News – PCS Broad Left Network

Fight Back Against HMRC’S Outsourcing Plans!

On Wednesday June the 25th HMRC announced, without prior consultation with PCS, that it plans to engage a ‘Managed Service Provider’ (MSP) as early as during quarter 4 of 2025. This is management talk for bringing in outsourcing work, particularly across Customer Service Group (CSG).
It is apparently clear then, that HMRC have not learned the lessons from it’s last experience with a MSP.

Concentrix

Between May 2014 and November 2016 the private agency firm Concentrix was used to handle Tax Credits calls. The contract was terminated early in November of 2016 following the disasterous experience. Private companies are target and profit making focused and driven organisations, that have no business being paid out of the public purse. For HMRC, Concentrix were a quick fix compared to allocating recources and investing in the hiring and training of permanent staff. The whole experience had severe consequences for claimants. In fact several MPs at the time debated this issue in Parliament and condemned HMRC and Concnetrix for “gross failure of customer service”.

A Work and Pensions Committee (WPC) report concluded that there was a “Cut first, think later” attitude that “Plunged claimants into humiliating hardship and debt”. The report went on to refer to a “Guilty until proven innocent” approach and commented that 90% of initial appeals against decisions were actually upheld. Despite the report finding that there had been a “high human cost of errors” it also pointed out that HMRC had been demanding and pressuring Concentrix into finding even more cuts! The consequences to claimants were severe, with some expressing feeling no option but to take their own lives as a result of hardship.

The Concentrix staff taking these highly distressing calls weren’t trained in how to handle these life or death situations. They are also of course not empowered to change the conditions of the pro-business pro-capitalist approach taken by HMRC and other civil service departments under austerity governments, to slash public spending and put claimants in such desperate positions in the first place.

Consequently, Concentrix staff themselves suffered mental harm through no fault of their own, and were also victims of this doomed contract alongside the claimants.

This insufficient provision is no accident, it is baked into all outsourcing. Improper training and worse terms and conditions for outsourced staff are a recipe for providing a service on the cheap. HMRC have indicated that MSP staff will be used to address basic queries from service users but as the disastrous Concentrix experience shows, HMRC downplay the complexity of the work our telephony staff do in order to get as low a quote as possible. This knowing disregard for providing quality support for ordinary working people who rely on HMRC is unacceptable.

The Cost to Our Members

In addition to the consequences of bringing in MSPs for claimants and the degrading of services provided by HMRC, the words of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) not ours! The use of MSPs will have a negative and potentially job threatening impact on Civil Servants employed with permanent contracts.
HMRC have not yet confirmed which MSP they intend to use, or what the pay and working conditions of those agency staff might look like, but there can be no doubt that MSP workers will be treated as a quick and cheap fix. Instead of employing staff on a permanent basis and investing time and money into the training and retention of those staff, HMRC will take advantage of a minimum wage work force with worse or no employment protections, and will likely provide the bare minimum training necessary. Ask any worker in any industry what their experiences of outsourcing is, or ask agency workers themselves, and you will hear reports along the above mentioned lines.

There is a real danger then, that a two tier workforce will be created, and the; pay, terms and conditions of staff employed by the MSP could be used in negotiations by HMRC to attempt to undercut the; pay, terms and conditions of permanently employed, union organised civil servants.

Members in the Surge and Rapid Response team (SRRT, an in-sourced department used to address surges in demand, work backlogs or crisis situations across government) are first in the firing line with most of SRRT’s staff currently engaged in CSG deployments and with the drying up of any other work for SRRT in recent years. The question must be asked, what happens to SRRT members of staff when compared to a cheaper, less union organised and more exploitable option?

Another Labour U-Turn

This announcement by HMRC is disappointing for many reasons, but not least in light of the present Government’s pledge in their election manifesto. Along with disgusting attacks on; pensioners, the disabled and the watering down of it’s promises to the trade unions, Labour is once again affirming it’s position as a representative of bankrupt British Capitalism. This government is sending a message just one year into it’s term, that rather than focus on consolidation and the development of our public services it would rather outsource and sell the running of our public services to private companies who prize profits above social needs. To quote the pledge referred to in the Labour Party’s election manifesto;

‘Labour will learn the lessons from the collapse of Carillion and bring about the biggest wave of in-sourcing of public services in a generation. A Labour Government will end the Tories’ ideological drive to privatise our public services, extend the Freedom of Information Act to apply to private companies that hold contracts to provide public services, exclusively with regard to information relevant to those contracts, to ensure any outsourced contracts are transparent and accountable for delivery. We will also extend the Freedom of Information Act to publicly funded employers’ associations, where not already covered.’

Fight Back!

This threat to members’ jobs, pay, terms and conditions cannot be allowed to go unanswered. So what can be done? Here is what the BLN says:

– In discussion going forward the GEC must continue to be clear and firm with HMRC. The GEC must express it’s contempt for this move, including the fact that HMRC did not consult or negotiate with the GEC prior to it’s announcement.

– Every PCS branch in HMRC Group should organise members meetings. The meetings should be used to fully brief members about this development and gather the views, and the fighting ideas of our members.

– PCS should raise with members the prospect of industrial action or action short of a strike, in this case ‘Work to rule’.

