Category: Uncategorized

Since June of 2020, the union’s National Executive Committee (NEC) has been at work on what they refer to as the “strategic options” for the future of PCS. Over the last month or so, senior officers of the NEC, including the President and General Secretary, have been attending meetings across the union to lecture reps about these “strategic options” and to encourage reps to complete the consultation document that was published on 20^th October.

All of this has come out of several papers presented to the NEC by the General Secretary which laid out the failure of the union to achieve our 2020 recruitment target and the continued slide in membership of the union. The papers also covered the percentage of the money collected by the union spent on staff costs within the union, which the GS repeatedly asserted was too high. The GS asserted that as a result of this, the only two options open to the union going forward would be a merger or some kind of structural change.

Posed in this way, the NEC approach has been utterly dishonest. No analysis has been completed to show why the union has not achieved its 2020 recruitment target. The only arguments put forward by the NEC, such as a reduction in size of the biggest government departments, have proven to be untrue. In fact, since 2016 the Civil Service has increased by 28,000 jobs. Some big departments have shrunk, but other big departments have grown.

Having undertaken a grand total of zero analysis, the NEC has jumped straight to trying to interfere with the Group structures of the union. This is made clear by the first, most leading question asked in the NEC’s consultation document. “How can our group structures change to improve bargaining outcomes in the context of a reducing staff resource?” Are group structures holding us back somehow? The NEC has been unable to say.

“Reducing staff resource”, as posed in that question, is based on the General Secretary’s assertion – without evidence – that if we cut staffing costs, we will have money to spare to spend on campaigning. The reality is that, especially in small departments or disparate bargaining areas, Full Time Officers play a key role in supporting lay reps to run the union, including by bargaining with and winning concessions from the employers.

If such resource is reduced, as is assumed by the NEC consultation, then how will this work get done? This isn’t just about having Full Time Officer support for lay reps attending meetings with the employer, it also covers everything from designing, producing and printing leaflets to ensuring the union’s activities get good press coverage to supporting lay reps and members can use their political weight in through lobbying MPs, MSPs etc.

No one disagrees that we want more money to spend on campaigning, more money to put into the union’s strike funds, more money to make us as visible in and out of the workplace as it is possible to be. Getting more money is dependent upon improving our ability to recruit new members and improving our ability to retain old ones. This means we need to understand why we have not been able to do this in sufficient numbers.

None of the questions asked in the NEC’s consultation document are aimed at doing that. All of the questions asked are leading questions. The build assumptions into each question that have no evidence to support them – always the focus is on “structural change”, rather than drilling right down to the basics of trade unionism in the workplace. Are we asking people to join? Why are people not joining? Why do people leave?

The Broad Left Network has a range of political charges to lay at the door of the NEC, that we believe have had an impact on the shrinking size of the union. The NEC’s dogmatic insistence since 2018 on an aggregated single-issue ballot on pay in the Civil Service has all but paralysed the union’s national campaign. This policy was crowbarred through Conference with a tiny majority that depended on areas not covered by the pay dispute.

Since the advent of the Coronavirus pandemic in early 2020, the lacking leadership of the NEC has been very much in evidence. First came the decision that the union was not able to ballot because of the pandemic. Then came the decision to water down the union’s 10% pay claim at a time when the government was totally dependent upon public sector workers. Then came the total lack of a national strategy to protect the health and safety of those workers still in the workplace.

On top of this was the shameful decision of the NEC not to mobilise in support of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the UK, despite tens of thousands of young people – often young workers! – coming out on to the streets, a chance to show them that trade unions do have relevance and are very important. Underneath the immediate criticism that the NEC has lost its way, and is running the union into the sand, are also more far reaching questions which we think need to be asked.

One of the early achievements of a left-led NEC, in the early and mid-2000s, was the ability to put union organising on a systematic footing while ensuring all the work carried out in the name of organising was accountable to the union’s members and elected reps. It is this achievement that has been gradually eroded over time, as PCS Left Unity has degenerated further and further from its one-time ideals of a democratic, fighting union.

Are we doing the basics of organising like mapping workplaces, identifying who the members are, who the non-members are, identifying why the non-members haven’t joined, developing strategies to recruit them – like the classic tactic of identifying who their friends in the workplace are and getting the friends to ask them? Similarly, when reps meet with the employer, are we reporting this back to members? Are we ensuring members get a say?

These points are not being raised as a tick-list which will miraculously restore the union to 300,000 members if we follow them in every workplace – but it would be a start. It would also lead to serious questions about why these things aren’t happening quite so regularly, despite the official figures showing that only 60% of facility time is used in the civil service. What are the barriers to using union time and how do we smash through them?

Working out where the difficulties are and putting in place concrete plans to eliminate those difficulties is what an NEC determined to build a fighting PCS would do – not this rigged consultation chock full of leading questions. The speed of the NEC in carrying out this consultation, allegedly to get input from members and reps, contrasts unfavourably with the years it has taken the NEC to carry out the express will of members and reps when it comes to the election of the union’s senior management posts and making them accountable!

Building a union is a serious task. It requires genuine analysis, which is not what the current NEC majority offer. The starting point must be, why did we not grow, what are the barriers, what can we do better and how can we best support our reps and members in each workplace. The NEC have skipped this step and their biased consultation, which attempts to prefigure the answers through leading questions, is likely to add to the confusion.

It may be that through such detailed analysis, it becomes clear that reps and members in certain areas believe that the union’s structures in their area pose problems – but the solutions will be specific solutions, given how varied the union’s structures are, with DWP at one extreme and groups such as BEIS or Defence Sector at the other. As any serious-minded rep would be, BLN supporters are open to such discussions.

What we oppose fervently is the NEC’s attempt to skip crucial steps in determining how we can correct the course of the union, in favour of their preferred “solutions” which won’t actually address the key issue of recruiting and keeping members.

Further, we oppose the attempt by the NEC majority to suggest that anyone who opposes their view is suggesting we sit on our hands, or that we don’t take the future of the union seriously. Unfortunately, such political sectarianism has become the hallmark of PCS Left Unity and their NEC majority. We encourage all reps to complete the consultation, to reject the leading elements of each question and to give their honest appraisal of what will help to build participation in the union.

