The Members levy is currently ongoing and continues to be paid by every PCS member covered by the National Campaign.
The General Secretary has proposed that the levy be temporarily paused altogether whilst national talks with the new Government on a range of pay and related issues are ongoing and until a point where continuing these talks becomes untenable.
Left Unity supports the GS proposals but the NEC majority have repeatedly voted them down.
What is the purpose of the levy?
The membership levy was devised and supported by Left Unity members at the start of the National Campaign in 2023 to enable the NEC strategy of paid targeted action by groups of members with specific industrial leverage to maximise disruption on the employer and minimise the financial impact of members taking action. This strategy including the introduction of the levy was endorsed by an all-members ballot at the time.
It helped to support hundreds of days of such action during the pay campaign which contributed to an increased pay remit and a lump sum payment for members across the board.
Why does Left Unity support proposalsto pause the levy at this time?
Members will be aware that a new Government was elected on 5th July. Fairly early in their tenure they confirmed a 5% pay remit for Civil Service bargaining units to follow which is over and above current rates of inflation. They also agreed to continue and step up national talks on fixing some of the long term structural deficiencies in our pay systems.
The General Secretary supported by Left Unity NEC members concluded that a period of placing demands on the new government and maximising the 5% remit in all of our Bargaining areas should take place before considering further swathes of industrial action at this time.
Left Unity stand in NEC elections as part of the Democracy Alliance and unfortunately this group was unable to secure a majority of seats on the NEC this year to support worked out proposals from the newly elected General Secretary, Fran Heathcote. Any proposals she puts forward get voted down by the current NEC majority, often by just 1 or 2 votes difference.
Who are the NEC majority?
The current NEC majority consist of three groups – the Broad Left Network, the Independent Left, and HMRC Alliance for Change which is the general name these groups have adopted for electoral purposes. The main thing they have in common is opposition to the elected General Secretary and her supporters. They secured a slender majority on the NEC this year.
PCS members are now literally paying for their project to unseat the elected General Secretary and elected President at the earliest opportunity.
Don’t let the members pay for the failures of the NEC majority
Pause the levy now. Ask your branch to contact the NEC.
Our previous posting provided an update on how the sectarianism of “Alliance for Change” is having disastrous consequences for the prosecution of a serious national campaign on behalf of PCS members.
We reported how a sensible strategy proposed by the General Secretary was rejected by the “Alliance for Change”, on the NEC, despite their providing having no serious alternative strategy of their own.
To recap, the consequences of this were that: members would not be consulted on a forward strategy in a ballot; where the employer failed to make good on the full 5% concession, we would not be in a position to retain the option of calling sustained, targeted action in those areas under the national mandate; the levy would continue despite no industrial action being called or even planned; and an embargo was placed on our negotiators preventing any engagement in further talks at delegated level. An actual refusal to allow negotiators to argue for more money for our lowest paid members. The added concern being the “Alliance for Change” leaving an empty chair in the talks, and an open door for FDA and Prospect to win more for their members at PCS members’ expense.
We reported that there would be two Senior Lay Reps Forums (SLRF) held in August to discuss the position reached. The forums were held on 19 and 20 August 2024. This posting updates members on events since.
SENIOR LAY REPS FORUMS
Nobody who attended the SLRF could have come away in any doubt about the views of the activist base – the “Alliance for Change” had got it completely wrong.
From the contributions made, three very clear areas of general consensus or majority opinion emerged, namely that:
* The NEC should lift the embargo on PCS negotiators entering talks at delegated level on pay
* The NEC should allow areas with a statutory mandate to pursue the full 5% concession through industrial action where their employer is refusing to pay it
* The NEC should pause the levy as no national industrial action is planned
OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
The General Secretary had also received written representations from a significant number of bargaining areas along the same lines. In particular, four of the five largest groups in the unions, DWP, Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Department for Transport, had written to her conveying their view in the strongest possible terms that they should be able to enter talks on pay at delegated level.
It should be mentioned that the “Alliance for Change” led HMRC Group Executive Committee made no representation to the General Secretary in regard to the embargo, or the desire to move into delegated talks.
EMERGENCY NEC MEETING
Given the views expressed at the forums, the General Secretary and National President called an emergency NEC meeting to consider our position on the national campaign, on 27 August 2024.
Out of respect for the union’s rules on standing orders, the General Secretary did not ask the NEC to reconsider all of her previous recommendations, but urged the NEC to reflect carefully on the views expressed by our activist base in respect of delegated talks, pursuing action in areas where the employer is failing to make good on the concessions and pausing the levy. She considered that it was right that the views of our activist base should inform our approach.
At the NEC on the 27th, she therefore recommended that:
1. We ask negotiators to now engage in further talks at delegated level to try to secure more money for members on pay
2. Guidance be issued to negotiators on the approach to take in talks at delegated level
3. Our general approach at delegated level be to seek to get as much money as possible implemented on the best possible terms, prioritising the lowest paid.
4. Where the employer fails to make good on the full 5% concession, we retain the option of calling sustained, targeted action in those areas under the national mandate
5. The NDC continues to act as a clearing house for any offers and proposals from the employer before they are put to any ballot.