– This issue should be included in a wider campaign in HMRC, to fight on; pay, office attendance and employee relations. A single, unifying campaign would allow the Group to develop a fighting strategy to win for members on a range of the issues that matter to them.

– The GEC should make representations to the PCS Parliamentary Committee (PPC), calling on MPs to once again raise opposition to HMRC’s use of an MSP, in parliament. Members should write to their local MPs raising PCS concerns.

– Do you agree with us, join the BLN! Get involved! And join the fight for a campaigning, fighting and democratic PCS that is capable of winning on in-sourcing, pay, terms and conditions.

Solidarity first – PCS must support our US sister union AFGE against Trump’s attacks

On 17 April, the President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Everett Kelley, addressed the PCS national executive committee. AFGE had around 320,000 members, but under the US system of collective bargaining had negotiated for around 820,000 federal and District of Columbia (DC) workers.

Everett spoke about the attack by Donald Trump’s government on the AFGE since taking office. The steps taken by the Trump administration amount to the full-frontal destruction of collective bargaining across swathes of the U.S. federal government. Allied to this Trump’s attempt to all but dismantle the National Labor Relations Board, which is the last vestige of Roosevelt’s New Deal protections for American workers.

Trump orders mass firings of US civil service

Shortly after taking office, Trump ordered the mass firings of probationary employees across the federal government. It took a month to get these firings halted by a federal judge on 27 February – and they still have not been fully reversed.

Trump authorised Elon Musk and the unofficial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to proceed with mass firings across the entire government. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) was amongst the first targets. In late March, the US Department of Education was told to fire half of all staff.

Musk and DOGE emailed federal government workers demanding that they list five things that they did in the past week or risk being fired. Trump has systematically tried to undermine the impartiality of the US federal civil service by removing career public sector workers and replacing them with partisan loyalists.

Attack on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion programmes

On top of this came targeted efforts, backed by Trump’s media allies, to dismantle any programme related to diversity, equality and inclusion across the federal civil service. All staff involved with these programmes were put on immediate leave.

Programmes funding research into diversity, equality and inclusion were scrapped, with a major threat to jobs, to say nothing of negative outcomes for groups that in the UK would be protected by the Equality Act 2010: staff with disabilities, female staff, black, Asian and ethnic minority staff and LGBT+ staff in particular.

In the UK civil service, in areas like performance management, or reward and recognition, groups with protected characteristics suffer worse outcomes. The UK civil service’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategy, when it isn’t being weaponised by Esther McVey, is usually an attempt – however imperfect – to fix this.

Trump bans collective bargaining and withdraws check off

Above all of this, two measures in particular were squarely aimed at shattering the power of federal government trade unions.

The first was Trump’s decision on March 28 to issue an Executive Order banning collective bargaining on a massive scale, across Departments of Defense, State, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Treasury, Justice, Commerce and Homeland Security.

Many of these areas had collective agreements protecting staff from arbitrary treatment by their bosses. These agreements were ripped up by Trump and his political appointees.

On 9 April, Trump escalated the attacks on the AFGE and other federal unions, ending the collection of union members’ subscriptions via their salaries, sometimes known as check-off.

The vast majority of PCS reps remember the brutal slog in 2015 and 2016 when the Tory government did this to our union.

We had to launch a massive campaign to get people signed up to union membership via direct debit. Reps spent months and months speaking to members three, four and five times each, to get them signed up to direct debit. Even with this notice, tens of thousands of members were lost from PCS and it was a huge financial black hole for the union.

In America, Trump gave no notice; it was ordered and accomplished virtually overnight. AFGE dropped from membership of 320,000 to around 130,000. The loss of around 200,000 dues-paying members from the unions roles is an extraordinary financial blow the like of which surely hasn’t been seen in the USA since Ronald Reagan fired the PATCO strikers in 1981.

PCS must take solidarity action

Fiona Brittle, a member of the union’s National Executive, proposed on Thursday that PCS – the UK’s equivalent union to AFGE – should donate £200,000 to support AFGE at this time. This is an extraordinary amount of money, but at an extraordinary time. Her call was ignored by national president Martin Cavanagh.

PCS National Vice President Dave Semple, with the support of Deputy President Bev Laidlaw, National Vice President and HMRC Group President Hector Wesley and Assistant General Secretary John Moloney, wrote to Cavanagh later yesterday evening to ask that this be discussed and agreed by Senior Officers.

No reply has been received at the time of publishing this article.

What has been noted, however, is the attempt by PCS Left Unity, the faction of Cavanagh, to make political hay during our national elections, out of the proposal that we should show solidarity to our American federal government brothers and sisters, who are under extraordinary attack by their bosses, the US President and his Cabinet.

Demonstrating solidarity with AFGE is in the clear interest of PCS members. Dave Semple is a rep based in the UK Department for Education – the US equivalent of which has seen an attempt at 50% job cuts. If AFGE is able to rally and can force Trump to back down, it is a clear signal that workers everywhere will unite behind that most ancient of trade union principles: an attack on one is an attack on all.

That Martin Cavanagh prefers to play politics than to protect the interest of PCS members is yet another demonstration of his unfitness for office. This person who has vetoed – with the support of a minority of NEC members – every chance we’ve had in 2024 for a serious campaign, and who has offered no response to the 33% planned job cuts in the Cabinet Office – must be removed from office.