After the long 2-year delay and despite the overwhelming support in the majority of the responses in the consultation, begun in 2018, for meaningful reforms and improvements to the process in The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), the Government has disgracefully only just published the findings and only put forward a few limited reforms to: –

·       Place the whole procedure online

·       Reduce the fee from £140 to a “nominal amount”.

·       Open at least three new gender clinics this year in order to reduce waiting lists.

The Government is continuing to delay making any further changes and asked for further submissions to a select committee by 27th November https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/291/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act?fbclid=IwAR0debLit1mfJOcenQ9tojzYJYVYLEVzHgVO9tAW6US48VzzNjZQYP_A8Kk

PCS policy is very clear that we need to be pushing for reforms to the GRA to be implemented without delay and campaigning for this. Broad Left Network supporters have been proactive in supporting this campaigning. Our supporters raised this key issue again at the last PCS NEC and asserted that it was vital that the union responds to this further consultation.

We are encouraging branches to help keep the pressure on the Government to get improvements to the Gender Recognition Act and support our trans and non-binary members and the wider community. Please send in responses to the consultation on the link above by Friday 27^th November.

Here is the response that we will be submitting to the questions.

The Government’s response to the GRA consultation:

• Will the Government’s proposed changes meet its aim of making the process “kinder and more straight forward”?

The proposed changes are very limited in comparison to the scope of the consultation in 2018 and there needs to be much more done to improve equality and support for trans people. As well as fully improving the GRA process the context in society also needs to be addressed. Action needs to be taken to stop cuts to services, stop job losses and address low pay in society which combined with continuing discrimination can impact detrimentally even further on trans and non-binary people.

The government has been stating that they are committed to providing an extra 3 clinics for a long time which have not come to fruition. Is this promise of 3 extra clinics a repeat of the same commitment or a further expansion of services?

The process remains extremely medicalised and a major barrier to the acquisition of a GRC is the cost of all the psychological and surgical reports. The proposed changes do nothing to address this.

• Should a fee for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate be removed or retained? Are there other financial burdens on applicants that could be removed or retained?

The fee should be removed completely.

As well as fully removing the fee for obtaining the GRC the whole process needs to be reformed including removing the medicalised aspects of the process. Individuals incur huge costs to pay for the psychological and medical reports to provide evidence for the process. A straightforward self-identification process would remove these additional costs too.

• Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed?

Yes – gender identity should not be subject to medical diagnosis. It should be done as a result of an individual’s sense of gender identity. Medicalising the whole process violates the individual’s human rights. It delays the process and makes it more difficult, dehumanising, and bureaucratic. Amnesty International has highlighted that the medicalisation of what is gender identity is a violation of human rights and is handled in an intrusive and unhelpful way that is traumatic for many trans people. The medical profession should be there to assist and support people who need them not be put in place as an obstacle to establishing gender identity which puts many people off. This is nothing but gatekeeping.

• Should there be changes to the requirement for individuals to have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years?

Yes – it should be up to the individual rather than a requirement. Some individuals find it useful to get to see what living and facing discrimination is like and that they can withstand the transphobia in society as a first step.

It would be better to have a simple administrative process based on self-determination of gender identity without any medicalisation of the process or having to prove that you are trans enough to deserve the gender recognition. It is important to have the services in place and properly resourced to tackle discrimination and support trans people.

• What is your view of the statutory declaration and should any changes have been made to it?

The statutory declaration can remain as long as there is the ability to detransition if that should become necessary. Other countries which have adopted self-declaration have successfully done so through statutory declarations, that are for life, but can be reversed. A system along these lines should be adopted in the UK

• Does the spousal consent provision in the Act need reforming? If so, how? If it needs reforming or removal, is anything else needed to protect any rights of the spouse or civil partner?

Spousal consent provision should be removed from the GRA. Gender identity is an individual’s decision and they should have the right to make this decision without the need for spousal permission. No-one is the property of their spouse and withholding permission could be a means to continue domestic abuse and control over a partner. There should be provision for whatever partnership has been entered into prior to change of gender identity to continue after the change – so for the marriage or the civil partnership to continue to remain valid.

This is the only instance in English and Welsh law that someone’s legal rights are handed over to someone else.

• Should the age limit at which people can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) be lowered?

Yes. There should be no lower limit. Once a person under 16 can understand the consequences and are Gillick competent they should be able to apply for a GRC if they know themselves to be trans. This should be coupled with fully resourced support being available for children to explore their gender identity.

• What impact will these proposed changes have on those people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, and on trans people more generally?

Very little.

• What else should the Government have included in its proposals, if anything?

Remove the invasive and lengthy process of acquiring medical evidence to support a change in legal identity.

Simplify and streamline the whole process – if this is to be an online process there also needs alternative channels to apply for those for whom online is a barrier.

Change the process so that it is centred around self-identification and stop the medicalisation of the process.

Remove the 2-year living in the acquired gender requirement. This is often accompanied with the pressure to conform to a discriminatory, rigid gender stereotyping of what men or women are supposed to be, rather than the reality of how people are.

Remove spousal consent.

Legal recognition for non-binary and gender fluid people

What is vital to back reforms of the GRA is also fully resourcing public services that are needed in our communities so that trans people can access the services they need as part of a comprehensive funding of public services to meet everyone’s needs including all those fleeing violence and all equality groups. There must be no pitting of different equality groups competing against each other trying to get vital public services delivered in our communities.

• Does the Scottish Government’s proposed Bill offer a more suitable alternative to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004? 

The Draft Scottish Bill is an improvement but we would want all the issues outlined above to be addressed in the reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

 Wider issues concerning transgender equality and current legislation:

• Why is the number of people applying for GRCs so low compared to the number of people identifying as transgender?

The consultation begun in 2018 was supposed to be about making the gender recognition process more straightforward and less onerous but the proposed changes do extremely little. It is not surprising that so many trans people baulk at the hurdles in the act. It is imperative that the process to obtain gender recognition certificate is vastly improved and simplified so that the numbers reflect the numbers of people who identify as transgender in society.

Additionally, there is no scope for non-binary or gender fluid people to be recognised in the GRA. Such individuals form a large section of the trans community and are individuals who may want to change their birth certificate but the binary gender definition in the GRA does not help them. This means they don’t apply as the whole process is irrelevant to their gender identity.

