Tag: elections

Build the fight to defend jobs, improve pay and protect working conditions.

An Emergency NEC was called for the 29th May to discuss PCS’ response to the pay remit guidance published the previous week. Despite having only 7 NEC members, (out of the 35 strong NEC) the Left Coalition wasted no time and tabled four motions: one to clearly reject the 3.25% pay limit published and build the campaign necessary to see-off the raft of attacks coming from Starmer’s Labour Government; a second motion aimed specifically to combat the threats to London members, given the recent pronouncements to move 12000 jobs out of London;  one on trans liberation and the conduct of National President Martin Cavanagh at the recent Annual Delegate Conference (ADC), and lastly a set of alternate NEC standing orders submitted by BLN member Marion Lloyd. The last two motions were not printed.

At the beginning of the meeting, Marion asked for an update on the ruling from the TUC against PCS in favour of the GMB, which may impact on our live disputes with facilities management staff. None was given.

National Campaign – build a serious campaign to fight

Moved by BLN member Fiona Brittle and seconded by Gemma Criddle (independent), this motion sets out a fighting strategy on how to deliver motion A383 carried at conference, including laying demands on the Cabinet Office and the immediate agreement of specific actions to build members’ confidence and prepare them for a strike ballot in September.

This was counterposed to the General Secretary’s paper, which was sent out at the eleventh hour and contained several points of disagreement. The GS paper called for the rejection of 3.25% yet immediately undermined this by instructing negotiators to enter delegated talks. This is in stark contrast to our motion, which instructed negotiators to demand national discussions to improve the pay remit whilst simultaneously building a campaign amongst members and reps.

The refusal of the Democracy Alliance to campaign and implement conference policy is on clear display. They did not push for a clear rejection of this sub-inflation, unfunded pay remit; they called the demands set out in Motion A383 – passed mere weeks ago at PCS Conference – as “aspirations”; there has been no detailed report, members briefing, or even a social media post about the national campaign motion A383. Indeed, the report of the NEC on PCS’ website emphasised entering local talks above all else. This is a leadership with no will to fight for our members and a contempt for the parliament of our union.      

Our National Campaign motion, based on the express will of PCS Conference, was called “sheer stupidity” by one returning LU NEC member. In moving it, Fiona challenged the GS on what must be done about the weekly if not daily media reports promising attacks on our members from the Government – most recently, an article from that morning in the Financial Times revealing intentions to cut 50,000 jobs in five years. She pointed out that the GS is wrong to “welcome” an insulting 0.45% move from 2.8 to 3.25%, or even claim that we have “moved” the government to do so. She asked what concrete steps the GS believed PCS had taken to achieve this, given no industrial action was allowed to be debated last year?  The GS simply said “well if we didn’t shift them, who did?”. We would suggest that it may well be the other public sector unions who have already declared their intention to fight. Or perhaps, it was a (apparently correct) gamble that the PCS bureaucracy would jump at the chance to sell out their members for less than half a percent. 

BLN and Left coalition members pointed out that we have never rushed straight into delegated pay talks as soon as a remit is published. The  figure is nowhere close to our demands, and it is not funded. This means job cuts, which is not a secret – the government is shouting its “brutal” cuts scheme from the rooftops. The paper focuses wholly on pleading with the Government for consideration of our “aspirations”, and immediately tosses the responsibility for achieving anything at all to departmental negotiators. Some may be able to achieve above-remit awards, like the Home Office last year, but that is not because their negotiators are unbelievably skilled – it is because the Government does not want Border Force and HMPO out on strike again. Note they did not throw the same bone to DWP, HMRC, or any of our other members. What about them? National pay bargaining with national pay systems – levelled up to the best rates – is the only way to end the divisions created by delegated pay.

It is not possible for any one person (or any small negotiating team) to win an entire campaign. Even if the GS was putting her best effort into fighting for A383 and A315 from 2024 in pay talks (which we know she is not), it fundamentally misses the point to think that is sufficient. Only a mass mobilisation of our membership, ideally united with other workers organised in their unions, will be enough to leverage and force the government into concessions. The GS should not take this as an insult – it is a basic tenet of socialism, an ideology she purports to represent.