National elections have now opened. PCS reps and activists organised into the PCS Broad Left Network urge all members and reps to vote for Marion Lloyd as PCS President. We must stop the rot and rebuild a fighting, democratic union.

NEC Elections

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 17^th 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.

DWP Pay: Reject and Prepare to Fight on Pay, Staffing and Workloads.

The DWP pay offer was finally published to all DWP staff on the 14th October. PCS members, in particular the lowest paid grades and those on “legacy” terms will be extremely disappointed with the management’s offer.

Whilst the award is above inflation, and in November pay – a temporary relief to many just before Christmas, this small increase in take home pay will soon be eaten up by the never-ending rises in the cost of living and does not address the years of pay neglect.

So rightly, members and many union activists will want to know how their union leadership will respond.

The pay award was rightly rejected by the DWP Group Executive Committee. But this is all well and good – but what is their plan for winning on pay for members across the DWP, including thousands stuck on the minimum wage and bottom of pay scales?

It’s not enough to say “no” and the Left Unity leadership should now be urgently preparing the ground amongst the DWP membership, to build the support necessary to win a statutory ballot on pay, staffing and the other issues facing members. As the biggest group in the union this could also lay the basis for re-invigorating the so called “national campaign” which the same people are blocking at national level.

There are few Civil Servants saying that they are paid enough. This “rise” does not come close to meeting PCS policy, passed in Motion A315 at May’s union conference. This set out key demands including for a 10% pay rise with £15 p/h minimum wage as a step towards pay restoration to undo the significant real term pay cuts we have suffered since 2010 and beyond (around 32% on average). It also does nothing to address the other demands in A315: our pension overpayments since 2019, the huge staffing crisis in DWP and the disparity between pay across different Civil Service Departments.

Additionally, the Low Pay Commission expects the minimum wage to rise by 5.8% in April, meaning that in a few months our lowest grades could find themselves back on minimum wage for the third year in a row, with EOs (especially on legacy contracts) being increasingly closer to minimum wage.

This pay award will lead to worse terms and conditions. It is not fully funded: the Civil Service Spending Review budgeted for 2% pay rises from 2021 – 2026, so 3% of the pay rise will need to come from existing departmental budgets. In DWP, this means increased workloads and continued understaffing, less money for recruitment. We are still nowhere near the 120,000 staffing levels the union agreed to campaign for in 2022. And there is little sign of the Group leadership mounting the campaign necessary to tackle this issue. With workplaces up for renewal of leases in the next few years, office closures could also be on the horizon.

Since May, the newly elected NEC majority have been clear that we should utilise our industrial strength to maximise the pay award, with plans drawn up for a serious campaign around pay, pensions, staffing, flexible working, office closures, redundancy and national pay bargaining. The National President (who is also DWP Vice President) has undemocratically blocked every attempt to do this. This has been supported, without exception, by the DWP Group President, also member of the NEC. The National President and General Secretary have blocked every attempt to put pressure on this and the last government including: –

• using our live mandates,

• putting our demands on the Labour Prime Minister and Secretaries of State before the announcement of the Treasury pay remit,

• rejection of the Treasury pay remit immediately as not good enough with clear reiteration of our demands including for 10% and £15 minimum wage.

This failure to push PCS policy means that negotiators at delegated level, including the DWP have entered talks with one hand tied behind their backs.

But, even in this scenario, the PCS DWP Group negotiators must take some responsibility for the particular weaknesses in this offer. The bulletin they put out on the 14th October criticised the NEC majority for the position it has taken on pay. Surely their focus should be about exerting maximum pressure on the employer to improve what was on the table. Unfortunately, bad offers are what happens when a pay remit – 5% or not – is “welcomed” and key issues are not addressed. And especially one that is not fully funded, and can therefore never provide what our members need no matter how you spin it.

Broad Left Network supporters have consistently been arguing for a serious campaign across the union, including in DWP, yet the Group leadership have consistently tried to block any attempt to do so, supported by their counterparts at a national level.

What we need is a serious campaign and we should be demanding national pay bargaining to use the full strength of the union. But all attempts to discuss this gets undemocratic presidential rulings blocking us from launching the campaign required to win. Which is why we support the call for a special delegate conference to make clear that Martin Cavanagh and Fran Heathcote do not run our union – the elected NEC majority do.

Why We Need A Special Delegate Conference

After winning a 19:16 majority on the union’s National Executive Committee the left majority group (coalition for change) has faced repeated obstruction from the President and General Secretary- members of the defeated Left Unity group.

At every meeting of the NEC the President (Martin Cavanagh) has ruled out discussion and decision on proposals/motions put forward by the NEC majority allowing only poor proposals from the General Secretary to be heard.

These two members of the group defeated in the union elections, are now sabotaging the programme of the elected majority. They have: –

• blocked a challenge to the Starmer government 5% pay remit

• blocked action on conference motion A315 calling for a national campaign on pay, jobs, pensions and other issues

• blocked a review of the strike levy and an immediate reduction for low paid members

• blocked NEC discussion of a union staffing review by the General Secretary and her unilateral promotion of her two key allies to new senior management positions with pay increases to match.