• Are there challenges in the way the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 interact? For example, in terms of the different language and terminology used across both pieces of legislation.

We would not want to see any improvements to trans rights in the GRA being used to undermine the current provision in the Equality Act. A great deal of misinformation has been spread about the GRA proposed improvements introducing a raft of changes when on paper the rights and protections already exist from when the Equality Act was introduced in 2010. It introduced improved transgender rights and made it clear that discrimination applies from the point at which the person proposes to undergo the process to reassign their sexual characteristics. So, for example, women specific services should be offered from the point that the trans woman decides to live as her affirmed gender. Women’s Aid in Scotland and most other organisations already have inclusive services open to all women fleeing violence – this includes trans women who self-identify. Improvements to the GRA will not affect this. There are robust screening processes in place in refuges to ensure that perpetrators of violence are not able to enter refuges or find out information about the women residents, whether they are male or female. The screening process also assesses risk to ensure the safety of all, so women who may be a risk to others or themselves may be referred to separate support services.

• Are the provisions in the Equality Act for the provision of single-sex and separate-sex spaces and facilities in some circumstances clear and useable for service providers and service users? If not, is reform or further guidance needed?

Improvements to the GRA and accessing the gender recognition process should not be used as a way of undermining the trans rights in the Equality Act. The provisions of the Equality Act should remain and there already cannot be a blanket ban on excluding trans women from women only services. It is good practice to make clear that the women specific services are provided on an inclusive basis and open to all women. There should only be very exceptional circumstances where anyone is excluded from services. For example, any woman for whom shared refuge accommodation is not suitable as they could be a danger to themselves or to others should still have access to support and alternative provision to suit their needs. This should be true whether they are a trans or cis woman. Where there are exceptional circumstances this should only be on clear detriment to others and even then, the provider of the services would need to demonstrate that they could not adjust their services to avoid discrimination. Measures could include increasing the level of privacy in changing facilities for example which would be beneficial to all women using these services.

We would not accept that disabled women should be excluded from services and would expect service providers to make adjustments. Similarly, adjustments should be made to avoid any discrimination under the Equality Act for all women which includes trans women.

It is only in very restricted circumstances that the Equality Act allows for treating someone differently due to gender reassignment. Apart from these very exceptional circumstances which are covered in the Equality Act trans women should be able to apply for jobs in women only services. The improvements we want to see to the GRA should not affect this.

• Does the Equality Act adequately protect trans people? If not, what reforms, if any, are needed

We would not want to see changes to the Equality Act that undermine the clear rights for trans people. We are concerned that the consultation about the reform of the GRA and making the process more straightforward and easier for trans people is being distorted into threatening the rights for trans people that already exist.

The Equality Act does need to be improved to include non-binary and gender-fluid as protected characteristics. But this must not be done at the expense of reducing rights for trans people overall.

As well as improving equality rights the real issue is the lack of resources for our services, which increases the tendency for competing priorities rather than addressing all the needs in our communities. Fully funding our services to meet the needs of all in our communities should be prioritised so that equality rights can actually be implemented.

All equality legislation also needs to be backed up with inclusive awareness raising and improving understanding. The toxicity of the debate raised by those opposed to reforms to the GRA has brought this into sharp focus and undermined progress that has been made on trans rights. As well as the points made above this has also included denying the rights of trans men to exist and reducing the debate to one of sexuality rather than reality that these rights are about gender identity.

• What issues do trans people have in accessing support services, including health and social care services, domestic violence and sexual violence services?

See foregoing answers. In addition:

Progressive legal changes are not enough. Sufficient resources are also vital. Huge cuts in public services are impacting on the ability of everyone to access the services that they need – this is especially the case for groups with protected characteristics to access the info and support that they need.

Clearly in a society rife with discrimination against trans people then accessing public services, going to court, applying for jobs and benefits can be full of potential to exacerbate the discrimination. Whilst this discrimination exists then we need to make sure that the protection from discrimination for trans people remains robust and keeps up to date with the changes in services

• Are legal reforms needed to better support the rights of gender-fluid and non-binary people? If so, how?

We should support the right for people to identify as non-binary and gender-fluid. In a society that is so dominated by gender stereotyping then it is understandable that individuals reject this way that people are judged and pigeon-holed according to these simplistic male and female stereotypes. Legal reforms are needed to address the rigid binary categorisation of gender identity. There should be supportive approach for non-binary individuals to access services especially if they have suffered gender-based violence. Specifically the EA2010 needs reforming to explicitly include non-binary identities; passport gender markers need removing altogether or provision needs to be made for a non-binary option; a similar change needs to be made for driving licenses and all other legal documentations which carry a gender marker or title ; and a provision for a non-binary change to a birth certificate needs to be included in reform of the GRA.

HMRC PAY TALKS – NEED TO KEEP MEMBERS INFORMED

The union’s 10% pay claim for 2020 is well deserved and a recognition of how far the value of our pay has fallen.

HMRC management’s business case for pay linked to contract changes has been agreed by the Treasury. This was announced to great fanfare on 27th July. Management said that it would take a few weeks to finalise talks with unions. In fact it appears talks could go on until end of March 2021. It would seem the official side is trying to place responsibility for this with Unions.

HMRC’s plans involve a multi-year above inflation pay rise, but there will be strings attached. HMRC is looking to change (worsen) terms and conditions. The details of these changes still haven’t been made public, but we can be sure that HMRC will want to retain ‘flexibility’ provided to it by 5/7 contracts .In accordance with the Treasury pay remit, no new money will be made available to fund the pay rise, so there may be more drastic changes being considered.

HMRC will be asking members to sell their terms and conditions to fund their own pay increase – this isn’t a pay rise. Over the last decade members have seen real terms pay cuts while paying more for their pension. In order to recover the position in pay, members shouldn’t be expected to accept detrimental changes to terms and conditions.

Contractual changes can’t simply be made by the employer and there are a limited number of ways to achieve them. Apparently HMRC’s preferred approach is to agree the changes with the recognised trade unions – PCS and ARC. If the changes are agreed by the unions then they will apply to all staff.

Talks have now begun on a ‘without prejudice basis’. This is a polite way of saying that the talks take place behind closed doors, with only the negotiators knowing what’s being discussed. It seems that the discussions on pay and on terms and conditions are being conducted separately – in line with PCS Group Conference policy that the two subjects are to be kept separate.