The other motion deemed acceptable was on the specific needs of London members within our National Campaign. Location-specific attacks on London jobs are already underway, and require a dedicated (while aligned) strategy to tackle. Shockingly, this was opposed and voted down by LU as it was “too London-centric”. Devolved Sector members should be concerned by this signal that, apparently, the required “unity” with the General Secretary’s proposals now extends to a ban on any flexibility of tactics taking into account specific needs of members depending on where they live. 

The GS’ paper was put to the vote, and was carried with 25 votes for, 7 against. As a result, the pay motion fell automatically.

However – very notably and unlike last year – the President allowed the counterposed motion to be moved but declared there would be a felling if the General Secretary’s paper was agreed – which he knew it would be due to the considerable LU majority; a rediscovery of democracy once the votes are there to support his preferred position!

At almost every NEC last year, the President ruled out of order motions from BLN and other Left coalition members on the grounds that they disagreed with the General Secretary. This was always an evident attempt to avoid debate and crucially, a vote and carriage of the alternative fighting strategies we put forward when we held a majority. It was cynically used to undermine any action, and blame it on the Left Coalition. Now it is even more clear that is the case – when the President is sure those strategies won’t pass and need to be put into action, he’s more than happy to hear them.

Levy

In their apolitical election campaign, the new Left Unity majority prioritised discussion of “refunding the levy” rather than winning for members. Left coalition NEC members asked how the General Secretary planned to plug the £3m hole that will be left by carrying out her faction’s apolitical promise – described as “cash for votes” by one delegate at ADC 2025. She and her allies on the NEC could not answer, other than to say “we shouldn’t have had that money in the first place.”

Motion A383 passed at conference clearly instructs the NEC to build a campaign on the widest possible basis, that sets us on a war footing against a Government gunning for our members. Motion A85 was carried, but many speakers expressed their distaste or apathy for the censure – they just wanted the instructions, which albeit insufficient, spoke of the need to seriously grow the funds we have available for fighting campaigns.

BLN and Left coalition NEC members will continue to vote against attempts to pay back the levy, because it is a massive tactical error. It will rob our members of ammunition in the struggle ahead, and even worse, broadcasts to the Government that PCS will give them the industrial peace they want regardless of their attacks. What LU promised in their copy and paste manifestos in an election with 6.4% turnout is their business – properly equipping members to force what they’re owed from the employer is ours.

Victory needs a fighting leadership

Broad Left Network supporters have consistently pushed for a fighting strategy on pay, pensions, terms and conditions, and so on. Last year, and at the last NEC, we laid out the steps needed to seriously build a campaign to win on the key issues. At this NEC, just like the ones last year, Left Unity have refused to do so. There is a desperate need to go out to the membership, to explain the demands and the strategy of our national campaign motion, and to win members over. This is the leadership the union needs, but has been denied again and again by an anti-democratic faction interested in preserving its positions above all else.

We call on all reps who want to build a fighting, democratic union with a socialist programme that could win for members to join with us – to join the Broad Left Network – and unite to build a massive national campaign across every single area of the union, not one left behind.

Statement on the levy

We understand and relate to the concerns raised about the levy, amongst some members and reps. We know that the cost-of-living crisis has impacted on PCS members and our families and that every penny counts. Which is why campaigning to improve pay and conditions remains crucial.

The levy is not a point of principle. PCS should have built on the strike mandate won in areas covering 10,000 members and implemented union policy carried at ADC last May. Building a serious campaign to eradicate low pay, protect jobs, improve our pension contributions and working conditions remains vital. If paid targeted action forms part of our plan, then we must be able to fund it.

Left Unity have spent the last year dishonestly attacking us rather than implementing the decisions made last July which included a review of the levy and an immediate reduction for the lowest paid members.