We urge branches to call an Extraordinary General Meeting to agree a motion calling for a Special Delegate Conference- https://bln.org.uk/2024/10/13/rebuild-a-fighting-union-support-the-call-for-a-special-delegate-conference/

Heathcote and Cavanagh attack the PCS National Executive Committee

An email from Fran Heathcote and Martin Cavanagh has recently been circulated to all members in PCS branches where a motion calling for a Special Delegate Conference has been passed. The emails are an obvious attack on the elected majority of the National Executive Committee of PCS. This use of official PCS communications by the General Secretary and the President in the furtherance of their individual political agendas is a massive abuse of power and position.

Principle Rule 8 of the union’s constitution is very clear. “The management and control of the Union, and the handling of its whole affairs, shall be vested in the National Executive Committee (“NEC”). Cavanagh and Heathcote have no individual authority to use official communications to further their private political interests; the authority to use union communications is instead vested in the NEC majority.

This abuse of power amounts to misconduct and is a direct threat to the democracy of the union. Unable to win a majority of NEC seats in the 2024 national elections, Martin Cavanagh and Fran Heathcote are now resorting to the use of the union’s institutions to crush democracy in PCS. This makes the calling of a Special Delegate Conference absolutely vital, both to expose their behaviour and to rebuild the campaigns they have broken.

In addition to redoubling our efforts to trigger a Special Delegate Conference, the email by Heathcote and Cavanagh must also be answered in full. The sections below correspond to points made in the Heathcote/Cavanagh email.

Cavanagh’s veto has paralysed the national campaign

For those who have read the Heathcote/Cavanagh email to members in PCS branches which carried the motion calling for a Special Delegate Conference, the lack of detail offered is telling. The President does not, under rule, have a veto. Nevertheless, Cavanagh has been abusing his post by vetoing motions, ruling them out of order simply in order to prevent debate, impacting matters both large and small.

This has been ongoing from the very first NEC of the electoral year, in June. On that occasion, Cavanagh vetoed the left majority coalition proposals that would have led towards action during the 2024 General Election for the 20,000 members who won a mandate in the ballot from March to May 2024, to raise the profile of the union’s national demands.

Putting Labour under political pressure, just as the BMA did for Junior Doctors with their strike in late June, this move would have prepared the ground for re-ballots for the other 100,000 who fell short of the 50% turnout threshold. This was vetoed by Cavanagh. The “rule” he argued it contravened was that it disagreed with a recommendation put forward by the General Secretary. There is no such rule.

In the history of PCS – even back to constituent unions like CPSA – there have been anti-democratic elements at work in the union who think that they know better than branches and members. This includes the so-called Moderates, Marion Chambers and Barry Reamsbottom. These open right-wingers used the institutions of the union to block action – but never so brazenly as Cavanagh has done at every NEC this year.

This idea, that anything which contradicts the view of the General Secretary must be ruled out of order, is a nonsense. In addition to half a dozen times this has been used to interfere with proposals from the NEC majority on the national campaign, it has also – quite pathetically – been used to block proposals about matters as small as which NEC subcommittees to allocate Conference business motions to.

Allocation of motions passed by Conference to NEC subcommittees happens early in the electoral year. This year, Heathcote put forward a paper outlining where she thought these should sit. This is perfectly reasonable. BLN supporters put forward a paper with alternative ideas, again, perfectly reasonable. Cavanagh ruled these alternatives out of order, for the first time in PCS history.

This shows the lengths to which Heathcote and Cavanagh are willing to go, to block any attempt on the part of the elected majority of the NEC, made up of Broad Left Network supporters, Independent Left supporters and socialist independents, to effect the change which members voted for in May this year.

Heathcote’s attack on the Assistant General Secretary

Twice this year, Heathcote has interfered with finance papers put to the NEC by the Assistant General Secretary. This is particularly significant given that the Assistant General Secretary is the national treasurer of the union, under the rule book.

Heathcote and Cavanagh abuse their posts to email members complaining that their mandate is not being respected, yet John Moloney was elected Assistant General Secretary and national treasurer by members and by more votes than either got in their election as General Secretary or President. He is not being offered the opportunity to put his case before members in the same way, nor are the elected majority of the NEC who are directly referred to and attacked in the email.

On the first occasion of tampering by Heathcote, a finance paper put forward by the AGS was simply removed from the agenda and Heathcote refused to circulate it to the NEC. On the second, a paper that was agreed by the Finance Committee – the subcommittee of the NEC that is assigned responsibility – had an important section excised by Heathcote prior to publication.

Heathcote and Cavanagh, in their squalid and bitter email to members, suggest that Moloney’s contract requires him to be accountable to, and to cooperate with, the General Secretary. This is what the contract says, but it also says that John shall act strictly in accordance with the policies of the NEC – which is exactly what he was doing by producing papers asked for by the NEC’s Finance Chair, union Vice President Dave Semple, and by the NEC’s finance committee.

It is Heathcote who is in default of the policies of the NEC and who is thus in breach of her own contract, which states, “In performing his/her duties, the Officer will act strictly in accordance with the policies and instructions of the NEC. On all matters of Union business, the Officer shall accept the authority of the NEC…”.