Lessons to be learned

HMRC is just the latest in a number of departments to look at contractual changes to fund additional pay . An early example was the DWP with their ‘Employee Deal’ in 2016. Millions of pounds of new Treasury money were put into a pay rise that saw some staff get a 21.5% rise over 4 years whilst others, opting out, got 0.25% for each year of the 4 year deal. Regardless of whether one believes ED was the right thing to do or not, and there are varying views in the BLN, the prospects for a serious campaign to win further concessions from DWP were damaged by the Group’s pay negotiators conducting the negotiations behind closed doors and then presenting the DWP Group Executive Committee with a take-it-or-leave-it deal. The result was that despite some improvements, a two-tier workforce has persisted in DWP, and some workers are now even further behind those doing the same job when it comes to pay.

Our PCS negotiators must resist the pressure of talks behind closed doors, designed to exclude members from the process, so the pressure of tens of thousands of members can’t be mobilised during negotiations. This makes it difficult to consult with members and to organise a response when the final terms of a deal are on the table; any campaign has to begin from a standing start. What is dangerous for our union is when the employer’s desire to reduce member participation becomes mirrored in the attitudes of the union’s leadership, as with the national union’s supposed pay campaign. This has degenerated to the point that member participation amounts to signing and sharing a petition. This can hardly be described as a national campaign to fight for a decent pay rise.

A pay and contract package was also offered in the MOD. Circumstances there were different in that all five recognised trade unions needed to agree the package for it to be implemented. By the time the PCS Group Executive considered the package it had already been rejected by one union. The PCS Group Executive rejected the offer without going to the members. Although the GEC decision was correct, the way it was done was used by the employer to turn members against the union and a significant number of members left PCS.

There is a clear lesson here that even if the R&C Group Executive think members should reject HMRC’s offer, members must be kept involved at every stage, so they understand why the deal on offer is a bad one and reject it in a ballot.

The importance of involving members is just as clear from the experience of the MOJ group. Again there was a pay and contract offer and it was put to members. Over 74% of members took part in the ballot, with 93% voting against the offer. This approach not only engaged existing PCS members, it also increased membership in the MOJ group by 10%.

Organise now

The MOJ Group experience shows what could be accomplished in the R&C Group. Yet recruitment and engagement with members doesn’t simply materialise because we ask for it – these things must be sought through GEC leadership, supporting work at the branch level across the group. The Broad Left Network demands are:

▪️Fight for the National PCS pay claim – fully funded 10% pay rise with a minimum underpin of £2,400, and no detrimental changes to terms and constitution.
▪️That the full GEC is kept informed by negotiators of the talks with HMRC.
▪️The GEC decides the PCS response at each stage and keep members informed.
▪️The R&C GEC commit now to a ballot of all members on the final offer, making the case for this in the strongest terms with the NEC/NDC.
▪️R&C group negotiate with HMRC to make paid time available to all staff to attend PCS organised meetings on the talks and the final offer.
▪️Support branches to call a series of meetings of members and non-members, whether the meetings are conducted in offices or via Teams or both. The meetings will be to discuss the terms of the offer, seek feedback from members and, when the offer is finalised, to encourage members to vote in the ballot.
▪️Support branches in contacting all members to ensure that PCS holds up to date contact information for all members. This to include discussions with the General Secretary office to ensure that the full time resources of the Group Office and Regional Offices are made available to support branch activities.
▪️Support branches in recruiting new members, using tailored materials around the pay discussions to show how joining PCS gives HMRC staff a voice in the issues that matter to them. Again this needs to include full time resources of the Group Office and Regional Offices being made available to support branch activities.

By taking these steps, PCS R&C Group can finish 2020 in a stronger position: greater density, the ability to communicate with members and ready to deliver again in the National Campaign if another ballot is called. Yet the consequences of not doing this are dire – PCS miss taking advantage of this potentially watershed moment and risk losing members at a time when office closures are already having an impact. Now is the time for the R&C GEC to show bold leadership with a clear purpose.

Waffle won’t win; we need a serious union campaign in DWP

The union’s executive in DWP met on 23^rd September, to discuss what to do about the plans by DWP senior management to push ahead with plans to extend operating hours in Jobcentres and 21 Universal Credit Service Centres (SCs) and to extend the number of claimants unnecessarily attending Jobcentres in person, for face to face appointments.

PCS members in DWP voted overwhelmingly for action; 77% said they were prepared to act in order to prevent DWP plans that pose a risk to their safety.

Even in the few weeks since the ballot the situation has changed dramatically. We have gone from a situation with preparation for the schools in England and Wales to return and the opening up of the economy and socialising with pubs and restaurants reopening, to the chaos we have now. We now have soaring covid-19 infection rates, numerous local lockdowns and the totally blatant disregard for the safety of our members in the haste to book unnecessary huge numbers of face to face appointments which help no-one and put communities more at risk of the spread of the virus.

DWP BLN demands that the disregard of our safety by DWP management needs to be met with a strong response and the need to move to a statutory ballot to stop the extension of services to the public and the extension of opening hours. We can discuss the form of this ballot but we need to give a firm lead and clear message to management that we will stop their plans together. DWP BLN supporters on the GEC argued that branches should have been given the full data and analysis of the consultative ballot to fully arm everyone with all the information to have a genuine say in the consultation of branches that is due to take place. Regions are a vital part of the support for branches and regional/nation committees should be fully involved to work in tandem with branch committees and be fully aware of support branches need rather than being bypassed by the Group.

At same time we need to ensure that not a single member of PCS is left to fend for themselves when it comes to opposing DWP’s plans to extend opening and increase face to face appointments. We must challenge the unsafe and dangerous situation that DWP senior managers are imposing on site by putting unbearable pressure on local managers to book in appointments in every jobcentre regardless of safety. We can use our normal collective methods to mobilise the anger in our offices and oppose the plans – organising safe socially distanced meetings of our members outside in the car parks or in the muster points wherever there is enough room to assemble safely. Not only does the union flexing its muscles rattle the DWP but it also shows members that we can work and act together to stand up to management and oppose the plans. We have argued that the fact that workers can respond immediately to dangerous situations and remove themselves to a place of safety can be used effectively to deal with the immediate attacks we face, whilst we go through the bureaucracy and timeframe of organising a statutory ballot.

