In May 2024, a loose coalition calling itself the “Alliance for Change” gained a majority on the PCS National Executive Committee (NEC). They did so, largely, on a platform of attacking the former leadership, and claiming to be more industrially militant.

The new NEC has so far met four times this year. In that short period, the “Alliance for Change” has had ample opportunity to demonstrate that its platform was not just words but would be translated into action. In fact, “Action, Not Words” was its key campaigning message.

In their short period in office, they have shown their platform to be a façade.  The “Alliance for Change” has been rapidly exposed for the unprincipled, sectarian charlatans that they are.

This has serious consequences for members that we represent and we are appealing to all activists across the union to unite against the threat represented by the “Alliance for Change”.

This article details the events that have taken place.

National campaign

Given the platform on which they had stood, you would expect the “Alliance for Change” to provide serious leadership and direction; and to have a serious industrial strategy to progress the interest of members via the national campaign. Sadly, the opposite has been the case.  Their tenure so far has been characterised by indecision and ineptitude that has resulted in a disastrous inability to make decisions, including the type of hardheaded industrial judgements required by any trade union leadership.

Following their election, they dithered and delayed calling for an emergency NEC meeting to discuss the national campaign. They eventually did so and it was held on 10 July 2024.  Their first act was to vilify the General Secretary for not calling an NEC to authorise industrial action during the General Election campaign.  It appeared lost on them that our dispute is with the government and, given purdah, there was no government in office to leverage.  As has previously been the case with individual factions within that alliance, they once again completely failed to articulate what action they were suggesting should have been called.

In order to progress the national campaign, the General Secretary moved a paper that asked the NEC to consider the dilemma in respect of our statutory mandate that arose from the passage of Motion A315 at the Annual Delegate Conference.  This motion sought to introduce fresh demands in the dispute; while simultaneously instructing the NEC to exercise the mandates for action in respect of the existing demands.

As was made clear by NEC speakers in the debate at Conference, that position is legally untenable, as the mandate we have is based on the demands tabled in our letter to the Cabinet Office earlier this year. If we were to introduce new demands, we would require a fresh trade dispute and a fresh statutory ballot. The mandates we have secured would be invalid.

“Alliance for Change” supporters accused the NEC of “throwing sand in delegates eyes” as they implored delegates to ignore the NEC speakers.  Having returned from Brighton, and cleared the sand from our eyes, that was in fact thrown by the movers and supporters of A315, we unfortunately find that the UKs anti-trade union laws still make clear we cannot introduce fresh demands into a trade dispute once it has been established.

Having invited the NEC to confront this dilemma, “Alliance for Change” NEC members demanded to see the legal advice stating that they could not have two trade disputes, thereby completely missing the point.  The General Secretary responded that they could have two trade disputes with different demands in two different sets of employers – but that is clearly not a national dispute. Two cannot make one.

It being clear that the “Alliance for Change” authors of Motion A315 had not understood its consequences for the trade dispute, the General Secretary attempted to give them a coherent way out of their mess.  She proposed that the NEC recognise that the national campaign debate at Conference had happened prior to the announcement of the General Election, and that the result had significantly changed the industrial picture; proposing that we conduct an analysis of Labours stated commitments and draw up a set of bargaining objectives related to them, incorporating the new demands in Motion A315. Further, that we enter talks on those objectives with the new government and re-ballot everyone on our new bargaining objectives in the event that talks did not get us anywhere.

Sadly, this sensible strategy was rejected by the “Alliance for Change”, who then voted through their own “strategy”.  This amounted to:

• The creation of an additional dispute for departments that did not get over the threshold
• A shopping list of demands for the new dispute
• A ballot in those areas by September 2024
• A letter to the Prime Minister demanding a positive response by the end of the July, “or else”
• A one day strike in the 64 areas with a mandate
• A “limited”, their phrase, programme of targeted sustained action funded by the levy
• A Senior Lay Reps Forum to be held before the next scheduled NEC on 17 July 2024 for all areas with a mandate, inviting Branch Chairs and Secretaries, to discuss the “strategy”

Far from trying to frustrate NEC decisions as has been suggested elsewhere, the General Secretary, in accordance with her obligations, faithfully implemented the recommendations carried.  In a paper to the NEC for 17 July 2024, she produced recommendations that contained a draft trade dispute letter to the employer in respect of the second dispute agreed by the NEC; invited the NEC to name the balloting timetable; and invited the NEC to name the proposed date for the one-day strike.

The Senior Lay Reps Forum took place on 16 July 2024 and it became clear that there was almost no support among areas with a mandate for the strategy that had been proposed by the NEC.

At the NEC meeting the following day, confronted with the reality of what they had decided just 7 days earlier, the “Alliance for Change” proceeded to completely flip their position. 

They now said that they did not want a trade dispute letter sent and instead wanted to place bargaining demands to the employer (effectively, the position that the General Secretary proposed at the NEC a week earlier, which they rejected).  They also said that they did not want a one day strike. Amazingly, they claimed that they had not changed their position from the previous week.