At the end of their attempt to duck responsibility for undermining John Moloney’s mandate, Heathcote and Cavanagh suggest sexism, “there appears to be a refusal by some to accept the election of the first female General Secretary of PCS and its predecessor unions”. This is utter garbage.

Moloney, Semple and all of the NEC majority supported a woman candidate in the recent General Secretary election – NEC member and BEIS Group President Marion Lloyd. The attempt to impute sexism is very carefully worded – so Heathcote and Cavanagh know what they are doing, when flinging this filth around in PCS.

Heathcote and Cavanagh have abused their posts to create a monarchy in PCS – with whom one may not disagree, and who dictates what happens in the union not through discussion with, vote of and agreement by the NEC – which is what should happen under rule – but by dictatorial fiat. This is especially the case in respect of staffing and the full-time structures of PCS, as we will now explore.

Finance I: Heathcote and Cavanagh use members’ money to build a cabal

After PCS was formed, in 1998, the existing leadership of Marion Chambers and Barry Reamsbottom worked very hard to exert a dictatorial control of the union. They were indifferent to the policies passed by PCS Conference and, to the greatest extent possible, wanted to reduce “activists” to a rubber stamp of decisions made on high.

As part of overcoming this, when the left won control of PCS in 2003, significant changes began in the full-time structures of PCS. This radically reduced the number of very senior, extraordinarily well-paid senior managers working for PCS. The power they held – most often the enormous power of sitting still and frustrating the demands of members and reps – was dissolved, empowering the elected bodies of PCS.

Heathcote, since her election, has been working to reverse this, drastically increasing the number of senior managers in PCS and even creating a new pay band, above all of the other full-time officers. This new pay band, Band 6a, has two posts, and these posts have been given to her closest allies, Paul O’Connor and Lynn Henderson.

Henderson and O’Connor have sought to increase their power in PCS for some time. Henderson ran for Assistant General Secretary in 2019 and finished bottom of a three-way race. O’Connor ran in 2023 and was thumpingly defeated by John Moloney. Members rejected Henderson and O’Connor. Heathcote has now dispensed patronage, promoting them both, with each getting a pay rise.

None of this – not the additional recruitment, not the increase in senior management posts, not the promotion of her two top lieutenants to be “chiefs of staff”, standing above all of the other FTOs – has been discussed with the union’s National Executive Committee. Heathcote has openly argued that she can do all of this without reference to the National Executive Committee.

Such information as we have gleaned suggests that Heathcote has deliberately broken the rules of the union. Supplementary Rule 7.11 states that the NEC has the power to “engage and discharge full-time officers, determine their pay and conditions of employment, and enter into any agreement with them it considers appropriate”. Heathcote has been making commitments to the union’s Full Time Officers that she does not have the power to make, this power being reserved to the NEC by the rules.

Rather than discuss all of this frankly, and despite written objections expressed by 19 members of the 35-member NEC, Heathcote and Cavanagh delayed the calling of a Policy and Resources Committee (PRC) until after their plans had been accomplished. When the PRC plainly rejected every word out of Heathcote’s mouth, Cavanagh refused to put the matter to a vote and simply ended the meeting, closing the Zoom call. If Cavanagh worked half as hard for members as he does at obstruction, we might actually get somewhere on the union’s national campaign.

Finance II: Heathcote and Cavanagh miss the point and mislead members

Heathcote/Cavanagh attempt to hide their actions behind a moderately positive auditor’s report, written before the key events outlined above. This is pure sleight of hand. We remain concerned about the massive cost to PCS of these moves and the comment that “our finances are now in a better state than they have been for over a decade”, this misses the point and is wildly misleading.

First, the decision about how to allocate resources remains one for the NEC. BLN’s view is that this money would have been better spent on our campaigns, potentially on lower grade PCS staff to ensure maximum direct support for complex bargaining areas – Culture, the Commercial Sector, Public Sector group, instead of on a glut of very senior managers.

Second, “a better state than [finances] have been for over a decade” covers all manner of sins. The union experienced a dramatic fall in membership from 2014 to 2022, even though the overall size of the civil service was rising from 2016 until the emergency recruitment of the pandemic began to lapse. This put enormous pressure on finances – so it’s not much to say that finances are better than they have been for a decade.

Anti-racist, anti-austerity strategy

Heathcote and Cavanagh, in their email to members, offer a paltry defence of their anti-racist, anti-austerity strategy, which they say is “sufficiently robust and which made a major contribution to the Tories’ downfall” by “defeating their flagship racist policies” of pushing back small boats and Rwanda deportations.

Instead of taking curtain calls, however, Heathcote and Cavanagh might want to consider how weak and short-term their approach of a legal challenge has been, and how it does not compensate for their failure to build a strategy that ties together massive industrial and political opposition to racism and austerity, to mobilise the “sleeping superpower”, the working class.

They celebrate the fall of the Tories – an attempt to bask in workers’ satisfaction at the fall of a hated government – and pass over in silence the interest of Prime Minister Starmer in the Italian approach of deportations to Albania that might yet see the whole fiasco resumed. What is their answer to this? Succinctly put, they do not have one.

Labour are in power and are guaranteed to disappoint workers across the UK, not the smallest group of which are 480,000 civil servants. Starmer’s Labour, whatever small crumbs they may be forced to yield, are not pro-worker, as should be made absolutely clear by their retreat on banning zero-hour contracts and banning fire-and-rehire.