Build a safe, socially-distanced face-to-face campaign

Beating the 50% turnout threshold imposed by the Tory government in 2016 is very possible. However it needs to be said that the LU-led GEC launched the consultative ballot and promptly hid behind their computer keyboards.

No group-wide leaflet was produced to allow for desk dropping or leafleting outside buildings. No arrangements were made for face to face meetings. In branches which are controlled by LU GEC members, those reps who wanted to organise socially distanced, safe meetings using protective equipment were told they weren’t allowed to. Instead, emails, poorly attended online Zoom meetings and badly organised and publicised telephone banking was all that happened. BLN supporters on the GEC proposed a clear route to increase the amount of work being done, so that turnout in a statutory ballot would be maximised. This was voted down by Left Unity.

The strategy we put forward is a strategy to win. We urge all branches not to accept the secretiveness of the GEC, and not to accept their unwillingness to lead a serious campaign; we are circulating a draft motion that allows branches to discuss what they think the Group strategy should be, for this to be sent to the GEC, and used in the consultation meetings to demand a serious strategy.

Build a fighting strategy that defends members and builds the union!

The same people as currently lead PCS in DWP put out a branch bulletin from the national union on 29.06.2020 where they claimed that one of the key reasons why the union is shrinking is because of the way the largest government departments are shrinking. Yet DWP is expanding at a fast rate just now; thousands of agency jobs and thousands of permanent jobs are being added – yet recruitment to the union has been slow.

BLN supporters on the GEC were flabbergasted, therefore, when the Left Unity majority that controls the GEC decided to vote against our simple proposal that we need to produce up to date recruitment material and leaflets, as well as specific up-to-date material for the management grades in DWP, who are being put under enormous pressure by politically motivated decision-making.

Senior managers have been heard to acknowledge that yes they have an obligation to protect staff, but they also have an obligation to vulnerable claimants, which is why they’re pressing ahead with the extension of opening hours and the increased number of face to face appointments. At the coalface, HEO and SEO managers in Jobcentres know very well that face to face appointments simply aren’t necessary just now. These grades need union support, but the GEC simply refused!

Meanwhile thousands of new staff, especially young workers, who have never been part of a union, are being thrust into new workplaces. Ensuring branches have the resources necessary to get stuck into the recruitment work should be a high priority – new and enthusiastic union members are exactly the types who would vote yes in any ballot, if advised to do so by their reps. Failing in this task is failing at basic trade unionism.

Will the Left Unity leadership of the GEC be saved by the Tories?

Given the lack of any visible strategy and lack of proposals to build a serious campaign from the union’s leadership in DWP, some members have wondered whether the government’s so-called “firebreak” to prevent a resurgence of Covid-19 will cause DWP to change course. This is how depleted members’ faith in the current leadership has become.

The message from Westminster has been, work at home if you can. This potentially puts an arrow right through the previous Tory plans to drag civil servants – even those safely working at home – into the office one day a week. In HMRC, for example, plans to bring back thousands of staff have now been reversed. Will this happen in DWP? Will it have an impact on the number of face-to-face appointments in Jobcentres?

Alex Chisholm, Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, has indicated that Departments will make up their own minds about this – there will be no central order from the government for departments to send staff home etc. This means the only guarantee for DWP staff will be if we build a serious campaign to oppose management plans to extend operating hours and increase the face to face appointments.

What we know for sure is that even if DWP do change course, these plans will be resurrected as soon as the political priorities in Westminster return to panicking at the state of the economy and to blaming it all on claimants and civil servants. The only course available is to build a serious fight for a binding agreement that protects the health and safety of DWP staff and of members of the public.

Staff must be protected. Members must be protected. We urge all branches to fight for the serious campaigning work that we need to win and stop the reckless, unsafe extension of services and extension of hours from 30th November, and for a national statutory ballot to protect all of our members across all Jobcentres and across the 21 affected Universal Credit SCs.

Claimant numbers to increase in DWP Jobcentres from Monday; defend your rights!

On 8^th September DWP announced to all staff their intention to bring claimants into Jobcentres who don’t require an emergency appointment. Jobcentres have been open throughout the crisis, but this has been limited to a small number of vulnerable people. The emphasis of the DWP announcement was to give local managers a great deal of latitude in whether they decide to do this, and how they decide to it.

In Glasgow, for example, DWP senior managers are planning to bring small numbers of the claimants in the 18-24 age group into Jobcentres. Union reps are very clear that there is no good reason for doing this and members, who were told on Friday 18^th September about new face to face interviews with claimants commencing on Monday 21^st September, have expressed their anger that this group are being dragged in for no good reason.

Senior managers in multiple areas, such as Greater Manchester, have indicated that because they are under ministerial instruction, they have no choice but to proceed to increase the number of claimants coming in. This is not true. It is open to managers to analyse the risks for their areas and to agree that no additional claimants will be brought into offices, particularly in locations where Covid-19 is resurgent. Handling appointments by telephone is safe and effective.

While some area managers are suggesting that the approach will be voluntary, this is not true everywhere. Some staff are simply being told that they will have appointments, as if they have no choice. The union’s advice is very clear: this is a voluntary matter both for you and for claimants and if you are worried about safety, do not volunteer.

Lack of consultation with PCS – don’t volunteer!

Local management are obliged to consult union reps and Health and Safety reps about this change, but insufficient time has been allowed for this by national DWP managers. Our advice, as PCS reps, to all members in Jobcentres is to:

·         Insist that your line manager provides you with confirmation that a review of the Jobcentre Front Facing Risk Assessment has been carried out with TU present.

·         Contact your local union rep and TU-appointed Health and Safety rep to make sure they have agreed the risk assessment.

If there has been no risk assessment, or it has not been agreed because managers have not put in place safety measures insisted upon by the union’s Health and Safety reps, we urge members to refuse to be involved with the appointments.

Given that the Group Executive Committee were aware of these changes, the union branch bulletin that was published late in the afternoon of Friday 18^th September has come out much too late to support branches in organising an effective response ahead of the morning of Monday 21^st. Despite this inadequately timed response, the GEC bulletin contains a useful list of questions and safeguards that can be discussed by reps with members and put in place through local negotiations with management.

