Scores of branches representing tens of thousands of PCS members have written to the General Secretary, Fran Heathcote, demanding a Special Delegate Conference be called to debate the stalled national campaign.

Branches reject Heathcote and Cavanagh paralysis

Strike action against facilities and security contractors, such as G4S, OCS and ISS has not been matched by strike action in civil service departments. This is despite the rejection of awards of around 5% across civil service areas. It was revealed last week that partly this is because the General Secretary had falsely stated that the NEC had decided not to permit action under the mandate won by 20,000 members in the ballot ending in May 2024.

In fact the NEC in July expressly voted to allow for action to be taken under the mandate won by members in areas like Land Registry and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Branches, angry at the distortions put out by Heathcote and by Cavanagh, have sought to break the deadlock created by Martin Cavanagh’s vetoes by voting to call a Special Delegate Conference under the rules of the union. The motion of the NEC majority, put forward on Thursday, intended to give effect to that.

Heathcote and Cavanagh, both part of a faction known as “Left Unity”, have already stated that they are unwilling to call such a Conference because they fear it will be used to “attack” them.

The “attacks” they fear are the exposure in front of members and reps of the undemocratic methods they have used to reduce the NEC to virtual paralysis – a blocking of  the national campaign and stopping progress on other important issues . They also fear exposure of the ways in which the General Secretary has created a whole new, very well paid, top management tier in PCS, to embed her dictatorial control of the union.

A majority of the NEC – 19 against 16 – fully support the calling of a Special Delegate Conference. The left majority coalition on the NEC won the May 2024 elections on a platform of building a serious national campaign and of democratising PCS. 

Left Unity lies on the levy

The levy was introduced in February 2023 and was abruptly terminated when Heathcote and Cavanagh sabotaged the union’s industrial campaign on pay, pensions, jobs and rights in June 2023.

Before Left Unity lost it’s majority on the NEC in May of this year they  pushed through the relaunch of the strike levy.

From July onwards, a majority of NEC members have called for a review of the levy. This has been voted on once, in early July, and was then deliberately ignored in the Record of Decisions put by Heathcote to the July NEC. It was also agreed as part of the Record of Decisions of the Organising and Education Committee of the NEC, and has since been ignored by Heathcote and Cavanagh.

Every other time it has been raised, the call to review has been met with a veto – and Thursday was no exception. A review would aim to reduce the burden on the lowest paid while looking in detail at what money is needed to fund effective strike action now and in the near future.

Having vetoed the idea of a review, Heathcote and Cavanagh’s rump of Left Unity supporters on the union’s NEC began, opportunistically, calling for total cancellation of the levy, arguing that members cannot afford it. These are the same people who, over the last two years, each time the question of national strike action came up, argued that members could not afford it.

They now argue that members cannot afford a levy, they also argue that members cannot afford national strike action…so they are in fact arguing that members cannot afford a serious campaign of any kind!

What union members cannot afford is the scandalous misuse of official union communications for political point scoring by Heathcote and Cavanagh and their continuous obstruction of the left majority’s efforts to review the strike levy and rebuild the national campaign.

There are a number of questions to be asked about the levy, and the NEC majority has been asking them and getting no answer since June. Unilateral cancellation, however, would send a powerful signal to the government at a time when the Comprehensive Spending Review is ongoing and cuts are being planned. Cancelling the levy in this context, without offering a serious industrial strategy, to PCS members would be tantamount to surrender.

Undemocratic manoeuvres then lies over union finance

Far too much time at the NEC is taken up by rows deliberately provoked by Heathcote. The latest was a paper in which she sought to curtail what NEC liaison officers could say when meeting with groups and regional committees. There is no collective responsibility on the NEC; members are free to give their view of events when attending meetings within PCS. Heathcote’s paper was a deliberate attack on the freedom of speech essential to union democracy. It wasted hours.

Heathcote followed this up with a Finance paper that binned the recommendations of the union’s elected Finance Committee in respect of the assumptions that should underpin the creation of the PCS budget for 2025, a process that begins in November each year.

The Finance Committee decided that the starting assumptions should be a 0% increase of members’ subs, a 0% increase in the staffing budget in PCS, and a 0% increase to all other costs. Variation to these is almost inevitable – and this was acknowledged by the Finance Committee.

Key to the whole proposal was the suggestion that variations to these assumptions should be scrutinised by the elected Finance Committee, before a final picture was presented to the December NEC. This would allow the Finance Committee to check that budget holders really were doing everything they could to hold down costs while still funding those things that matter to members, to reps and to our campaigns.

Heathcote refused to put the paper from the Finance Committee to the NEC. Instead, she proposed assumptions of a 5% increase to membership subscriptions, a 5% increase to PCS staff budgets and an assumption of 2.5% increases on all general expenditure.

Left Unity allies of Heathcote and Cavanagh came into debate one after the other, denouncing the proposals from the Finance Committee as “the same as the Tories”. They attempted to argue that the 5% increase proposed to the staffing budget was purely about staff pay in PCS (it isn’t) and that the left majority do not want to pay staff in PCS fairly (not true). They argued that the majority were calling for “austerity” in PCS.

Not one of these arguments was true. The majority’s goal was simple: before we put up subs by a single penny, we must make sure that no spending anywhere in the union is wasteful and that there are no savings to be made without impacting branches and campaigns. The utterly false arguments about PCS staff pay put forward by Left Unity are part of an ongoing attempt by the senior managers of PCS to use the staff union, GMB, against the elected lay leadership of PCS.

The viciousness of the debate, however, reflects the pressure now being exerted on Heathcote, Cavanagh and their allies. Members and activists are getting restive at the total lack of action – and it is painfully evident, when Heathcote and Cavanagh’s undemocratic tactics are explained, who is responsible for this: they are to blame.

The majority left coalition came away from the NEC all the more determined to build up an unstoppable force from within the membership and activist layers of the union, to sweep away the bureaucratic obstacles and the lies told in ever increasing volume by Heathcote and Cavanagh. Each NEC meeting and the obstruction we face reinforces our belief that renewal of the democracy in PCS is absolutely vital if we are going to successfully fight and win our battles on pay, jobs, pensions and other issues. The new Labour government  has already made clear it’s looking for cuts and we need to ensure our union is able to defend members’ jobs and the services we provide.

If your branch has not already agreed to support the call for a Special Delegate Conference it’s urgent it does so. The November NEC showed, once again, the need for a Special Delegate Conference to rebuild the national campaign on pay, pensions, jobs and other vital issues and to make clear who runs the union.

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.”