Labour abandoned the Tory target of 72,000 job cuts – but ask the staff in the Department for Education (1,000 job cuts proceeding) or Department for Transport (redundancies commencing) how they feel about that. These are the first, not the last, tranche of cuts – we will see the full extent of this first wave later this month when the budget exposes likely further cuts to all departments, to local government, to health, to education and the rest.

Vast working-class anger is being stored up. If no voice is given to this inchoate rage by socialists and by the largest working-class organisations in the country – the trade unions – then far right thugs like Tommy Robinson will be allowed by the capitalist media to claim it for themselves, with righteous-sounding rhetoric about “out of touch elites” allowed to obscure their vicious racism and Islamophobia.

PCS has a seat on the Trade Union Congress (TUC) General Council. Yet there have been no PCS calls for a National Day of Action following the brutal bombing of civilians in Gaza, or to unite the opposition to racist disorder following events in Southport. Where there have been steps taken in opposition to austerity – as with Heathcote’s much trumpeted (by her) speech to the TUC on the withdrawal by Starmer of the winter fuel allowance – this is the result of BLN, IL and independent proposals on the union’s Senior Officers Committee. Nice words are then rarely followed up by action.

It was not always like this. On many questions – not least the anti-claimant regimes introduced in DWP – PCS used to be a leader. These campaigns are long since dead, resurrected only when Heathcote, Cavanagh or one of their favoured cabal needs a boost to their public profile. We stand by our assertion, therefore, that more needs to be done to build a genuine mass strategy against racism and against the capitalist austerity on which it thrives, to end the zero-sum battle for scraps that serves to divide working class people.

Democracy in PCS: Heathcote, Cavanagh and George Orwell’s ghost

Cavanagh and Heathcote, in their email, assert that Heathcote had attempted to ballot members on a “forward strategy” (excuse the management-sounding language, this is how they talk). They argue that this attempt, which was voted down by the NEC, was out of keenness to ensure that members retain direct democratic control.

This is utter garbage.

Heathcote’s paper to the NEC of 12 August, which is what she is referring to, should be required reading for anyone wishing to understand her approach to democracy.

This paper seeks to “welcome” the 5% Civil Service Pay remit (recommendation 1), indefinitely pauses any plans for national action (recommendation 2), pauses the levy, which Heathcote and Cavanagh implemented (recommendation 3), authorised immediate delegated pay talks without any effort to secure additional funding (recommendation 4) and authorises unspecified, undated discussions nationally about longer term bargaining objectives (recommendation 5).

Recommendation 6 – which is what Heathcote is citing as proof of her commitment to democracy – is that the NEC should seek membership endorsement of all of the above, which amount to nothing less than the cancellation of any campaign in 2024/25. Heathcote’s view of democracy is that she takes all of the decisions, and then asks members to rubber stamp what she has already decided.

This is EXACTLY what Heathcote and Cavanagh did in June 2023. They got an offer from the government – of £1,500, one-time, non-consolidated, pro-rata – and immediately cancelled the campaign, cancelled the strike action, cancelled the re-ballots and cancelled the strike levy. They dishonestly asked members to “Vote Yes to continue the campaign” and then did nothing until March 2024.

Heathcote, reverting to dishonesty, alleges in the email that the rejection of her planned rubber stamp ballot has “left you, as members with no direct say [sic]”. Quite the opposite. In scores of PCS branches, BLN members and allies have convened all-members meetings (in many cases more than one meeting) to directly discuss matters of pay, of our wider demands, and how we build the campaign that can win them.

It is precisely from these discussions with members that the call for a Special Delegate Conference has emerged. Members have a voice, and Broad Left Network supporters across PCS are amongst the most conscientious anywhere in the union in trying to involve members directly in our campaigns. What we won’t do is lie to them and serve up a facsimile of democracy, as Heathcote tries to do.

Heathcote and Cavanagh know that the denouement is coming. They know that once the activists of PCS assemble to hear first hand accounts of their obstruction, and just how petty it has become, that activists will be absolutely furious. Their misuse of the official communications channels of PCS are an attempt to avoid their final defeat.

Broad Left Network calls on all PCS reps and members to unite against this bureaucratic attack on the union’s democracy.

We make no apology for being socialists – of many different traditions, some in political parties, some not – and for seeking to build a fighting, democratic union that can win for members. Whether anyone agrees with our views or not, everyone should be appalled at the misuse of official union communications to make a reckless, divisive attack on the elected majority of the union’s National Executive Committee.

Heathcote and Cavanagh have dug themselves in as obstacles to the NEC discharging virtually any of the functions it is elected to perform. They resent that it seeks to be more than a rubber stamp. Broad Left Network supporter know why PCS members have elected them to the NEC and will not stop working to build the national campaign that we need to decisively move the dial on pay, pensions, redundancy rights, on jobs, on office closures and on the chokehold Employee Relations regimes that pertain in most government departments.

Forward to a Special Delegate Conference, defend democracy in PCS!

Rebuild a Fighting Union – Support the Call for a Special Delegate Conference

Many branches have responded to the call for a Special Delegate conference and have already discussed the motion in our leaflet below and written to the General Secretary.