Broad Left Network supporters who are PCS reps in DWP are strongly opposed to management’s plans to ramp up the face to face work in Jobcentres. It is unnecessary and unsafe. We urge union members not to volunteer to be involved with these appointments until all steps are taken to ensure members’ safety at work.

DWP ballot – time to ramp up the campaign

The union in DWP has recently conducted an informal ballot over this issue; nearly 80% of all staff said they would be willing to take action against the measures DWP are taking, including extension of operating hours, which the union believes are threatening health and safety. It is vital that all members look after each other and collectively insist on safety at work.

The view of BLN supporters in DWP is that the DWP Group Executive Committee should proceed to a statutory ballot. Further, the Group Executive Committee must now authorise and support all necessary measures, including leafleting outside offices in a socially-distant, safe manner, car park meetings and ensuring where members are being put into dangerous situations, we ensure that everyone understands their rights under H&S legislation and we fully back our members taking action to protect their safety.  This robust approach will build the support we need to beat the 50% turnout threshold imposed on union ballots by the 2016 anti-union laws.

PCS in DWP would then be able to prepare legal strike action should DWP continue ploughing ahead with changes which threaten the health and safety of our members and that of the public.

It is clear from the indicative ballot that members are deeply unhappy and are prepared to take action. That force must now be brought to bear against DWP which is also determined to bring in late opening and Saturday working to put even more pressure on our members and adversely impact safety. With the Cabinet Office insisting that all staff must work at least one day from the office, it is likely that without a serious campaign from the union, there will be a steady erosion of the safety measures we currently have in place.

A robust response from the union is therefore necessary, challenging every breach of safety legislation by DWP and developing a collective response across vulnerable areas like the Jobcentres and Universal Credit. Only this will force DWP to put safety first and protect our members in their offices.

In the middle of June, the Sunday Times published a leak which suggested that the government was rowing back on commitments to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Proposed reforms, over which a huge national consultation was launched in 2018, included reducing the archaic, expensive and needlessly stressful process trans people are required to endure to change their gender. Trans people should be able to self-identify as their affirmed gender.

Due to be published on July 30, publication of the government’s report into reform of the

Gender Recognition Act has now been delayed until September. This delay brings nothing but uncertainty for trans members of our union and trans people in our communities; the government has promised no roll-back of trans rights without saying what exactly that means. Pronouncements by Tory Minister Liz Truss suggest the government is planning to oppose self-ID, to deny medical services to trans children and to make it harder for trans women to access public services.

Even Tory pronouncements that should command unanimous support, such as a potential ban on the barbaric practice of gay conversion therapy, are being met with calls that a ban should not include conversion therapy aimed at trans people.

Ahead of publication of the government’s report, members of the union’s NEC had sought to propose and pass a motion which would have made clear the union’s opposition to Tory backsliding, to the divide-and-rule tactics and full support for self-ID instead of the current over-medicalised process by which trans people have to be diagnosed with a mental disorder (gender dysphoria) before they can self-identify as their affirmed gender.

Unfortunately, despite being proposed three NEC meetings ago, this motion has still not been debated by the NEC. PCS President, Fran Heathcote, keeps scheduling very short meetings, or refusing to schedule meetings every two weeks as was agreed as NEC policy earlier in the year, and the President also chooses where on the agenda issues are debated.

The current Left Unity/Democrat leadership of the union has not had the best record on trans rights. The NEC was censured in 2019 by Annual Delegate Conference over the General Secretary placing his signature on a letter in the Morning Star which deliberately misrepresented trans people as the perpetrators of violence rather than the true position, which is that they are overwhelmingly the sufferers of violence.

Tory delays give us another opportunity, however, to mobilise the union behind efforts to improve trans rights. Organisations such as Amnesty International and Stonewall have already published condemnations of the Tory retreat on GRA reform, and there have been demonstrations by trans people and their allies across the country.

Members of our union can be encouraged to get involved, but we must also recognise that more must be done if we are to win ground in the battle for trans rights. Trade unions must be mobilised to defend public services, and thereby to defend a vulnerable minority.

Liberation struggle is class struggle: oppose divisive Tory tactics

Right-wing attempts to drive a wedge into the LGBT+ movement have been noted above; the other big tactic employed by the right is to attempt to drive a wedge between trans people and women over the question of access to public services.

A minority of vocal anti-trans activists, who claim to speak for women, have sought to portray trans women as predatory men whose consuming obsession is changing their gender so as to get access to public services such as refuges. In the context of austerity, where organisations such as Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid have faced huge cuts and are unable to meet existing demand from women for support, this lie has found an echo amongst a layer and it needs to be refuted.

To give just one example of the extent of this lie, a Scottish government survey of all 12 regulatory bodies that cover women’s refuges for the whole of the UK found that the existing safeguards in the Equality Act 2010, which allow for certain spaces to exclude trans women, had never needed to be used. The bodies also reported that, although trans women had been accessing their services for years, there had been no incidents involving trans women reported in any refuge throughout the UK. Meanwhile every study available shows the horrendously high rates of assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, rape and murder suffered by trans women.

The trade union movement must fight for all who need access to fully funded public services to support them against domestic abuse and against rape. Housing needs to be available to allow those who are domestically abused to escape their abuser immediately. The law needs to be changed to protect those who suffer from domestic abuse from further victimisation by their employer. The fight for these services, against austerity and against prejudice, is one that should fall squarely on the shoulders of the trade union movement.

Perpetuating myths such as those told by opponents of GRA reform can only serve to divide those who should be united in opposing Tory austerity and cuts to public services. They serve to increase the isolation of trans women and the evidence suggests that during the period of the consultation, in which mainstream press pages have resounded with attacks on trans women, instances of physical attacks on trans people have increased. Nor do these ideas offer a way forward in the fight to defend public services against the austerity onslaught, which falls on working class women disproportionately.

In our own union, there have been examples of senior union reps who deliberately refer to trans people by the wrong gender, or by the wrong name. Combating prejudice and misinformation, and building a powerful, united campaign to improve the lives of trans people is possible, and our union must play a leading role.

It is a mistake to do anything that exacerbates divisions in the working class – along the lines of gender, sexuality, race, etc – as the proponents of identity politics and anti-trans ideas do. The defenders of capitalism already use division to weaken our struggles against exploitation, austerity and oppression. Instead we need to fight for the maximum unity of the working class in struggle around a socialist programme of jobs, homes and services for all.