6. We pause the levy
7. Branches be consulted on options for a motion to next year’s Annual Delegate Conference which proposes an amendment to Supplementary Rule 3.14 (d), to the effect that 50 pence per month figure to be ring fenced for the union’s fighting fund be replaced by an appropriate percentage figure.
8. The consultation details options for that percentage figure and seeks views from branches on their preferred option.
Of those eight recommendations, the NEC agreed only recommendation one. In respect of recommendations 2 to 8, the NEC rejected those recommendations on a majority vote of 17-16.
CONSEQUENCES
The consequences of those decisions were as follows:
* negotiators would now engage in talks at delegated level to try to secure more money for members on pay
* No guidance would be issued to negotiators on the approach to take in talks at delegated level.
* there would be no NEC steer that 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.
* bargaining areas would not be allowed to call sustained, targeted action where the employer fails to make good on the full 5% concession
* the NDC would no longer act as a clearing house for any offers and proposals from the employer before they are put to any ballot – directly affecting and causing detriment to the G4S campaign strategy
* the levy would continue
* branches would not be consulted on options for a motion to next year’s Annual Delegate Conference on building a sustainable fighting fund
GUIDANCE FOR PCS STAFF
In the absence of any guidance to negotiators from the NEC on the approach to take in talks at delegated level, the General Secretary issued guidance to the unions staff on the approach that they should take in the course of dispensing their professional obligations in negotiations this year.
In doing so, she was cognisant of Principal Rule 1(a) of the PCS rule book which states that: “The Union’s Objects shall be to protect and promote the interests of its members.”
The guidance that she has issued ensures that our negotiators are not heading into talks with the employer completely unprepared. It ensures that our negotiators have a steer, based on the PCS rule book, on how to approach matters in order to try to secure as much money as possible for the maximum number of PCS members.
FURTHER U-TURN
Having taken those decisions on 27 August 2024, the NEC met again as scheduled on 3 and 4 September 2024.
During a debate on the G4S dispute in DWP, Left Unity NEC members highlighted how delays in the clearing of ballots on pay offers was now having serious detrimental industrial consequences for our campaigns. The BLN strapline ‘action not words’ was proven to be a misnomer as they had created a week’s delay in the action to move to consultative ballot.
Incredibly, the “Alliance for Change” members claimed that no decision had been taken to stop the NDC acting as a clearing house; and that they had simply voted against the General Secretary’s strategy. As far as they were concerned, no matter the decision made by the majority at the NEC on 27th August, the NDC should have continued with ‘business as usual’.
The General Secretary reminded them that they had rejected a specific recommendation that “The NDC continues to act as a clearing house for any offers and proposals from the employer before they are put to any ballot.” As the NDC acts as a clearing house for ALL proposals, the General Secretary said that the only rational conclusion that could be reached from the rejection of that recommendation was that the NDC would no longer act as a clearing house, reminding the “Alliance for Change” that this recommendation had been moved separately to allow them to make a decision on it, even if they did not agree all eight.
In an astounding U-turn, “Alliance for Change” members then stated they wished to revisit the issue. The National President, recognising that the industrial consequences of their actions had now dawned on them, and recognising that they had clearly not understood the consequences of their previous decision, offered them the opportunity to revisit the General Secretary’s recommendation.
They agreed to do so. Accordingly, the National President re-tested the NEC on the recommendation. This time, the NEC unanimously agreed that the NDC would continue to act as a clearing house for any offers and proposals from the employer before they are put to any ballot.
WHAT IS THE “ALLIANCE FOR CHANGE” PLAYING AT?
It is worth pausing to reflect on these decisions and to ask ourselves just what the “Alliance for Change” is up to.
This is the third major U-turn performed by the new self-styled “NEC majority” on major issues in the national campaign so far this year. In July, they were forced to abandon their ridiculous strategy of having two separate trade disputes on different sets of demands in different employers. In August, having originally refused to allow it, they were forced to accept that negotiators should be allowed to press members interests in delegated talks. Now, in September, having voted to stop the NDC acting as a clearing house for pay offers, they then reversed their position seven days later.
All of those U-turns have been forced by direct pressure from senior lay activists who have left the “Alliance for Change” in no doubt as to the ridiculousness of the decisions that they had taken. It is clear from the speed of their U-turns that their positions have not survived first contact with industrial reality. This is hardly the type of serious leadership that they promised members. Instead, it risks turning the union into a laughing stock.
Even at the point of their U-turns to eventually reach the right conclusion, they have continued to get further consequential decisions wrong. Having finally reached the right conclusion that negotiators should enter talks, they have refused to give any guidance on what our approach should be in those talks. That is an abdication of leadership. Furthermore, they have refused to give negotiators a steer that they should prioritise the lowest paid. This is completely at odds with their claim that they represent the best interests of PCS members. It also leaves their claim to socialist principles in tatters.
They have also continued with their refusal to allow bargaining areas to call sustained, targeted action where the employer fails to make good on the full 5% concession, leaving our reps and members in those areas at the mercy of the employer. This is completely at odds with the “Alliance for Change” claims of industrial militancy. They have now put the union in a position where we are not pursuing any action in respect of the national campaign at all, not even to chase down the concessions won. Their criticisms of the previous NEC’s alleged lack of militancy are ringing very hollow. As are their claims that Left Unity are out of touch with members.
Every decision made by Left Unity members in the Democracy Alliance that has been lost by a tiny majority on the NEC, has been returned by the pressure of senior lay activists
Their original decision that the NDC will no longer act as a clearing house for any offers and proposals from the employer before they are put to any ballot betrays a terrible lack of understanding of how a trade union needs to operate. This decision abandoned the long established process in national campaigns that has enabled us to respond quickly to events while maintaining the fabric of a national dispute. It meant that the General Secretary would have been forced to put every offer received to a full NEC meeting, building serious delays into the process and causing severe frustration for members and activists. This seems at odds with the “Alliance for Change” claims that they would run the union more effectively.
In addition, the levy will continue despite no action being planned. This is obviously at odds with their alleged commitment to caring about members’ living standards; and is a breach of faith with members. We were clear that the levy was to fund targeted, sustained action in relation to the national campaign. If none is being called, it follows that the levy should be paused.
Finally, Branches will not be consulted on options for a motion to next year’s Annual Delegate Conference on building a sustainable fighting fund. This seems at odds with the “Alliance for Change” claims that they want active democracy in the union.
MENTAL GYMNASTICS
Having been confronted with the consequences of their own ineptitude on three successive occasions in consecutive months, the “Alliance for Change” are now engaging in all manner of mental gymnastics in order to try to justify their position.
At the NEC meeting on 27 August 2024, they tabled a number of motions and made a number of contributions which were misinformed at best; and fabrications at worst.
They started by claiming the General Secretary had circulated a view to members that the 5% pay remit should be accepted and that the National Campaign should be abandoned. That is demonstrably untrue. She had, in fact, advocated a serious strategy to progress the national campaign, involving welcoming the concessions won so far on pay, jobs, and redundancy terms.
The ”Alliance for Change” then advocated for their “alternative strategy”. This again amounted to telling the Cabinet Office that 5% is not enough and demanding further talks.
In response, the General Secretary was forced to school “Alliance for Change” members on how the civil service pay remit process works; and on what a serious alternative industrial strategy amounts to. She was forced to explain to apparently oblivious “Alliance for Change” members that we do not have national pay bargaining in the civil service; which is why our national pay claim, a key feature of our national campaign, contains a demand for it.
The General Secretary went on to explain that the period in which we currently can influence the headline figure is during the consultation that takes place with the unions before the remit guidance is published. The headline figure is not a pay offer – the employer considers it a cost control mechanism.
She explained that, once the guidance is issued, the only way to change it is by mounting a serious campaign of industrial action that is sufficient to persuade the government to change it. As nobody on the NEC, including “Alliance for Change” members, believed that this was a possibility, in light of the leverage currently at our disposal, it followed that no alternative strategy had been articulated.
“Alliance for Change” members then claimed that they found themselves in their current dilemma as a result of undemocratic blocking manoeuvres of their strategy by the National President. The role of the National President is to uphold the rules and standing orders. The role of NEC members is to put forward propositions that do not fall foul of those provisions. “Alliance for Change” members have consistently proved themselves to be incapable of doing that. The alternative explanation is that they know very well how to do it, but are constructing motions in such a way that they know they will be ruled out of order, leaving them free to claim that their strategy is being blocked, when, in fact, they do not have one.
That aside, the General Secretary has sought to facilitate a discussion of alternative strategies. She included a specific recommendation in a paper to the NEC meeting on 12 August 2024 to the effect that, in the event that her recommendations did not find favour with the NEC, they were invited to agree an alternative strategy. No serious alternative strategy was forthcoming.
Perhaps in their most bizarre claim of all, the “Alliance for Change” are now claiming that the levy was imposed by the previous NEC without any consultation.
Prior to the national statutory ballot held this year, a consultative ballot of members was held from 20 February to 5 March 2024. It asked three questions, the third of which was: “Would you be prepared to contribute to a levy to fund paid, targeted strike action during any such campaign?”
Further, in the national statutory ballot, the balloting insert contained a section which stated; “We now need to exert maximum pressure on the employer to get them to meet our demands. We are therefore balloting members on strike action. In the event that members vote for action, we will adopt similar tactics to those used so effectively during the last phase of our campaign, namely targeted, sustained strike action funded by a levy.”
A kind interpretation of the claims by the “Alliance for Change” is that they have forgotten all of this. A less kind interpretation is that they are prepared to invent lies to deflect from their failure of leadership.
PROTECTING AND PROMOTING THE INTERESTS OF MEMBERS
Left Unity is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of PCS members, first and foremost. For us, that comes before factional or party interest. The same clearly does not apply to the “Alliance for Change”.
We ask all activists within the union who share our commitment, to work with us to take forward a serious industrial strategy to progress our members’ interests.
PCS Left Unity 