If you are frustrated with the lack of progress in taking forward our conference policies and addressing the stagnation of our pay that 5% goes nowhere near to tackling, then you can get your branch to help with this too. Let’s release the log jam blocking our new NEC majority making progress on these issues and help us rebuild a fighting union by supporting the call for a Special Delegate Conference.

On top of the existing attacks on our members the new government has been clear about the tough choices it intends to make in the autumn budget so we also need a strong response from our union to the further threats to continue austerity.

Every attempt by BLN members to debate how we can develop a fighting campaign on pay, jobs, pensions and conditions and against austerity have been undemocratically blocked on the National Executive Committee. All our motions and amendments on these key issues have been ruled out of order by the National President working with the General Secretary to block debate and prevent the left majority on the NEC making progress for our members.

This is why it is vital for all reps and members to raise the issue in our branches to build support for the call for a Special Delegate Conference, discuss the motion below and write to the general secretary supporting this. We must show that the current situation is unacceptable and it is essential for our elected NEC members to fully debate what needs to be done and develop the fighting strategy that is necessary to defeat the attacks on our members.

UK Civil Service Pay Talks continue – build a serious campaign across PCS!

Across UK civil service departments, agencies and arm’s length bodies, pay negotiations are mostly now under way between the employer and PCS. Early news indicates a mixed picture. Most areas do seem to be achieving something close to the 5% set out by the Cabinet Office’s Civil Service Pay remit. But the complete picture is far from clear, neither is there much clarity about how offers are being paid for given pay increases above 2% are not funded.

In some areas, such as the Department for Education, negotiators have secured a 5% pay increase consolidated across all grades and a £15 per hour wage for all grades bar one. In other areas, particularly major operational departments like DWP and HMRC, we expect that a trade-off will be forced by the employer, sacrificing some pay for more senior grades – HEO, SEO, Grade 7 and Grade 6 in particular – in order to raise pay by 5% for the key operational grades, AO, EO and in some cases HEO. This is a trade-off forced by the Civil Service Pay remit, which limits the rise in pay bill to 5%. In at least some departments, higher nominal figures will be achieved than 5%, but this will often be achieved by non-consolidated awards that do not contribute to pensionable salary or for some, no pay rise at all.

It is a trade-off that PCS must oppose.

The union president’s veto undermines PCS pay campaign at a crucial point. When the 5% pay remit was published on 29 July of this year, Broad Left Network (BLN) supporters across PCS called for further talks with the Cabinet Office. The permission for Departments and other bodies to raise pay by 5% is not funded; Departments could raise pay but would have to make cuts elsewhere to fund it. Just as importantly, the 5% Civil Service Pay Remit for 2023-24, announced by the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, in Parliament, openly called for “administrative savings” (i.e. cuts) of 2% and did not mention, let alone address, the pay lost by civil servants due to high inflation over the last two years. BLN supporters sought to delay the commencement of delegated pay talks, i.e. talks with the different employers covered by the pay remit, in order to put pressure on the new government.

Motions to this effect were placed before the union’s National Executive Committee on 12 August, but were vetoed by the national President, blocking debate. Forced to either go into delegated pay talks or risk PCS being “empty chaired”, while negotiations continued between employers and the other two civil service unions, Prospect and the FDA (representing specialists and senior civil service), BLN supporters in PCS decided that we must commence delegated pay talks.

What does BLN say about pay?

Broad Left Network supporters elected to the union’s National Executive Committee have been blocked from attending any discussions with the Cabinet Office by the union’s President and General Secretary. NEC members from the PCS Independent Left (IL) and non-factional members have likewise been blocked. BLN supporters have been elected to pay teams in different departments, however.

We have put forward a 10% pay-rise for all grades; a clear roadmap to pay restitution, undoing the devaluing effect of prolonged price rises on civil service pay; pay progression to be restored across all grades and a minimum of £15 per hour for all staff, to tackle low pay and ensure civil servants are paid above the minimum wage. BLN supporters across the union have also not limited their demands to pay. We have sought guarantees against compulsory redundancy or compulsory moves, improvements to flexible and hybrid working, ending the 60% office attendance requirement, permanency for temporary staff, improved parental leave and much else.

Skilled negotiators can make the most of the pay remit as it exists – but for major gains for members, every rep across the union knows we need a serious campaign.

The NEC majority have also consistently argued for an immediate reduction of the levy to our lowest paid members coupled with a full review to develop a longer-term strategy. This includes explaining to members and reps the vital role this levy will play in supporting a strategy including paid action as part of a serious campaign capable of winning. This key change was agreed at the July NEC but disgracefully absolutely no action has been taken on this.

BLN calls on Group and national Branch Executives to REJECT pay offers Each time BLN supporters, and allies across the majority left coalition, have attempted to bring proposals for a serious campaign to the National Executive Committee, these proposals have been unilaterally vetoed by the President. The tone was set at the first NEC meeting of the electoral year, on June 4th. In June, the BLN-IL-independent coalition – the NEC majority – sought strike action during the General Election, alongside the junior doctors, to force the parties to comment on civil service pay. This was vetoed, and every NEC since has seen this veto repeated – for motions, for amendments to papers, for proposals of any kind, causing chaos across PCS.