We call on the leadership of PCS to publish a statement which outlines the steps the union’s leadership is planning to take in line with Annual Delegate Conference policy to support and campaign for reform of the GRA, to demand self-ID for trans people, to demand high quality public services to support all women against domestic abuse and violence, especially in the era of Covid-19 when women have been isolated with their abuser, and to oppose the divisive lies being spread by the media and by the government about trans people.

Self-congratulatory NEC still lack any strategy on Covid-19 or pay

National Executive Committee meetings are often dominated by a series of speeches from the General Secretary, frequently taking 45 minutes, sometimes even an hour, per paper moved.

The NEC of 13.08.20 was no exception. What was surprising was that on the first substantive item of business, it took this long to move a paper on Covid-19 and organising when it did not have a single recommendation to be voted on by the NEC. Instead the time was taken up by the General Secretary earnestly thanking just about everyone he could think of for the amazing work they’ve been doing during the pandemic and then regurgitating the material in the paper section by section.

It fell to the BLN supporters who sit on the NEC to remind the General Secretary and his allies that the pandemic is not over and there is still no sign of a serious strategy from the union to ensure members are not moved back into their offices before it is safe. This view was reinforced when the General Secretary shared his recent correspondence with the Chief Operating Officer of the Civil Service, Alex Chisholm.

Aggressive in tone and short on the kind of detail that would have been useful in putting the union’s case, those in charge of national negotiations are violating a cardinal rule of trade unionism; you don’t sound aggressive until you’re ready to mean it.

Slow push back to the office continues – a fighting strategy is needed

Chisholm’s reply, essentially shrugging off everything Serwotka said, shows the Cabinet Office do not take seriously the current PCS leadership’s opposition to the slow pushing of our members back into workplaces without consideration for the continuing scientific advice that working from home is still safest. An announcement in HMRC last week that 7,000 staff will be asked to move back into offices, joining the 4,000 still there, is just the latest example of this push.

These HMRC staff will join workers from the Passport Office, in HM Courts and Tribunals Service and other parts of the civil service. Members are facing risks to their safety as a result of the failure of the government to ensure they can work from home, but they are also experiencing the failure of the current leadership of the union. The NEC has persistently failed to acknowledge the potential for collective action on health and safety grounds; each time the Civil Service has sought to move people back into offices, the NEC has insisted to union members that it must be their individual call to refuse to go back into an office.

Continuing the litany of mistakes, the management action brief published to the union’s negotiators at group level by the national union seemed to contain contradictory comments, with a focus on ensuring any return to the office was on a voluntary basis. This undermines the view being taken in a number of groups, where the union has held the line that even those who want to go back to the offices should not be allowed to unless it is a greater risk for them to be at home than to travel to and work in an office.

Broad Left forces LU-led DWP Group to call consultative ballot – get involved

BLN supporters have consistently demanded that every effort be made to mobilise collective power when disputes develop over staffing returning to their workplaces. In DWP this pressure from BLN supporters had paid off by the launching of a consultative ballot on the DWP decision to extend opening hours to 8pm and to Saturdays while the pandemic is on-going. BLN supporters welcome this ballot but have concerns at the lacklustre LU campaign to drive out the vote.

We urge all BLN supporters to make contact with their local DWP branches to give support to the ballot. DWP Group has published information that allows reps to join virtual phonebanks, to contact members in the affected Universal Credit Service Centres and Jobcentres in order to encourage them to vote. The ballot continues until 7^th September.

National campaign: pay and pensions report

The other major business discussed at the NEC was on the so-called “National Campaign”. Again, the current leadership swung retreated into endless praise of their own efforts, which have resulted in 40,000 signatures on the PCS pay petition. As a BLN supporter noted, at the current rate of signatures we will get to 100,000 trigger of a debate in parliament some time in 2022. Despite the indignant reaction from Serwotka and Left Unity a few NECs ago, when they said the petition could be an organising tool, there is no sign it is being used as such.

Serwotka’s paper on the national campaign proposed that the NEC agree to “use all available organising and campaigning avenues to increase the signature rate on the national petition”. That was the actual recommendation from these lions of the (ex) left, with no further details offered of what the leadership of the NEC had in mind, or what could be done that we aren’t already doing. The problem isn’t that not enough work is going into the petition, it’s that the petition was always a fig-leaf behind which to hide the absence of a serious campaign in pay in 2020.

Of more interest was the update on the on-going legal battles on pensions; the national union will be sharing information shortly to encourage groups, branches and members to participate in the public consultation on pensions launched by the government. BLN supporters will keep an eye for this, to ensure members’ views about their overpayments of contributions are represented and to demand the government pays up for those people who were subjected to a detriment when they were moved to the Alpha scheme.

NEC agrees BLN motion on the NHS protests

BLN supporters proposed a motion on the recent protests launched by nurses and other health workers over pay. On Saturday 8^th August, around the UK protests were organised by health workers themselves, often bypassing the official trade unions, to demand that the government change their refusal to reopen pay negotiations. NHS workers in England and Wales are subject to the last year of a three year deal, agreed well before the Covid-19 pandemic and which in any case did not correct the last decade worth of pay austerity which has seen rates of pay fall by up to 20%.

As NHS staff in Oban, Scotland put it, “Clapping doesn’t pay our bills.” NHS staff in Scotland and Northern Ireland are on different pay scales to those in England and Wales, with devolved governments having authority over pay. Nurses in Northern Ireland won a historic victory in late 2019 after taking strike action over pay, moving them towards parity with nurses in England and Wales, but still below those in Scotland. None of the nations of the UK have paid their NHS staff sufficiently to offset how much pay has dropped when set against rising prices. PCS has members in NHS Digital, which is covered by NHS pay scales; some of these members joined their nearest demo, in Leeds.

The BLN proposal gave solidarity to the demonstrations and instructed the national union to publish details of further demonstrations, to encourage members to take part, masked and socially distanced of course. This was agreed unanimously by the NEC, finally putting a nail through the NEC’s former policy of not encouraging people to join demonstrations in the current period. Further demonstrations are planned, many on the 12^th September, so if something is happening in your area and you want it publicised, contact an NEC member or the General Secretary’s office to ask for this to be put up on the website.

Sidney Stringer academy is a school in Coventry, the city where OFQUAL is based. This year 60% of teacher predicted grades at Sidney Stringer were marked down by the algorithm implemented by OFQUAL. The head, teachers and students at Sidney Stringer jointly held a protest to call on the government and OFQUAL to address this news. Roughly 150 people attended and heard stories of students whose predicted grades were all marked down, some by two grades. This was a disaster for those students who saw their futures ripped apart by an algorithm. Their anger was just.

BLN supporters and members call for solidarity with the A level students of 2020. We further applaud the united efforts of students, teachers, and similarly outraged members of the public in successfully demanding that teacher predicted grades be reinstated. The power and leverage available to us when united in solidarity against injustice cannot be overstated. The victory of this campaign in forcing a policy U-turn from the Tories – despite their 80 seat majority – shows what can be done when we come together to fight for what is right. This U-turn comes as a direct result of worker (and future worker) led organising and bargaining. It brings to mind the youth-fronted movement on climate action that shines a light directly on the hypocrisy and savagery of the ruling capitalist class.

This fiasco is just the latest in a series of mistakes made by the government in handling the COVID-19 crisis. For months students and teachers have been raising concerns about how grades would be awarded this year, and teachers were instructed to use mock exams and work provided before the lockdown to predict grades. These predicted grades would have meant that record levels of students would pass A levels, especially at A* to C. Politicians took the decision that the pass rates should increase by roughly 1%. OFQUAL were forced to deliver this and did so with an algorithm. Fairness to the students affected was never factored into this political decision.

The algorithm is clearly biased and discriminatory. It makes a mockery of Boris Johnson’s empty promise of levelling up across the country. Yet the algorithm is a symptom of wider unfairness within the education system. State schools have seen their budgets cut to the point that Heads are forced to decide whether to spend money on equipment or wages, a decision no educator should ever be faced with. It means that teachers are managing increasing class sizes and are working untold extra hours, unpaid, to mark homework and produce class plans. In this context it’s no surprise that students from poorer backgrounds have little chance to close the educating gap with those students from rich backgrounds, who are able to attend private schools with adequate funding and to access additional tutors.

Of course, whilst living in a society marked by class-based inequality and top-down elitist control, it is hard to envisage an education system that wouldn’t inherently reflect this. The Tory fetishization of “it all comes down to this” performance in end of year exams disproportionately favours children from wealthy backgrounds, but so too does continuous assessment and coursework. While the latter is certainly closer to fairness and would be a positive step, it is not possible to eradicate the gulf between advantaged and disadvantaged students until we address the vast wealth inequality which is a core tenet of capitalism. BLN supporters and members call for all schools to be free and available to all students, for a fully funded and publicly run education system and for exam boards to be brought into public ownership.

The BLN notes with concern that at the time of writing GCSE results have recently been released and are at a record high, with some schools and headteachers considering appealing against them. In order to avoid repeating the same mistakes as with A-Levels, any and all review of GCSE grades must be conducted in full consultation with trade unions and with the wellbeing of students as the guiding and overarching central principle.

The government has promised a public inquiry into its handling of the COVID-19 crisis in due course. Past and present inquiries, including the ongoing inquiry into Grenfell, suggest this won’t be handled fairly. The PCS NEC and the wider Trade Union movement needs to call for any inquiry to be conducted by the trade union movement to ensure the government is held to account for its decisions. This includes reviewing the ministerial decisions on the way A level and GCSE results have been determined this year, which was of course fully in keeping with the government’s elitist ideology around education.

We stand in solidarity with PCS members working in Ofqual, trying their hardest to deliver yet another flawed government policy in the most of extreme of circumstances and we must not tolerate these workers being used as political pawns in any inquiry. It is government that must be held to account, not the hardworking Civil and Public Servants who deliver on their behalf. We encourage PCS members who feel able to do so to join socially distanced rallies and protests for this results debacle, and to write to their government representatives in support of school students.

DWP PCS members in all the Jobcentres and 21 Universal Credit Service Centres must vote YES in the ballot which starts Monday 17th August. This will give a very clear message to management, to stop their plans to open workplaces until 8pm and Saturdays and bring back conditionality.

The threat to open these workplaces into the evenings and all Saturdays shows no regard for PCS members, who have worked flat out to deliver services to the public in the pandemic and ensure the massive influx of people making claims to benefit have all received payments. We have achieved this with only 60% of our members in the workplace and our members at home have had to put up with delays and issues getting the kit to work from a government department that was the worst prepared with IT equipment for their workforce. All adding extra pressure on our members delivering services.

We have seen the fiasco of rolling out the re-opening of Jobcentres to meet the Tory ministers’ aim of making things look like they are getting back to normal but with scant regard for the health and safety of our members.

There is no reason why we could not continue to provide the bulk of our support remotely over the phone or digitally which would help keep our members and the public safe.

The plans to open jobcentres later and on Saturdays are even more flawed putting everyone further at risk. But also harming the services that can be provided during the peak working times during the week.

During the pandemic there has been flexibility to concentrate the opening hours to the public to normal office hours so that we can focus the limited resources and staffing to when there is the most demand for support. This has helped our members deal with the issues caused by the pandemic and allow them to juggle their personal issues and deal with the limited public transport. This should continue as we are far from out of the woods in dealing with the impact of Coronavirus.

The concept of having the potential to have opening hours until 7.30pm or on Saturdays was to have the flexibility if required to offer services to the public who need support from the DWP but would struggle to access these services during the normal business hours 9-5 .The collective agreement is clear that operating hours should be directly related to demand from the public and not just implemented for the sake of it.

With the economy in recession and large numbers of jobs at risk – the vast bulk of the demand from the public will remain during the day. Any move to stretch our members’ working patterns to cover longer working days and Saturday opening will damage the services to the public when they are most needed.
With such a difficult economic climate the focus should still be on supporting the public and we remain opposed to the return to conditionality. The priorities of paying benefit and supporting the public whilst keeping our members safe must remain.

Management can be made to back off. This will require a huge turnout and YES vote

Branches and reps have the key role in talking to members to encourage them to demonstrate their opposition collectively to management’s plans by voting YES.

Management’s plans are Unsafe – Unnecessary – Unacceptable