Why We Recommended Acceptance

With the second year of the Home Office three-year pay deal now appearing in members’ pockets, it is worth reflecting on the decisions that led to the agreement and why the LU led Home Office GEC ultimately recommended acceptance.
Negotiating any major agreement is rarely straightforward. The deal that was put before members was not perfect. It involved difficult choices and included contractual changes that required careful consideration. As negotiators, we had a responsibility to look not only at the headline figures but also at the long-term position of our members and the realities of the negotiating environment.
What became clear during the negotiations was that many of the terms attached to the deal had already been eroded or removed elsewhere. In several cases, the number of staff still covered by particular arrangements was steadily declining. The judgement we had to make was whether preserving those elements indefinitely was realistic, or whether we should use them to secure substantial and lasting improvements in pay for tens of thousands of members.
Our view was that waiting would not strengthen our position. If anything, the value of those negotiating levers would diminish further over time. That is why we concluded that this was the right moment to secure the best deal possible for Home Office members.
The outcomes speak for themselves. Administrative Assistants now earn £27,740, with pay rising to more than £15 per hour next year. Administrative Officers will see pay increase to £30,920 nationally and £34,920 in London. Executive Officers are on track to reach £36,000 nationally and £40,000 in London next year, while Higher Executive Officers and Senior Executive Officers have also secured significant improvements. The agreement has transformed Home Office pay rates, placing our members among the highest paid in the Civil Service at equivalent grades.
Importantly, these decisions were not made in isolation. Before reaching a final recommendation, a wide-ranging consultative process was undertaken. We gathered feedback from every category of staff affected by the contractual changes. In each affected group, the majority supported acceptance of the proposals. We also held numerous meetings across the country, ensuring members could ask questions, challenge assumptions and understand every aspect of the agreement before casting their vote.
The final result demonstrated the strength of that engagement. Around 19,000 members were balloted over a three-week period. The outcome was decisive: 93.7% voted in favour on a turnout of 60.4%. Whatever views existed before the ballot, the membership delivered a clear verdict.
Throughout the process, support from the then Left Unity NEC members was important. They understood both the opportunities and the challenges presented by the negotiations and backed the Home Office GEC as we worked to secure the best outcome available for members.
There were, of course, differing opinions within the union. Both BLN and Independent Left opposed acceptance of the agreement and argued that members should reject it. That was their position, and members had the opportunity to weigh those arguments against the case put forward by the negotiators.
It is also noteworthy that during discussions with the Home Office GEC while the deal was being developed, the current National President Bev Laidlaw expressed support for the agreement as our then NECLO, reportedly stating that “we would be fools” not to accept it. However, she did an about-face and later argued that the deal should be rejected. For those directly involved in the negotiations, this reversal was surprising given the earlier support expressed for the agreement. The overwhelming 93% vote in favour demonstrated that the current National President was out of touch with the views of the membership
Ultimately, our responsibility was never to win an internal argument. It was to make the recommendation we believed was in the best interests of Home Office members. Looking at recent payslips, the improved pay scales, and the position Home Office staff now enjoy relative to the rest of the Civil Service, I remain confident that recommending acceptance was the right decision.
Looking back, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that this deal may never have reached members had negotiations begun under the current IL/BLN majority NEC. What is beyond dispute is that the agreement has delivered real benefits and established a benchmark that members in other departments can point to when seeking improvements to their own pay structures. In that respect, the Home Office deal represents not only a gain for Home Office members, but a positive example of what can be achieved more widely across the Civil Service.

Left Unity members will know that we have just come through a month of chaos due to the Broad Left Network (BLN), the Independent Left (IL) and President Bev Laidlaw attempting to unconstitutionally bulldoze through new standing orders without a two-thirds majority.

This move caused a serious crisis for the union as the lack of constitutionally agreed standing orders left the NEC unable to hold meetings, and NEC sub-committees also unable to meet. Most notably the National Disputes Committee, which authorises industrial action ballots and strikes, was unable to provide the necessary support for branches and give authority for disputes during this period of paralysis brought on by the new NEC ‘majority’.

Following the General Secretary providing a pragmatic way for the coalition to climb down – allowing the National President to seek a second legal opinion on the subject of the NEC standing orders and their status under PCS rules, despite the union already having clear legal advice  – and pressure from the FCDO Group (who had a live mandate for strike action), a sliver of common sense has finally broken through thanks to Fran brokering this agreement to achieve a two thirds majority for the standing orders at an emergency NEC meeting on 7th July.

Only the Deputy President, Dave Semple, spoke in the debate on the General Secretary’s standing orders paper, stating that he and many others were supporting the paper “under protest”, not because they agreed with the content (although two abstained). Dave Semple’s statement was dutifully reported in the subsequent Record of Decisions of that meeting. 

At the brief meeting on the 7th the Standing Orders were agreed enabling the National Disputes Committee to subsequently meet and authorise action. The key point though is that the General Secretary and those NEC members of the Democracy Alliance who supported her, have ensured that the rules, democracy and governance arrangements of the union have been defended and upheld.

At the full NEC on 15/16 July – which could only take place because the NEC have finally adopted standing orders – one BLN/Socialist Party member initially opposed the adoption of the Record of Decisions (RODS) on the basis that the above mentioned statement by the Deputy President included inc the record was made on behalf of the entire ‘Coalition for Change’, not him personally.

There are obviously two problems with this opposition:
1) the statement clearly wasn’t on behalf of the whole Coalition of Chaos as some abstained rather than supported the paper; and 2) the statement in the RODS was the verbatim record of what the Deputy President had said, as the General Secretary pointed out.

Dave Semple himself advised the whole NEC that he had emailed through the text of his statement to the General Secretary so that it could be accurately reported in the record of the meeting, and he had no objections with the NEC agreeing to the RODs. The RODs were unanimously agreed, with his coalition colleague being left suitably embarrassed.

That was fifteen minutes spent showing us that the ultra left hand didn’t seem to know what their chaotic right hand was doing.

Sadly, the chaos didn’t end there. Left Unity members alongside their PCS Democrat comrades objected to the proposal to remove senior Vice President, Jackie Green as Chair of the National Women’s Forum (NWF), and from the committee entirely. A succession of men then spoke from the Coalition of Chaos to tell Jackie Green that she didn’t have the right line on issues affecting women.

An attempted compromise motion, moved again by a man (Joe Dale  from the AWL wing of the Coalition of Chaos), proposed to reinstate Jackie to the committee as vice chair. This was again opposed, in a further act of sectarianism, by the same BLN/SP member who had been embarrassed earlier in the meeting, who supported the inclusion of Vice President, Rachel Heemskerk as sole chair. The vice president herself declaring that she was better suited to the role on the NWF as ‘Trans members’ needed supporting and Jackie wouldn’t do that. This being the latest attempt by the coalition to use the Trans debate as a political football, while also denigrating the character of a Democracy Alliance member, who has fully supported our Trans community. Interestingly for the second time the coalition divided as the Deputy President told his colleague and everyone else what was best for women and the compromise motion was agreed.

Such compromise, however, was not on display later in the meeting when, just as happened two years ago, the Coalition of Chaos used their majority on the NEC to bar a vice president (again Jackie Green) from being part of the PCS delegation to TUC. A move that never once happened under the Democracy Alliance leadership. Her place would be taken by the twice-embarrassed Fiona Brittle

The Democracy Alliance were also forced to call out the Coalition for the ‘forum of men’ AKA the OEC committee that was proposed.  Committees under the Democracy Alliance have always had a gender balance and also a balance of members from each of the factions.  This year, but for the Democracy Alliance, following recommendations from the coalition the OEC would have been populated by men, with the President a lone woman, as the vice-chair.  The Deputy President claimed that this was an ‘oversight’ and invited the NEC to suspend standing orders to enable him to fix the situation. He then advised the President to suspend standing orders, which she dutifully did, and the Deputy President then called for further nominations. It is abundantly clear that it is his hand controlling the NEC – not the hand of the President.

On the National Campaign paper moved by the General Secretary – following talks with the President, AGS and Deputy President – it was agreed that Groups would be consulted on whether they wanted to be part of the Coalition’s proposal for a national ballot over pay, jobs and a shopping list of other issues.

Groups, even those led by figures from the Coalition of Chaos, had evidently ignored the earlier injunction from its strategic geniuses not to engage in delegated talks on pay.

Hector Wesley, a national vice president, reported warmly the progress made in delegated talks in HMRC. That then raises the question of whether the union’s second largest group would want to be part of a national pay and jobs ballot, in a group in which its President is reporting significant progress on pay, and an increase in jobs!

Another NEC member also reported on his Group’s delegated talks in MHCLG, so another Group has ignored the position of the Broad Left Network not to engage and make decisions in delegated talks.

Once again, it seems like the transition is yet to take place from shouting from the fringes to actually stewarding the union in members’ interests – our members deserve better than this chaos from the coalition that currently has a majority on the NEC.

Away from the confusion and contradiction, the General Secretary was able to report to the NEC that PCS membership is up, progress on facility time had been secured (including for attendance at NEC meetings), insourcing had been secured for thousands of members, and the union finances are healthy. This is what our General Secretary has delivered, despite the chaos surrounding her on the NEC, and the hostility shown towards her by the Coalition for Chaos and National President.

Finally, on a point of unity, it was agreed that the NEC should delay the start of the second day of the meeting on 16 July so that members could attend FCDO picket lines. Left Unity and all members of the Democracy Alliance send our full solidarity to striking members in their defence of jobs and pay.

So where next for PCS?
As groups await further information as to what their expected role will be as part of the national campaign, it is worth reflecting that we are still in early days of this NEC despite us being some two and a half months into the electoral year. This is solely due to the deliberate decision of the Coalition for Chaos in June to prioritise a sectarian fight over PCS rules rather than progressing winning for members.

Left Unity is clear that if we are to avoid a repeat of this chaos, we must build the understanding of both activists and members that supporting the opportunistic narrative of the Coalition of Chaos has consequences, and Left Unity will work with any member and activist that wishes to prioritise progressive policies that benefit our members over all other considerations.

Please share this with others, continue to build our union, encouraging members and activists to get more involved, and consider joining Left Unity.

Thursday’s (11th June) NEC meeting should have been the first full, post-conference meeting of the union’s executive where important decisions would have been taken on implementing ADC policy, on pay remit talks, selecting NEC liaison officers for groups, establishing Sub-Committees and agreeing future meeting dates.

Instead of that productive work taking place, the meeting descended into farce and came to an abrupt end because the newly-elected National President and her coalition refused to accept the rules and procedures of the union and the union’s legal advice.

Standing Orders set the agenda and the parameters for meetings. The NEC cannot take place until the Standing orders are agreed, therefore they are adopted as the first item of business at the first NEC of the year.  At the first meeting, the previous years are adopted to allow the meeting to progress, they can then be amended.  This has been the case for over twenty years. 

In the run-up to the 11 June NEC, the General Secretary met with the President ahead of the meeting, as is usual to discuss the agenda.  The President conveyed that her faction wanted changes to the Standing Orders. As above, there is no issue with at in itself, but there must be Standing Orders in place to begin the meeting before amendments can be made.

Shockingly, despite her conversation with the General Secretary, at the outset of the 11th June meeting, the President made an untrue claim.  She stated that she had made a ‘decision’ at the emergency NEC on 29th May, that she did not agree the previous year’s Standing Orders (in place for decades with amendments) to run for the current committee. She stated her ‘decision’ was not subject to any challenge at that time.  The President continued that she had since advised the General Secretary in writing that she did not believe the Standing Orders from the dissolved NEC were binding on this NEC (11th June) and that was now her ruling.

The President stated that the required two-thirds majority was not required for her to make this ‘ruling’.  No two-thirds agreement required to reject, amend or dismiss the Standing Orders, because she said so, and her coalition agreed.  Rules and legal advice be damned. Trumpism is alive and well in PCS.

In truth, there was no challenge made to the ‘decision’ made by the President on 29th May, as there was no such decision or ruling made. There was an agreement between the President and the General Secretary that, as the meeting was convened for one item, that item being pay, the Standing Orders agenda item would be rolled over for agreement at the next meeting.  That left the meeting moving under the previous Standing Orders.

At the 11th June meeting, after the President’s illegitimate ruling had been bounced through, with the meeting no more than five minutes in, a challenge was made to the ‘ruling’ having been made before Standing Orders were agreed. This was dismissed out of hand.

A point of order was then raised to argue that the Standing Orders could not be dismissed without a two-thirds majority, which had not been met. The President did not answer this point of order, losing control of the meeting she allowed a coalition member to shout out that there was no requirement for a ‘two-thirds’ as it was ‘a ruling’, further stating ‘you’, meaning the Democracy Alliance, needed the two-thirds to win.  But the point of order was regarding the ‘ruling’ taking the NEC out of the constitutional process, moving to continue an NEC with no Standing Orders in place.

The President continued to argue that she could ignore the existing Standing Orders and changes could be adopted by a simple majority of the NEC.

The rules are crystal clear, in Standing Order 12.1: “The Standing Orders in existence will be used to convene the first post-election meeting of the NEC.”

Standing Order 12.2 is also clear “Adoption of these Standing Orders, or changes to the Standing Orders will be the first item of business for the NEC at its first
post– election meeting and if agreed, will take effect immediately. A two-thirds
majority of the votes cast will be required.”

Standing Order 12.3 is further clear, “changes to the Standing Orders once adopted will require a two-thirds majority of the votes cast”

It is telling that a recent statement put out by “the NEC majority” makes no mention of the rules or the legal advice that was circulated to all NEC members.

The truth of it is that, before the 11th June NEC took place, meetings had been held between the General Secretary and the President at which legal advice was presented from the union’s solicitors, confirming the position outlined by the General Secretary and in Standing Orders.

Further important points missed from the social media discourse thus far; the President, accompanied by the Assistant General Secretary, outlined five proposed changes. The General Secretary thought that four of the changes proposed could be agreeable to all sides – with some further discussion and compromise potentially over the fifth.

In a genuine effort to a find a way forward, the General Secretary offered to see if she could help facilitate a two-thirds majority for some or all of the changes the National President was seeking.


An offer was made by the General Secretary to try to broker an agreement among NEC members on that basis. The National President said that she would be prepared to accept such an accord.

However, when the General Secretary received the wording of the proposed changes it was clear they were far more extensive than had been described in the meeting. Not only that, Fran reported to the NEC that some of the proposed “provisions contravene the unions rules, cut across staff contractual provisions and potentially give rise to litigation against the union.”

It is clear to Left Unity and our PCS Democrat comrades that the General Secretary bent over backwards to find a way forward, holding meetings with the President, commissioning legal advice from the union’s solicitors and offering a compromise solution.

But all that was thrown back in her face at the meeting in a shameless power-grab, with the BLN/IL coalition NEC majority attempting to bulldoze through a change to Standing Orders without a two-thirds majority, in breach of the union’s rules and procedures.

This left the General Secretary with no choice under the union’s rules but to confirm that there was no basis upon which NEC business could proceed.

Despite the claims made, this is not a factional matter, it is the responsibility of the General Secretary, under the union’s rules.  All elected Left Unity members of the NEC, and our allies in the Democrats, backed the General Secretary wholeheartedly in defending the union’s democracy.

Apparently, the President and some NEC members later convened an unconstituted meeting, a sham NEC without the General Secretary, the NEC members committed to democracy, or any union officials.

Such a meeting is outside the union’s rules and procedures and has no status. That is clear.

Twenty-five years ago, in events that parallel the events of this week, it was Left Unity members that upheld democracy against those seeking to undermine the union and its democratically elected General Secretary, Mark Serwotka.

The echoes from that dark period in PCS history are stark as a concerted attempt was made then to strip an elected General Secretary of their powers, with an attempt to impose a new set of Standing Orders and the convening of a sham NEC meeting claiming it to be legitimate.

This was exactly the approach adopted by the right-wing Barry Reamsbottom and his supporters. All of those undemocratic practices were quashed in the High Court.  Sadly, some current PCS NEC members that claim to be socialists are now standing on the same ground as Reamsbottom and his acolytes.

Elected NEC members have important business to progress and have a great responsibility to protect and promote the interests of members, to implement union policy and to uphold the union’s rules and democracy. There can be no place for the student politics style game-playing we are seeing from the new NEC majority.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Broad Left Network (a Socialist Party front) and the Independent Left (a front for the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty) would rather cause chaos and play silly political games than promote and prioritise members best interests as they are duty bound to do. They are letting down the members who put their trust in them, and those members and activists who want to see a successful campaigning union.

Fallout from a “Sad Day for PCS”
There is understandably some confusion about these events, we have to say aided by obfuscation and deliberate misrepresentation by members and supporters of the NEC majority. Their social media posts focus on obscure points of procedure designed to steer members and activists from the political issues currently at stake for our union. The coalition that forms the NEC majority, we have said many times before, differ on many issues but for the one thing that unites them – their personal hatred of our elected General Secretary, her staff, and our faction Left Unity.

Their latest missives completely ignore the facts that the powers of the General Secretary, as well as the Principle Rules of the Union, and the Standing Orders for the conduct of NEC meetings are the same as those operated by Fran’s predecessor, Mark Serwotka, for many years without any attempt by these groups to challenge them and undermine them as they are seeking to do now.

To attempt to not only do away with important checks and balances – such as removing the need for a two-thirds majority to change the rules which govern how the NEC conducts business – but to also seek to increase the executive powers of sub-committees, whilst flooding the sub-committees with coalition members, giving them more powers than the National Executive Committee, is a fundamental and political attack on our union’s democracy.

Members will decide
The legal advice that was made available to the NEC has been issued with the branch briefing. This will allow members and activists to judge for themselves whether the actions of the President and those on the NEC were reasonable in the circumstances.

Left Unity urges everyone in PCS not to fall for the obfuscation, but to look at the facts.  The coalition is attempting to gaslight NEC members and our membership into believing those protecting your best interests are the ones creating the issues.

There is no move here to block the NEC majority. This is a political manoeuvre by the coalition members to block the General Secretary and those Democracy Alliance NEC members who supported her at the 11th June meeting.

The new majority should have accepted the General Secretary’s offer to work together to agree the five amendments put forward by the President; had they done so and accepted they would not have the required two-thirds support for their further amendments to the Standing Orders, the NEC would have agreed a set of Standing Orders and moved on to discuss union matters on behalf of members, as has happened at NEC’s for the last two decades and more. 

It was the coalition, not the General Secretary or the other NEC members that failed members on the 11th June.

The credibility and integrity of our union is at stake. Do not let subterfuge and false narrative cloud that reality.

The NEC results were frustrating from a Left Unity perspective with the Coalition for Change (CfC) candidates winning a majority of seats on a low turnout of 6.4%. Despite the CfC using their outside forces to leaflet buildings and build their vote, the Democracy Alliance (DA) won 14 seats on the NEC, with 12 of the successful candidates being Left Unity (LU) members – making Left Unity still the single largest faction on the NEC.

The subject of conversation between both activists and members though, and in fact leaders from across the movement, has been that PCS moving forward without Martin Cavanagh as President represents a set-back to our campaigning nationally together with other organisations on wider social issues, removing his platform and potentially isolating our General Secretary and individual groups.

As conference arrived however, attesting to his experience and ability, Martin continued to hold the Conference chair, with the same dexterity and good humour as always, allowing for maximum debate and bringing a good comradely response from delegates. 

Left Unity in the Groups
The results in the Group elections were generally much better for our candidates. We retained the majority of seats in key groups such as Public Sector Group (PSG), Department for Transport (DfT), and Home Office. In addition Left Unity claimed every single seat on the DWP Group Executive Committee, on a higher percentage turnout, and despite a vitriolic campaign by our opponents in the MOJ Group, DA won all bar one seat. As a result of these Group results we will continue to deliver for members on the day to day issues they face in the workplace in those areas and, as importantly, the Groups will ensure that the NEC understands the will of the membership they are here to represent.

The CfC and its (not very promising) record
Two years ago, the CfC brought chaos to PCS, undermining the General Secretary at every opportunity. In a truly sectarian move they attempted to remove her, our most senior elected official, from the TUC General Council so it remains to be seen now how the CfC will use their majority this year, and whether or not the new National President will work in tandem with the General Secretary.

The early signs on this front are not good as we have already seen the President’s faction move to publicly undermine the General Secretary online; the IL believe it the duty of the NEC to manage PCS staff and are conducting a public campaign on X and other social media outlets to have staffing removed from the General Secretary’s contract.

Readers will remember, during the whole of his time as General Secretary, Fran’s predecessor Mark Serwotka oversaw staffing issues. There was never an attempt to undermine his contract or ways of working – this is a clear and direct attack on our GS because she is Fran Heathcote and the CfC majority on the NEC have taken against her both personally and factionally.

The procedures and principles for filling staff vacancies and postings are properly carried out in accordance with collective agreements with the staff Union. Ask yourself why a newly elected President in post for just over a week would suddenly want to change all that and why she thinks this is her top priority? Imagine the chaos and paralysis that would arise if every staffing appointment had to be agreed by the NEC. We are not elected as line managers, we are elected as trade union reps, to work for members, so it is a strange concept to hear a committee, so hell bent on taking over the management of staff.

It is hoped the new majority will take their attention away from the General Secretary’s contractual duties and put their attention to working with her to take forward the key campaigns that matter to members.

To mention again discussions held on social media, including references to private correspondence, the IL in their naivety believe this is ‘transparency’; their NEC members also believe that the NEC should be televised for all to see – and more lately there has been mention from a CfC member that pay talks should all be open access, with cameras in the room to allow memebrs to see the discussions.  We in Left Unity know that there are employers and forces hostile to PCS that are watching social media – they will be following these discussions far more closely than most members will have the time or inclination to do, and will be acting on, and strategising around the content to win against us in every forum.

National Campaign
Whilst our opponents will point to the fact that they won support for most of their votes at conference the real test of their leadership won’t be won on the conference floor but what they can agree on and deliver for members. 
ADC carried their resolution (A5) on their National Campaign which as acknowledged in their contributions was mainly a repeat of last year’s motion. A383 included the move to a national statutory ballot in September. Left Unity delegates argued that this rigid formulaic approach took no account of changing factors on the ground.

It is unfortunately the case that the anti-union law of requiring a 50% membership turnout in a fully postal ballot has prevented us from securing a legal mandate in our largest membership groups in many cases including this year in the DWP. The government are considering in the next phase of their workers rights legislation removing the 50% requirement and allowing electronic on-line balloting. These changes could be introduced as early as October.

The National Education Union (NEU) have constructed a National ballot timetable running from October to December with a view to commencing any industrial action early in 2027.

It’s also the case that our Group leadership in the Home Office have recently concluded a multi-year pay deal which has been enthusiastically received by their members. Members who were key to our National industrial action plans in 2022-23.     

We believe that should a national ballot be necessary that you would want to ensure its timing was at the most favourable time to achieve a positive outcome and to co-ordinate it with other supportive Unions to maximise the impact upon the Government.

The CfC majority would also have to convince members that financial support for those taking prolonged periods of action would be provided. Having blocked efforts by the General Secretary to reach a consensus on a long-term solution to build our Fighting Fund in the run up to ADC they are left with the prospect of reintroducing a membership levy which became discredited during their last period as the NEC majority.

The 2026-7 Pay Remit guidance was published shortly after ADC accompanied by a short factual statement from the General Secretary summarising the headline figures and encouraging Group  negotiators to go into their separate negotiations and use the extra money that has been made available to maximise the benefits for our members primarily in the lowest paid grades.

The General Secretary’s statement was met with a tirade of criticism from CfC supporters including some of their newly elected NEC members. These included criticism of welcoming a 3.5% headline remit figure – the joint highest achieved across the Public Sector – as an improvement on a 2.8% which was being widely considered to be the figure the government would settle on.

Among the criticisms of CfC candidates have been that the National Campaign had been ended and dissolved into unproductive talks with the employer. It is therefore good to see that the remit also allows for extra monies to be used to tackle grade compression from AA to EO arising from annual National Living Wage increases and the opportunity to move pay settlement dates to 1 April each year as a step towards achieving a more coherent national pay structure for all of our members. These were both key demands from our National Campaign achieved this year from talks led by our General Secretary.  

Whilst our opponents are spending their time engaging in social media wars against the General Secretary and her staff our negotiators at Group level will be getting on with the job of putting improved pay opportunities into members pockets – if the new NEC allows them to. 

Data Access
Three motions from CfC Allies called for increased access to individual membership data including personal mobile numbers to be made routinely available to PCS reps for the purpose of campaigning and organising work.   Undoubtedly a lot of our reps would see the benefits of this and there is no suggestion that the majority of reps would use this information irresponsibly.
We highlighted that there are still serious risks with this though. Mobile phone numbers are personal data and there are tight laws about usage under GDPR regulations. Breaches can be met with large fines, over a million pounds in many cases for serious breaches. One CfC NEC member casually dismissed this as being “worth it” during the ADC debates. It only takes one complaint for a breach to be investigated either by the ICO or an employer so this cavalier attitude may have more far reaching consequences for reps as well as the finances of the Union.

We also fear that many members may not welcome their local reps having access to their personal numbers without their permission and that they may discourage them from providing such information to the Union in the first place.       

Political Strategy
The political situation in the Country is particularly volatile at this time. The  serious threat posed to our members by increased support for Reform UK and the political response to it are important as are the relationships we build with the Government as our employer, with all of their imperfections, and the PCS cross Party Parliamentary group. 

PCS has never sought or been affiliated to any Political Party and many of our members see their role as Civil Servants as politically impartial in the workplace.

That doesn’t mean we can’t campaign on political issues that impact upon our members and the outgoing NEC set out a comprehensive plan an strategy for doing so in motion A344. The Broad Left Network set out their position in motion 345 which contained the additional instruction to “take a lead in discussions with other unions as to how this policy can be implemented by giving support to the creation of  a new socialist anti-austerity workers party and make proposals to ADC 2027” and to use our political fund for “supporting candidates for election who support our union and policies and priorities” based upon a policy that was agreed over a decade ago. This in practice would mean using members money and union resources to support candidates from in most cases fringe parties something which during the political fund ballot last year PCS gave a commitment that we would not do without a full membership ballot.

The Independent Left don’t support this policy but restricted their comments in the debate to attacking support for “Stand Up to Racism” in the NEC motion which was carried anyway. Faced with it being defeated the BLN member agreed to remit A345 to the NEC which Conference agreed to. This debate provided early indications of the fault lines that will emerge in the CfC when they come to try and implement these into a coherent political strategy for the Union going into a politically challenging climate.  

Union rules
We know from our experience of their last tenure that the CfC are extremely keen to try and use their NEC majority to rewrite the rules of the Union without proper recourse to Conference, in particular the two thirds majority requirement which provides important checks and balances to rule changes for narrow factional advantage.
ADC debated a motion calling for a loosening of legal advice to print motions which may lead to the Union or individuals within it being challenged with breaches of the law. Their members of the Conference Standing Orders Committee published a minority statement suggesting that motions in this category should be published and it be for Conference delegates (who mostly aren’t lawyers)  to decide. Our ADC attracts some interest from a mostly hostile Media who would very quickly exploit these situations and reps could be exposed to action from their employers. As a rule change the motion required a two-thirds majority but got nowhere near to achieving this following both a show of hands and a card vote. Further motions seeking to restrict the powers of the National President amongst others didn’t get heard, but again demonstrate where their priorities for our Union lie. 

Our Left Unity members elected to the NEC, alongside our Democracy Alliance comrades, will be doing their best to hold them to account and ensure the focus of the Union is towards member facing issues, not factional political advantage. Our  Group leaders will also be getting on with the job of negotiating improvements and pushing back attacks from the employer in workplaces up and down the country.

If that’s the kind of Union you want to see then join with us. Contact PCS Left Unity to help us keep our union’s strength, focus, and integrity intact; and help us win for members while continuing to grow our union.

Even before the DWP Group Conference begins, we see the toxicity oozing out from the Independent Left – that busted flush that has chosen to move into a coalition with its BLN enemies to win positions on the NEC.

It is worth noting here that despite winning votes gleaned by non-PCS Socialist Party branches leafleting offices, the Groups where those that won on the NEC actually sit, did not vote for them. Despite being on the NEC, the reps that won seats did not manage to win seats on their own Group committees. Rejected by the members who know them best.

That speaks volumes.

In DWP we saw Left Unity deliver a clean sweep winning every seat on the Group Executive, whilst the newly elected President now holds no seat on the GEC. Not exactly a ringing endorsement – but not surprising when looking at her track record – her flip-flopping and inability to hold true to her word, or her decisions.

Sectarianism over principle
The Independent Left have long called out Left Unity’s decisions and strategies, without actually providing any of their own – but today, we see it’s a little worse than that. Because today, in their effort to oppose Left Unity, their strategy is to stand against disabled people.

Motion 11 on the Group Standing Orders, submitted by the GEC, is borne of a discussion between the Left Unity leadership and disability groups. As we see the Government move to force 700,000 ‘economically inactive’ people – that’s sick and disabled people in the main – into work, the DWP are running Work Coach training sessions. Within those training sessions the GEC have been made aware that trainers have been told to promote Only Fans as legitimate self-employment.

Left Unity are clear, if an individual chooses to consider Only Fans a legitimate form of employment for themselves, then that is their absolute prerogative. But our role as trade unionists should always be to highlight the consequence of decisions, as much as protecting an individual’s right to make them.

Women and marginalised creators face frequent harassment, including threats of physical and sexual violence, abuse is often targeted at race, gender, and sexuality, not to mention that one‑third of online workers have reported doxing, where personal details are exposed without consent.

If the DWP are legitimising Only Fans and promoting it from within their offices, it puts women, disabled workers, Black workers and the LGBQ+ and Trans communities at a clear and existential risk. Risk of all of the above, risk of failing a claimant commitment, risk of being forced to increase the amount of online work they have to do, and yes, at risk of exploitation.

Self-employed workers receive no protections, sex workers receive no statutory protection, why would any trade unionist support the DWP promoting this line of work?

There are already thousands of sex workers left without basic protections afforded to other workers, including minimum wage, statutory sick pay, and working time regulations, claimants might be forced to accept more dangerous working conditions, increased hours, and be left with no avenue when they are unable to work due to illness or injury.

The DWP GEC supports the protection of all workers and stands by the call to prevent DWP promoting Only Fans in our offices.

This is about choice. This is about people having autonomy over their own bodies. This is about preventing the DWP from taking that choice away and exploiting vulnerable workers for tax profit whilst leaving them with no protection and at risk of sanction.

No person should be forced into sex work if it is not their choice.

Remember, I Daniel Blake? We are all KATIE!

Branch secretaries will have now received voting links for the National and Group Block Vote elections. 

These were sent on Tuesday 5th May to the personal email address which they have registered with PCS Digital. The email will have been sent from pcs@cesvotes.com

The elections close 14th May at 12 noon.

It’s important that branch secretaries in LU supporting branches complete these ballots, supporting the candidates below.

Role of the NSOC

The PCS National Standing Orders Committee (NSOC) plays a vital and constitutionally protected role within our trade union. As the democratically elected body – made up of lay activists within our union who carry out their duties diligently and in their own time – responsible for interpreting and applying the union’s rules and standing orders, NSOC must be able to carry out its duties free from interference, pressure, or influence from any individual, group, or faction.

The independence of the NSOC is not optional; it is essential to the foundational democratic principles of our union.

NSOC ensures that our annual conference, the primary policy making body of our union, is held in accordance with the democratic structures and rules adopted by our members, and ensures its business is conducted fairly, and transparently. In upholding these procedures, the NSOC safeguards the integrity of our decision‑making processes and protects the rights of all members to participate on an equal footing.

The committee’s duty is not to reflect the preferences of any particular interest, but to uphold the union’s rules as they are written and agreed by the membership. This includes making impartial judgements on the admissibility of motions. Such decisions may not always please all parties, but they must always be made based on the established rules and not political expediency or external pressure.

The NSOC has come under attack from certain factions within the union; and has faced unjustifiable allegations that they have exercised Rule 6.22(g) of the union’s rules “to seek justification for not hearing motions”.

Where Rule 6.22(g) is concerned, the union’s solicitors quite rightly recognise the role of the National Standing Orders Committee as a “duty” – and like any duty, it comes with the threat of negligence claims for which the NSOC are not indemnified.  A considerable burden, for which NSOC receive no facility time whatsoever.

Rule 6.22(g) is there to protect the union from costly legal action which, even when we win, would routinely cost the union in the region of £60,000 per case to defend. Considering the factions proposing to play fast and loose with members’ subscriptions, are being led by the General Treasurer, John Moloney, this is deeply concerning. The idea that the union should ignore the risk that publication could lead to wasting huge amounts of our members’ subscriptions, would be at best cavalier, and at worst negligent.

Far from being undemocratic, Rule 6.22(g) has actually democratised the protection of the interests of the union and its members. Prior to the existence of this rule, all it took for a motion to be excluded from the conference agenda was for the General Secretary and the President to decide to exclude it.

It is important for current day activists to understand that before this rule existed, the then General Secretary, Barry Reamsbottom, and President, Marion Chambers, ruled out hundreds of branch motions, without taking any legal advice, prior to the SOC formally receiving the motions, and with no intimation or explanation to the branches that they were doing so.

This was corrected at the next annual conference, where a single motion managed to get past the bogus proceedings of Reamsbottom to amend the constitution which was X Marked. After Conference A marked the motion on a reference back, Chambers closed the conference to prevent it being debated. From the fallout of these actions, effectively Left Unity was formed and the union we know today was built.

With the creation of Rule 6.22(g) all those years ago, PCS has vested the duty of excluding motions on legal grounds to a democratically elected committee; in the process, requiring them to seek professional legal advice and, if a motion does need to be excluded, requiring the committee to provide the branch with a copy of that legal advice.

Remember Rule 6.22(g) allows the NSOC the power to refer motions for legal advice to protect both our reps and PCS from possible legal action; therefore,the idea that Rule 6.22(g) should “be reformed or removed”, as these factions suggest, would do nothing but result in the increased likelihood of a barrage of expensive court cases – a heavy price for members to pay, just so a couple of narrow minded factions can showboat at the union’s national conference.

Publication of Conference motions and legal advice

As in previous years, the NSOC has this year excluded a number of motions from the conference agenda based on the legal advice it was obliged to take under Rule 6.22(g).

Scandalously, the PCS Independent Left has chosen to throw all respect for the union’s legal obligations, its rules, its democracy and its elected NSOC out of the window.

They have published an article, entiled “Trans liberation: The motions the union is too scared to publish”.

In doing so, two of the motions that were excluded by the NSOC from the agenda, together with the legal advice justifying their exclusion, have been placed in the public domain.

Rule 6.22 (g) is a clearly necessary safeguard to protect the union, its activists and its members from exposure to litigation.  At no stage has anybody anywhere in the history of PCS and its predecessors suggested that the rule was not necessary – it was simply democratised in the early years of PCS by removing the power from the General Secretary and National President and giving it to the NSOC.

The irony is, that Independent Left refused to join that historic democratic shift, fuelled by the outrage of delegates at ADC all those years ago, and yet now the and others seek to remove the protections afforded by 6.22(g).

The actions of the Independent Left are reckless in the extreme and are a clear indication of why the union is not safe in the hands of the Coalition for Change.

Coalition of Chaos

In short, these narrow factions are proposing nothing less than a scandalous waste of members’ subscription money, seemingly driven by the extremely arrogant belief that legally they know better than the foremost Trade Union solicitors in the country and leading employment law barristers (of course, the legal advice now in the public domain confirms that the approach taken by the NSOC and NEC on the substantive issue covered by these motions has been right all along!).

These factions want you to trust them with the leadership and future of your union. The “Coalition for Change” is nothing more than a coalition for chaos hell bent on running your union into the ground.

Attacks on the NSOC, and the attempts by certain factions to undermine or influence it, come from groups that have repeatedly shown they value democracy only when it aligns with their own sectarian interests or those of the political party to which they are beholden. To claim they are in any way “independent” is an attempt to insult PCS members’ judgement and intelligence.  There is no democratic decision that they disagree with that they are prepared to abide by.

These baseless attacks from these politically aligned factions risk weakening the democratic foundations of PCS and should be met with nothing but sheer contempt.

The Democracy Alliance therefore reaffirms our full support for the committee’s independence, and recognise its duty to apply our rules consistently, transparently, and without fear or favour.

The Democracy Alliance believes that respecting the autonomy, duties and authority of NSOC is not optional and dependent on whether we agree with their decision-making.

We maintain that in upholding the autonomy, duties and authority of NSOC we strengthen our collective commitment to democracy, fairness, and the rulebook that both protects us and binds us together as a union.

From 16th April to 8th May we have the opportunity to vote to re-elect Democracy Alliance candidates to the PCS NEC.

Click on the image to download.