The facts:

  • The levy was imposed by the previous union leadership without discussion with activists or members, to build funds to finance paid strike action called during the ‘national campaign’.
  • The new NEC took office in May 24. PCS had won a strike mandate covering 10,000 members. ADC 24 passed policy instructing us to urgently build on the “national campaign”.
  • At the July NEC we proposed that fresh demands must be placed on the employer urgently, that we exercise our strike mandate linking up with other striking workers where we could and work to build support across the union to prepare for fresh ballots if necessary. All this to leverage a new government desperate to “buy industrial peace”.
  • Recognising that we needed to both ensure funding to continue to support paid action and address concerns about the level of the levy the NEC instructed the General Secretary to undertake an urgent review of the scope, purpose and size of the levy payment, together with an instruction to reduce it immediately for our lowest paid members. To cancel it would have restricted our ability to support paid action.
  • It is the General Secretary and National President who are responsible for the current situation as it is they who have refused to implement the decision made by the NEC nearly 7 months ago.
  • We believe action, including paid action, will be necessary as cuts and pay limits have been announced.  A motion was carried at the January NEC to prepare to fight this.
  • We understand concerns about the levy. That is why we demand that the General Secretary and National President implement the decision made by the NEC last July to urgently review it and immediately reduce payments from our lowest paid members. We will always listen to your concerns but cancelling the levy would leave us without funds for paid action. We must now all work hard to build support for a campaign to stop the governments attacks and win on pay.

Set course for a major dispute with government, January NEC agrees

The union’s National Executive Committee (NEC) met on 15 January. The key debate at the NEC was a motion moved by NEC members Rob Ritchie and Dave Semple which outlined the threat facing our members from the new Labour government and stated plainly that the only way to get serious progress was to set course now for a dispute.

Labour have already announced cuts, including a demand for 2% “savings” from civil service budgets in July last year, a further demand of 5% cuts with the October budget, and newspapers have picked up on the likelihood of 10,000 job cuts. Redundancies have already been announced in Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and more are expected shortly.

Reports from talks with the Cabinet Office revealed a view from officials that the government does not recognise any unions at a cross civil service level! Officials retreated on this position, but this bodes ill for any hopes of substantial progress on the 2025 civil service pay remit due for publication this coming March. It also bodes ill if we want to make progress on our long-term demand for national bargaining machinery.

A copy of the motion put forward by Rob and Dave is here and included at the bottom of this article for the information of PCS reps and members.

The instructions are simple. The inaction from June 2023 to March 2024, punctuated by a widely unsuccessful strike ballot from March to May 2024, has been compounded by continued inaction from May 2024 to now. This is despite a mandate for action covering 20,000 members, supplemented by union policy, carried at ADC 24. The motion carried at the NEC demands that this inertia be overcome and that the fight starts now.

Recognising that many parts of the commercial sector are already in a massive fight – to which we are giving full support – and that the situation might be different in devolved Scottish and Welsh areas, the motion outlines how the union must urgently prepare the ground amongst our members for the likely battle that is to come. It sets out how NEC liaison officers should seek immediate engagement with all areas across the union to discuss with activists  how we re-build momentum towards the kind of campaign that can win members’ key demands.

Why is a dispute taking so long?

Ten months of inaction by Fran Heathcote and Martin Cavanagh, respectively General Secretary and President of PCS, and their “Democracy Alliance” majority on the union’s NEC, from June 2023 to March 2024, led to members making a historic change to the union’s leadership in the May 2024 elections. 

A coalition of Broad Left Network (BLN), Independent Left (IL) and independent socialists won a majority on the union’s National Executive Committee in May 2024. The new majority left coalition did not win the post of president of the union; this was retained by the leadership that had otherwise just been swept away.

Reps across the union are now aware of the role played by Cavanagh as president, blocking every significant move towards a dispute, including the plan for strike action in those areas with a mandate during the 2024 General Election, to join junior doctors and railway workers and to force civil service pay higher up the electoral agenda.

It is for this reason that BLN supporters in PCS have worked to mobilise branches to call for a Special Delegate Conference (SDC), to unblock the route to a dispute. The total number who have written in to Fran Heathcote, General Secretary to call for a dispute has still not been published to the NEC by Heathcote.

Each step to  build momentum towards a dispute has been damaged by Heathcote and Cavanagh. 

Their tactics swing back and forth between malicious compliance. This includes the General Secretary literally cutting and pasting a motion to the unions NEC into a letter to the Prime Minister rather than finessing the language, and outright obstruction; delivering misleading information to meetings of reps, communications to members more intent on attacking the  democratically elected NEC rather than setting out how to respond to a hostile employer and the refusal to call meetings of the Senior Officers Committee of the NEC, which should be meeting fortnightly.

It might seem a little surprising, therefore, that the motion from Rob and Dave passed at the 15 January NEC.

Cavanagh and Heathcote out of ideas

The only reason that the motion was heard was because the General Secretary, in her national campaign paper, did not make a single recommendation to the January NEC about if and how the union would build a campaign to protect jobs, improve pay and conditions or tackle the disturbing reports in the press over Christmas signalling potential further attacks on our pensions. In previous cases where the GS has proposed something, Cavanagh has misused the NEC’s Standing Orders to veto counterproposals from the NEC majority.

Faced with their own poverty of ideas on how to fight for members, Heathcote, Cavanagh and others did the only thing left to them: they agreed with the majority and tried to claim that the ideas being put forward by the majority were what they had been saying all along.

NEC member and BLN supporter Fiona Brittle had only to read out the recommendations on previous papers from the General Secretary to expose that for the lie it is. The whole approach of the General Secretary and President and their Left Unity and Democrat hangers-on has been to obstruct the development of any campaign.

Previous papers from the General Secretary in 2024 “welcomed” the 5% pay remit set by Labour and sought to repeat the dishonest tactic of autumn 2023, by seeking to ballot members on whether the union should “continue the campaign”, while simultaneously taking steps to demobilise any campaign in the here and now.

Faced with the success of Cavanagh’s delaying tactics – using endless vetoes at the NEC, ignoring and indeed not even publishing branch calls for a Special Delegate Conference – and the impact of this delay on members and reps, the only serious course of action is to go back to basics and to try to build up campaigning momentum from scratch.

This is what the motion does.

Least democratic president in PCS history?

For the third straight NEC, a huge amount of business was not progressed because of Cavanagh’s mismanagement of the agenda. 

NEC papers are almost never circulated to NEC members on time. As well as making it difficult for NEC members to keep on top of the business, this is also anti-democratic, because Heathcote and Cavanagh’s allies get advance sight of all key papers going to the NEC. The delays to papers are deliberate, designed to keep the elected majority off-balance while Cavanagh’s allies, including the General Secretary, get pre-prepared speeches to read out.

Instead of cooperating with the NEC majority, Cavanagh makes absolutely everything into a fight. Leaving aside the deliberate misuse of the Standing Orders – where Cavanagh’s interpretation means anything that disagrees with the General Secretary is vetoed – even such basic things as proposing alterations to the Record of Decisions wind up a fight.

In bygone years, amendments were frequently proposed and made to papers during meetings, just based on the contributions from NEC members. This basic and free-flowing democracy doesn’t operate under Cavanagh. Proposals for amendments must be submitted by noon the day before an NEC – and more than once the papers themselves aren’t even released by that time.

Heathcote collaborates with Cavanagh in gumming up the works at NEC meetings; she is permitted to simply read almost verbatim from the papers she has published under her name. We once timed Mark Serwotka speaking for an hour on a national campaign paper – when NEC members are permitted 5 minutes – but at least he wasn’t basically re-reading his reports out loud, as Heathcote seems to do, wasting precious time.

It could not be clearer that we need to fight hard to win a further left majority in this year’s elections, beginning from April – but that we also need a fighting president who will not obstruct the NEC majority from defending members when their jobs and pay are under attack, with more likely to come. 

If you are reading this, then act now. Invite BLN members to speak at your Regional Committees, Branch Committees, Group Executive Committees and members meetings. To discuss how we build the necessary campaign to ensure this government do right by all members in PCS, Civil and Public Servants and our Commercial Sector members too. We urge all reps to join us in fighting to rebuild a fighting, democratic PCS!

Copy of January NEC motion on establishing a 2025 national dispute

This NEC notes the darkening tone of pronouncements from the government in respect of public spending. This includes:

  •  Repeated allusions to the Chancellor “protecting” her fiscal rules, with the inference that this will require Labour to make spending cuts. 
  • 10,000 redundancies announced in the civil service, which will not be the last job cuts unless we stop the government in its tracks. 
  • Open discussion by the Perm Sec at the Cabinet Office of potential cuts to public sector pensions, including the principal civil service pension scheme.
  • A submission by the government to the pay review bodies of a proposal of a 2.8% pay rise, which appears to include unfunded elements.

The NEC further notes the outstanding issues faced by our members, which the government has conspicuously failed to address. These include:

  • The issues identified as central to the union’s national campaign, in ADC motion A315, including particularly pay, pensions and jobs.
  • The victimisation of our reps at HMRC Benton Park View.
  • The disputes that have emerged in the commercial sector, including but not limited to G4S, ISS, Fujitsu and OCS.
  • The disputes, on hybrid working and other substantive questions, that have emerged in Land Registry, ONS, Met Police, DBS and others.

The NEC asserts that the clear evidence to be taken from this is that there has been no “reset” of industrial relations with the new government, and we must now put the union on a war footing, for what will be a crucial year – the first year of the new comprehensive spending review, and the year in which a further comprehensive spending review takes place, likely to set a pattern of spending cuts.

The NEC agrees that the report from members is generally one of disillusion with the UK government. There is significant anger developing amongst workers, not just in the civil service and related areas, but on a wider basis, reflecting the inertia and low ambitions of the new government. Inflation estimates by the Bank of England are being revised upwards, while a downward revision of economic growth is expected imminently.

In this context, significant progress on pay or anything that members care about appears unlikely unless we succeed in establishing a major dispute.

Our demands should be constituted using A315 as a starting point, taking into account the pay round in 2024, and building on our existing demands to reflect the detriments facing members in Westminster, in devolved areas and in commercial sector areas. Our aim is to mobilise the widest possible layer of support across the activist layer and the membership for a move towards building the widest possible strike mandate(s) in 2025.

The NEC therefore instructs as follows:

  • That our team for meeting with the Cabinet Office is expanded from the current constituted number to add three further lay reps, names of which the NEC should agree today, if this motion carries.
  • That the General Secretary, on behalf of the team that is meeting with the Cabinet Office, provides the most up to date report on talks to the NEC by 17th January, including the timeline of any pending talks ahead of pay remit publication.
  • In the absence of a Special Delegate Conference that could have laid firm plans to build a campaign with the widest possible legitimacy across PCS, that NECLOs urgently seek the convening of EC meetings for their areas, to report on discussions with the Cabinet Office and to make clear the NEC view that significant progress is unlikely without a serious fight. 
  • All NECLOs should seek input from their areas on what the demands should be, as to the current mood of members, and as to what steps lead reps believe should be taken, either at national or delegated level, to build the mood for a serious dispute. Particular attention should be paid to any views on what resources the lead reps across the union believe they need to deliver an overwhelming “Yes” vote in a ballot, likewise to views on how to build for and support the inclusion of devolved and commercial sector areas, as per A315.
  • The General Secretary should ask Group Secretaries or another officer to record and report in writing on each discussion ahead of an NEC w/c 17 February.
  • Ahead of the NEC in w/c 17 February, the Assistant General Secretary should publish to the NEC the list of responses to the 2024 consultation of bargaining areas run under the aegis of the UK Civil Service Bargaining Committee.
  • The General Secretary should urgently devise and present to the Senior Officers’ Committee and to the Campaign and Communications Committee a message calendar including web articles, a social media strategy, punchy memes reflecting the demands being put forward by the union, and opportunities for Group Presidents to speak to their members via well-advertised online forums, geared towards building a mood to fight, as we proceed with pay remit discussions, for review and agreement by those committees.
  • Organising materials – including union join leaflets which emphasise the union’s campaigning stance and the significance of the issues facing us – should be prepared and circulated to all branches. The content should be cleared by the Senior Officers Committee.
  • The General Secretary should work bilaterally with sister unions, through the Public Sector Liaison Group of the TUC, through the TUCG and through any other forum where we might bring on board fellow unions to beginning now our prep for a serious campaign; there is obviously a mood amongst their members if NEU leaders have felt compelled to move to a consultative ballot on pay. This work should be reported on each week to the Senior Officers Committee.

A further NEC w/c 17 February will review the position and consider what further steps need to be taken to build the mood towards a successful strike ballot in 2025; until we actually begin to ramp up a campaign and test the mood amongst members, the timing of a statutory ballot or the usefulness or otherwise of an indicative ballot cannot be judged, but the pivot to a ballot is the necessary next step.