The General Secretary acknowledged that there appeared to have been a change of heart, and in the best interests of members.  again offered them a coherent way out of their mess.  She proposed that we conduct an analysis of Labours stated manifesto commitments, consider how they might affect our members and draw up a set of bargaining objectives related to them.  She also withdrew her recommendations inviting the NEC to name their balloting timetable and the date for their one-day strike.

Having been once bitten, the “Alliance for Change” accepted the General Secretary’s compromise and voted unanimously in favour of her proposition.

In accordance with that decision, we tabled our bargaining objectives to the new government of 30 July 2024.

Civil Service Pay Remit

Unfortunately, that has not been the end of the matter. 

Following the publication of the civil service pay remit guidance, the NEC met on 12 August 2024 to consider the way forward for our national campaign. 

The “Alliance for Change” submitted a 5 page long motion. It read less like a motion and more like the type of article that, you find in the pages of the average Socialist Party or Alliance for Workers Liberty newspaper. 

The instructions containing their forward “strategy” for the national campaign. amounted to waving a magic wand to insist that the government re-open the remit process, give us job security guarantees and national bargaining; tabling the demands in Motion A315 without delay; holding members meetings, Senior Lay Reps Forums and possibly a Special Delegate Conference as a substitute for any industrial action; continuing to collect the levy, but reducing the amount collected; instructing reps not to enter pay talks at delegated level; and issuing communications to members stating how terribly unfair the world is.

Tellingly, the motion acknowledged that the mood amongst many members was “give us the money”; and it said that we should not exercise existing strike mandates immediately. A serious industrial action strategy to shift the government’s position was conspicuous by its absence.

Noting that the motion attempted to reopen the debate on Motion A315, on which the NEC had unanimously agreed a way forward at its meeting on 17 July 2024, the National President rightly ruled the motion out under the standing orders, which state that no decision made within the term of office of the NEC will be re-opened unless 3 months has elapsed.  Presumably, the “Alliance for Change” had forgotten that they had agreed a way forward on A315 and, in accordance with that decision, we had already tabled the demands contained within the conference motion to the employer. It seems they had also forgotten that, just a month before, they had agreed the standing orders that they were attempting to breach.

The NEC then debated the paper from the General Secretary which outlined a forward strategy for the national campaign in light of developments on the remit guidance.

In moving the paper, the General Secretary detailed how our campaign strategy has delivered significant concessions.

We had taken 304 days of targeted strike action and 3 days of strike action involving all members.  Last year, we more than doubled the civil service pay remit headline figure for 2023 to 4.5% (5% for the lowest paid), secured a £1500 lump sum for members and forced the abandonment by the previous government of their manifesto commitment to cut redundancy terms by one third.

In respect of outcomes at delegated level, the average pay rise for 2023/24 by grade across bargaining units in the UK Civil Service was: AA 7.5%; AO 6.5%; EO 5.5%; HEO 5.0%; SEO 4.8%; Grade 7 4.5%; Grade 6 4.6%.

This year’s pay remit guidance for the civil service sets the headline figure at 5%. As evidenced by our approach last year, more may be secured at delegated level if we’re at the table. 

Our industrial action campaign has clearly influenced the new government’s decision, with the Chancellor making a direct link between low pay awards and the industrial action we have seen in recent years. The Cabinet Office has been clear with us that they are now prepared to move to immediate discussions on the longer-term reward strategy. They have also confirmed that they are prepared to enter talks on all of the bargaining objectives that we have tabled to the new administration.

On jobs, the new government has lifted the headcount restriction for the civil service, effectively meaning that the arbitrary job cuts figure announced by the Tory Government has been abandoned.

The General Secretary therefore made clear that the key judgement for the NEC was whether to bank the concessions won and concentrate on further talks with the new government to try to secure further concessions; or to embark on a campaign of industrial action to try to force further immediate concessions this year. She made it clear that, should the strategy that she proposed not find favour with the NEC, they would need to agree an alternative.

The General Secretary proposed that our forward strategy should be to:

• welcome the concessions won during the campaign so far on pay, jobs and the civil service compensation scheme
• pause any plans for industrial action at this stage (except in areas at delegated level where the employer does not make good on the full 5% civil service pay remit)
• pause the levy
• engage in further talks at delegated level to try to secure more money for members on pay
• engage in further talks with the employer on our bargaining objectives, including seeking further progress through a longer-term deal on pay, jobs and pensions
• seek membership endorsement of our strategy in a consultative ballot

The General Secretary further proposed that:

• Where the employer failed to make good on the full 5% concession, we retain the option of calling sustained, targeted action in those areas under the national mandate
• Guidance be issued to negotiators on the approach to take in talks at delegated level
• Our general approach at delegated level should be to seek to get as much money as possible implemented on the best possible terms, prioritising the lowest paid.
• Branches be consulted on options for a motion to next year’s Annual Delegate Conference proposing to build a sustainable fighting fund

All of her recommendations were voted down by the “Alliance for Change” majority on the NEC.  No serious alternative strategy was proposed for shifting the government’s position.

The rejection of these recommendations by the “Alliance for Change” has real consequences for members.  Members will now not be consulted on a forward strategy in a ballot; where the employer fails to make good on the full 5% concession, we are not in a position to retain the option of calling sustained, targeted action in those areas under the national mandate; the levy will continue despite no industrial action being called or even planned; and our negotiators are not able to engage in further talks at delegated level to try to secure more money for members on pay.

The damaging consequences of sectarianism

It is worth pausing to reflect on how we have arrived at this position within PCS and what the lessons are for the future.

For nearly two decades, following the demise of the leadership of the old right wing, relative political peace has been a feature of our union. We have avoided the type of poisonous sectarianism that has badly damaged other parts of the movement.  We have had a NEC and an activist base that has pulled together and steered the union through the toughest of times.  We have worked together to develop a serious industrial strategy that has now begun to deliver results for members. 

This seems a strange moment for an outbreak of disunity and it is important our members and activists understand what is behind it. 

The current disunity within the union has its seeds in a split within the Socialist Party a few years ago. Many good comrades left the organisation in light of its appalling direction of travel and the unprincipled behaviour of some of its members within PCS, in particular those who made a habit of attempting to undermine the previous General Secretary, Mark Serwotka, at every turn in an underhand way.

The split meant that those who remained in the Socialist Party were no longer a part of the broad left coalition within PCS; and they subsequently, when standing again for election, lost their positions on the NEC. They have ever since remained furious at this perceived slight and have become intent on burning down the PCS house as an act of vengeance. In fact, “I will burn down the lot” were the words used by former Socialist Party General Secretary, Peter Taaffe, following their loss of influence in PCS.

In order to aid them in setting the house on fire, the Socialist Party have scrambled around looking for allies.  They have found them in the consistently oppositionist PCS Independent Left, a front organisation for the Alliance for Workers Liberty, whom the Socialist Party had spent previous decades despising; alongside a loose collection of “independents” from the Revenue and Customs Group and elsewhere, who based their opposition to the previous leadership on personal, rather than political differences.

This “Alliance for Change” has since been engaged in a relentless attempt to paint our carefully developed industrial strategy as a failure.   They have poured scorn on the concessions won in our national campaign, thereby effectively pouring scorn on the work put in by activists and sacrifices made by our members, to achieve them.

Following the concessions won last year, they vilified the union’s leadership on its forward strategy, ignoring its endorsement by 90% of members in a consultative ballot and the rapid increase in membership. They claimed that more could have been gained. When challenged as to what their strategy for that was, no serious answer was forthcoming beyond calling for more unpaid strike action, which they knew was undeliverable given the cost-of-living crisis faced by members.

As mentioned above, at the Annual Delegate Conference this year, the “Alliance” succeeded in whipping up a storm to defeat the NEC’s motion on the national campaign and to persuade a majority of delegates to carry Motion A315.  The reality of this is that having won a majority of seats on the NEC, when faced with the consequences of their actions, they have been found desperately wanting. 

Initially doubling down on their error by concocting a bizarre implementation route involving the calling of two trade disputes, they were quickly embarrassed into a volte-face when it became clear that our senior lay activists considered their approach untenable.  Their avowed industrial militancy has been exposed as a complete charade on its first contact with industrial reality. They clearly have no plan for progressing the national campaign; their whole electoral platform has been exposed as vacuous political posturing.

The “Alliance for Change” was big on promises but has proven to be short on ideas. Left Unity do not believe those members and activists who were convinced to “vote for change” are receiving what they signed-up to. No one could seriously have wanted the priority of the new NEC, to be their continually opposing and targeting the General Secretary and National President, wasting time at meetings, rather than working in the interest of members. 

Abandoning an organising strategy that could grow the union and help win for members, effectively abandoning the national campaign and preventing elected Group representatives from negotiating better pay for low paid members, whilst turning their back on equality in the workplace with a “not bothered” attitude, cannot have been the programme of change that many of our members voted for.

Left Unity call out the determination of the “Alliance for Change” to obfuscate the important truths, to use the President correctly upholding the PCS rules as an excuse for their failings when they have no actual strategy to win.  They have quickly discovered that there is no magic wand to winning gains for members. What is required is painstaking organising work, consensus building and maximum unity within our activist base; coupled with a serious industrial strategy that holds the confidence of members.

Left Unity is committed to building a coalition of unity. We now call on all activists within the union who reject the naked sectarianism of the “Alliance for Change” to join with us to take forward a serious industrial strategy to progress our agenda, to protect and promote the interests of PCS members.

click here to receive our WhatsApp notifications – https://chat.whatsapp.com/JTXI9Wk3cNGGuUKTFRRd2B