Ideally, every single department and agency in the civil service will reject the pay offer from their employer. If the General Secretary and President did not dictate the communications from the national union to negotiators – comms that are not even discussed with the elected NEC – we would have forcefully put the case for this. We already know that the pay offers will fall well short of our national demands, as agreed by PCS Annual Delegate Conference in May of this year. While some members might be grudgingly content with 5% just now (and plenty won’t even get this much!), as the year wears on and heating bills begin to come in, the status quo will resume: too much month left at the end of the money. Members will want to know what the union is doing about it.

Preparation for this is crucial.

The threat to jobs and the likelihood of cuts through the Comprehensive Spending Review process (by which civil service departments are funded across multiple years) cannot be dismissed and should be stressed to members. An improvement to pay is worth little if it comes with major job cuts and drastic hikes to workloads. Programmes like Places for Growth can also represent a threat to jobs in London, as work is moved out to other areas. Investment in civil service jobs outside of London is extremely important; public sector jobs can make a major difference to deprived areas. These jobs should be additional to, not replacements for, civil service jobs in London.

Where, despite the sabotaging of the national campaign by the President and General Secretary, Group and National Branch Executives are prepared to organise action to force better offers they should be supported. Even if action is not possible at this stage, we believe offers within the limit of the 5/% should be rejected. This will make clear to the government that 5% is not enough to satisfy our demands.

Rejection of offers of approx. 5% – which the employers will undoubtedly impose– would also set the stage for reps across PCS to come together to regroup and rebuild the campaign on pay, jobs, pensions and other major issues after delegated talks conclude. The obstructive attitude of the President and General Secretary are a barrier to this, which is why we are calling for a Special Delegate Conference.

Call a Special Delegate Conference (SDC)

Under Supplementary Rule 6.6, a Special Delegate Conference may be by the NEC or on the receipt by the General Secretary of a written application by branches representing 25% of the union’s membership. Moves to consider an SDC by the NEC have been vetoed – so we must do this the hard way, branch by branch. An SDC would bring together all of the branches from across PCS. It would not be subject to a veto by the president of the union. The elected Standing Orders Committee, rather than the President, would ensure motions could be debated – and if they failed to do this, for factional reasons, an SDC could overturn them, as happened at May’s Annual Delegate Conference. BLN supporters have been hard at work over the last month, to call Extraordinary General Meetings, to involve members in the process of calling an SDC. Where possible, we are connecting this to meetings organised for the purposes of discussing pay. Members need to be left in no doubt that their union has not given up the fight. An SDC can be pitched to members as the springboard to a campaign that learns the lessons of 2022 to 2024 and which will not repeat the mistakes of Heathcote and Cavanagh of waiting six weeks to call any action in 2022, of waiting three months to call national action, and of calling off the entire campaign as soon as they could.

The continuing inaction in the union’s national campaign since May is being used by the Heathcote, by Cavanagh and by their faction, PCS Left Unity (LU), to argue that the majority left coalition does not have an alternative to LU’s decision to collapse the campaign in June 2023 and their failure to rebuild it from March to May 2024. The obviousness of this lie is exposed by the sheer number of vetoed proposals put by the left coalition to the NEC, to remedy the many mistakes made by the President, by the General Secretary and by their minority faction on the NEC. The lies emanating from the very top of the union can be exposed best by an urgent SDC. Download

Abuses by the General Secretary

An SDC will also call to account the actions of the General Secretary. Heathcote has implemented a new staffing structure in PCS with no reference to the NEC, promoting her two key lieutenants to be the most senior managers in the union, with pay increases to match. Both of these individuals were decisively rejected by PCS members in elections for Assistant General Secretary in 2019 and 2023. Other promotions and pay rises for key Heathcote allies have also occurred without any scrutiny by any elected body of the union. A majority of NEC members expressly objected to this before it occurred, and the union’s Policy and Resources Committee rejected a paper moved by the General Secretary to try and justify it after the fact. The General Secretary claims virtually unlimited powers over the union’s staff, despite the absence of any such powers under the union’s rules. The union’s rules are very clear. Principle Rule 8 expressly declares that “the management and control of the union, and the handling of its whole affairs, shall be vested in the NEC”. Re-build a fighting, democratic PCS The events of the last four months are unprecedented in the history of PCS or of any of its predecessor unions. Even under Barry Reamsbottom and Marion Chambers, right-wing General Secretary and President of PCS in the late 1990s, proposals from the left were never simply vetoed and thrown off the agenda without debate. We urge all branches to immediately call an Extraordinary General Meeting, giving 14 days’ notice to all members. On the agenda should be two items: pay and a Special Delegate Conference. Speakers can be provided from the NEC who will explain the rejection strategy we advocate on pay. We can also explain the importance of a Special Delegate Conference to rebuilding our campaign from the ruin left by a Left Unity President determined to burn the union’s campaigns and credibility down in order to blame the wreckage on others. The SDC is our springboard back into a serious national campaign that will unite members.

We also call on all activists in PCS to join the Broad Left Network; a fighting, democratic union with socialist policies is not a luxury. In the age of renewed Labour-led austerity that is dawning, it is a necessity to safeguard and even advance the living standards of every worker.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

What does BLN say about pay?

Call a Special Delegate Conference (SDC)

Abuses by the General Secretary

Share this: