What's going on on the PCS NEC?

[cockneyrebel]

Reject Cynical Posturing

These types of strategic considerations are foreign to some, including the two NEC members who opposed the deal, one voting against and the other abstaining. They find it difficult to take any responsibility for making the type hard decisions any leadership, particularly left leaderships, need to take. Nor do they offer any alternative whatsoever knowing their position would not have the support of even a tiny percentage of members. Almost every PCS activist understands that members would not vote to take the type of extensive strike action required to win a complete victory, given that their own pensions have been secured. To argue for rejection of the deal when there is no prospect of delivering action to get a better one is simply posturing.

It is worth posing the question sharply - whose interests would be served by rejecting this deal? To reject would mean losing the deal itself and losing the support of members. It would be a propaganda gift to the right wing in the union and endanger the continuing leadership of PCS by the left. Only New Labour, the CBI and the enemies of campaigning, socialist leadership would win in such circumstances.

Overall the lesson learned by young people is not that the unions have sold them out but that the united strength of the unions can protect conditions. Future attacks will come but so will future opportunities will as well. The idea future generations are being sold out is mistaken and defeatist. The necessity for agreements to be reached on the balance of forces at any given time does not preclude winning further and even better concessions in the future.

Build For The Future

PCS will not only fight to secure the best possible deal for new entrants but also continue to campaign for fair pensions for all.

The balance of forces has perceptibly shifted in favour of the unions by this deal and we must use that to build for future campaigns. The PCS NEC will be at the forefront of defending and improving members interests and will lead the way not only in defending current arrangements but pressurising the TUC to widen the scope of the campaign to include private sector unions and support fair state pension provision.

We will continue to show full support to workers in local government and PCS is writing to their unions this week to re-affirm this. Members in local government and elsewhere are rightly demanding the same deal and we will do all we can support them.

Members, reps and branches can be rightly proud of what we have all achieved so far. The Left Unity and Democracy Alliance NEC working with members and branches have delivered a substantial material gain for over 300,000 members and reaffirmed the basic principle that belonging to a union is in the best interests of workers.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And that the current leadership simply do not believe that members have the stomach for any kind of serious fight with the Government.

Are they wrong?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Are they wrong?

The SP dominated NEC has organised a one day strike in the face of 100,000 job losses. I think the PCS membership sould have been up for more than that.

On pensions, surely the point is that NEC should at least ballot the membership to find out and try encourage the membership to take strike action, not give out "this is the best you're gonna get" ultimatum.

Instead they try and and cover up the fact that the "alliance" has been shafted and local government workers have been left out in the cold. And secondly that the government has got away with adding 5 years to peoples working lives without a single bit of industrial action. And given the "flexible job market" that now operates I should think that will end up being the case for most existing members as well.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The SP dominated NEC has organised a one day strike in the face of 100,000 job losses. I think the PCS membership sould have been up for more than that..

So they're likely to take the same line on "our pensions are safe" as on "our jobs are going to go"?

 

[cockneyrebel]

So they're likely to take the same line on "our pensions are safe" as on "our jobs are going to go"?

I don't think you've read the whole post.

 

[belboid]

And that the current leadership simply do not believe that members have the stomach for any kind of serious fight with the Government.

Are they wrong?

Hard to say without asking them isn't it? I'm sure the SP (and other) members will have had some consultation with members, but they don't actually say that anywhere in the statement.

I suspect, only from the few PCS people I've spoken too, that any ballot would vote to accept the deal - but unless there was a concerted attempt by the leadership to argue against it, that is always likely to be the case, dont you think?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Hard to say without asking them isn't it?

Maybe, but there's no point in going to the members with recommendations for action that they have no stomach for. It would be an empty gesture. And to be honest, I don't think either of us believes it's that "hard to say".

 

[cockneyrebel]

Maybe, but there's no point in going to the members with recommendations for action that they have no stomach for. It would be an empty gesture. And to be honest, I don't think either of us believes it's that "hard to say".

But you're taking this in isolation. The SP leadership and Mark Serwotka have passively accepted everything. 100,000 job losses have been met with a one day strike, and now five years have been added to people's working lives with no industrial action at all. They are creating a culture of defeatism.

By your logic we will just have to accept an ever downwards spiral, and just try to slow it down a bit on the way.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

But you're taking this in isolation. The SP leadership and Mark Serwotka have passively accepted everything. 100,000 job losses have been met with a one day strike, and now five years have been added to people's working lives with no industrial action at all. They are creating a culture of defeatism.

No, they're negotiating what they can with what support they can obtain from the members, and not pretending that they can get them out then they can't. It's not defeatism if the members think they've secured a good deal by standing firm, and plainly they do.

 

[articul8]

Don't you see dangers in the PCS pressing ahead to the extent that it becomes largely isolated, and an easy target for the government to tackle head on?

(After all, if the NUM - with all its history of militancy and key strategic/economic position couldn't defeat a government in isolation despite the fact that their entire industry - and whole communities - were threatened, what makes you think the PCS (in a period of even greater diminished union authority) could do so today?)

I understand the impatience and frustration - and no doubt the agreement is a long way from perfect - but nevertheless it does look like meaningful concessions have been made, and this being the case, aren't the membership likely to have more confidence in a Union leadership leading them into future battles? I would guess its a judgement made on the balance of forces at the present time, and not necessarily one I'd disagree with.

 

[cockneyrebel]

No, they're negotiating what they can with what support they can obtain from the members, and not pretending that they can get them out then they can't. It's not defeatism if the members think they've secured a good deal by standing firm, and plainly they do.

You're not listening. I'm saying that you can't look at things in isolation. The whole culture the SP leadership has created is one of defeatism.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I understand the impatience and frustration - and no doubt the agreement is a long way from perfect - but nevertheless it does look like meaningful concessions have been made, and this being the case, aren't the membership likely to have more confidence in a Union leadership leading them into future battles? I would guess its a judgement made on the balance of forces at the present time, and not necessarily one I'd disagree with.

The same arguments are being used to justify only have one day of action in the face of 100,000 job losses.

In reality most current members will end up losing out as well, because they won't stay in the same job for the rest of their lives.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You're not listening. I'm saying that you can't look at things in isolation. The whole culture the SP leadership has created is one of defeatism.

No, I'm listening, but I'm disagreeing with you.

 

[cockneyrebel]

A so called revolutionary leadership of the PCS has a duty to at least try and point out to the members that this is not a good deal.

But they don't, they just say it's great, and nothing much else.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

A so called revolutionary leadership of the PCS has a duty to at least try and point out to the members that this is not a good deal.

But they don't, they just say it's great, and nothing much else.

To that extent I might agree - and I suspect the members might as well, insofar as everybody knows a two-tier workforce is asking for trouble. But there is absolutely no point in making rhetorical calls for action that won't happen. All that leads to is the left looking stupid and the right getting elected. I went through that in CPSA in the late Eighties - no thanks.

 

[knopf]

It's very easy to stand on the sidelines & squeal "sell-out." But fuck it, here goes: -

SELL-OUT!!11!!!!!11111!!!!!!

 

[cockneyrebel]

To that extent I might agree - and I suspect the members might as well, insofar as everybody knows a two-tier workforce is asking for trouble. But there is absolutely no point in making rhetorical calls for action that won't happen. All that leads to is the left looking stupid and the right getting elected. I went through that in CPSA in the late Eighties - no thanks.

The SP is not even trying to convince the membership that it is a bad deal, they are saying it's a good deal.

Now until you ballot the membership, you can't know what they're gonna say. And in the run up to the ballot you try and convince as many members as possible that the deal should be rejected.

At least when the shit hits the fan in the future (which it will, this will lead members to being far more exposed to attacks in the future), you can point out where things went wrong in the past. Where as if you told members it was a great deal and did nothing to try and convince them otherwise, as the leadership you would be held responsible.

As said the SP leadership are meant to be revolutoinary socialists. As such they should at least try and be honest about what the deal is and what action they think should be taken. This includes fighting for a no vote.

By your logic you'd never fight for anything unless it could be won there and then.

If the membership votes no anyway, you've lost very little.

 

[belboid]

Now until you ballot the membership, you can't know what they're gonna say. And in the run up to the ballot you try and convince as many members as possible that the deal should be rejected.

I'd agree with the rest of your post, but not this bit.

Most of these reps will have some kind of 'network' they can refer to (not just the groups they belong to) amonst the people who elected them. In this situation you would expect them to have held sdiscussions with those people to see what the 'mood' about the deal was. They should be able to make a judgement from that - including as to whether people could be swayed by the argument being made.

 

[Groucho]

Take a deap breath. Here's an essay for the two of you who are interested....

The backdrop is that the Government has launched a major three-pronged attack on the Public Sector. Jobs, pay, pensions.

A jobs massacre amounting in the CS to 140,000 job cuts. Most of these will in reality be privatisations and outsourcing which will cost tax payers more for less.

An assault on pay; in the CS through creation of Agencies with devolved pay and conditions and relocations to break up the unity of CS unions.

Pensions. An assault on the pension age and laying the groundwork for detrimental changes to acrual v contributions.

Mark Serwotka and the PCS NEC have played a very commendable role in linking these issues within an overall framework campaign strategy, but have failed to follow through. They have played an even more important role in negotiations with other public sector union heads to launch a joint public sector campaign on these issues, but have held off from breaking from the other union leaders through fear of isolation.

On Nov 5th 2004 PCS organised a CS wide strike. The first of its kind since the break up of central bargaining. It was well supported by PCS members. The NL Govt. made some 'concessions' on jobs and some conciliatory noises on pay. Neither of which amounted to much but which gave the union some words to throw back at Ministers in the future.

My criticism of Nov 5th was that it was an isolated one day one off strike. Had the ballot been for discontinuous action further strikes could have been called. Apart from the Nov 5 action, CS groups have been left to fight seperately on jobs and pay. Action in the DWP forced further concessions on implimentation of job cuts. Promised campaigning rallies have largely faltered on the rocks on internal union bureaucracy.

Earlier this year ballots were held across public sector unions for a joint one day strike across the public sector. For PCS the issues were jobs, pay and pensions, but the unity (excluding a few unions, such as PROSPECT) had been won on the pensions issue, and this headlined the build up to the action. Even the FDA balloted for a half day strike (FDA = senior Civil Servants). The Govt. panicked and withdrew their deadlines and agreed to negotiate on the issue rather than to impose changes. This met the demands of the UNISON trade dispute. Unions called the strike off. The last to do so was PCS. The PCS NEC felt that it was more important to maintain unity with the other unions than to strike seperately in a simple repeat of the Nov 5th strike. This time the action had been for discontinuous action and the decision to call the strike off terminated the mandate for further action.

Negotiations on the pensions issue were taken forwards on the basis of a solid united public sector union front backed by a genuine threat of generalised strike action. The Govt. were clearly rattled by such a prospect. The New Labour friendly TU leaders like Prentis were under pressure from their members and realised that they would have great difficulty selling a cop out to their members, while PCS were demonstrating a solid commitment to take on the Govt. as necessary. (Some unions, such as PROSPECT always maintained that strikes were out of the question, but few could hold this line.)(Even the FDA There was widespread support across unions from members for a united response and for strikes.

The Govt. offered concessions during talks that TU leaders were prepared to accept, but the PCS leadership were adamant did not go far enough. PCS managed to hold the line. Eventually the Govt offered the pensions deal we have before us. The deal (claims it) protects key groups of existing employees in return for selling the pension age for future workers. All union leaderships conceded.

The alternative of generalised strike action to win all demands has not been considered do-able by union leaders. For New Labour-friendly union leaders the issue is in part an unwilingness to rock NLs boat. For PCS leaders the issue is fear of isolation and losing the deal on offer.

Meanwhile in the CS Defra fights on alone against pay delegation (strike last Friday, ongoing work to rule/OT ban). DSA taking action against job cuts. DWP about to ballot over jobs.

The deal represents a significant climbdown by the Govt. The right-wing press and CBI are thoroughly pissed off. The concessions to existing workers were made by a weak unpopular Govt. terrified of generalised strike action. But the deal plays on the weakness of the TU movement by playing to short term sectional interests and operates a divide and rule strategy. The deal delivers three blows to the union movement. It creates a two tier workforce on pensions that will render promises to existing workers ever more precarious as time goe on. It breaks the public sector unity by insisting on sectoral negotiations whilst leaving key sectors, such as local Govt. workers and the FBU out of the deal. It denies workers their chance to take united action to role back the attacks on the public sector, of which pensions forms just a part.

The deal should be rejected. We have a duty to defend hard fought for gains for working people across generations. We have a duty to build on strength through unity rather than to fall back on sectional interests. We have the power to win if only we mobilise our strength.

Where now?

There is massive discontent amongst workers and a willingness to take action if offered a lead. There is a significant lack of confidence in kicking off action (resulting in some of the lowest strike figures ever). There is of course, a lack of an organised and confident rank and file that could apply pressure to the TU bureaucracy to call action, and that could act independantly where the TU leaders fail to give a lead. Such R&F organisation can never be wished into existance; it is built through actual struggles. The left is too focused on the TU bureaucracy. The TU bureaucracy is too close to NL.

We need a political alternative that challenges the NL influence in the unions, we need to concentrate on building the confidence of workers to demand action. We need to break the strangle-hold of a conservative TU bureaucracy. With the union leaders whenever they rightly represent the workers. Against them when they do not.

In the case of the Left Unity dominated PCS NEC/leadeship which includes SP members, RESPECT supporters and others the issue is not one of battling a bunch of right-wing sell out merchants. These people are long term activists who genuinly ant to advance the interests of the workers. They are not likely to get, nor do they want to be knighted with a place in the House of Lords. Mark Serwotka is one of the best TU leaders this country has seen. But this should not mean uncritical unity on the left.

Unity across public sector unions needs to be built on and strengthened from the bottom up. Activists need to maintain their critical faculties without sinking into the quagmire of sectarianism.

The prospect of public sector union united action is not off the agenda. It needs to be fought for rigourously by all activists and it needs to be sooner rather than later.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

There is massive discontent amongst workers and a willingness to take action if offered a lead.

Haven't we heard this many times before? I just don't believe it's so.

 

[articul8]

The left is too focused on the TU bureaucracy. The TU bureaucracy is too close to NL.

We need a political alternative that challenges the NL influence in the unions,

Don't want to steal anyone's thunder on this, but aren't you in the SWP? I take it from the above observation that you disagree with the SWP's decision to back a member of New Labour against Roger Bannister in the UNISON gen sec elections - the latter, a candidate who clearly called for the unions - including his own - to fund candidates to the left of New Labour? This is not a sectarian point - I have no axe to grind. It is a question of not saying one thing and doing another.

Unity across public sector unions needs to be built on and strengthened from the bottom up. Activists need to maintain their critical faculties without sinking into the quagmire of sectarianism.

The prospect of public sector union united action is not off the agenda. It needs to be fought for rigourously by all activists and it needs to be sooner rather than later.

I quite agree - which begs the question - why did the SWPers on the exec vote to accept the deal - presumably they are closer to the mood of the rank and file than people speculating from outside?

 

[Groucho]

Haven't we heard this many times before? I just don't believe it's so.

When has a recent ballot for action resulted in a no vote? How many requests for ballots have been turned down? How many yes votes for action have been used simply as a bargaining tool without action being called?

I don't have reliable data on these Qs but I venture i. Rarely. ii. Many iii. All too often!

On Nov 5th 2004 CS workers struck but also marched. The numbers surprised everyone. At the London rally after 100s sat listening to speach after speach after speach it was opened to the floor. A young worker from the British library - not a member of any group, first ever strike, called for a general strike and the place errupted in applause. There was tremendious enthusiasm for the idea of united action in the run up to the election - after a yes vote action called off. On the day that the PCS NEC decided to call off their strike I was sitting in a PCS meeting with50 or so coleagues. The decision was universally condemned.

In recent years where credible candidates to the left of Labour have stood in union elections they have mostly won elections. This is an indication of a certain mood for change.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Ah yes, but don't judge the rest of the country by the mood in London rallies. I used to travel down from Oxford when I was a rep, in the late Eighties, and go to those very same rallies. When everybody then started calling for national all-out strikes I had to point out that my chances of winning that, in what was a decently-organised branch, were nil.

 

[Groucho]

Ah yes, but don't judge the rest of the country by the mood in London rallies. I used to travel down from Oxford when I was a rep, in the late Eighties, and go to those very same rallies. When everybody then started calling for national all-out strikes I had to point out that my chances of winning that, in what was a decently-organised branch, were nil.

In the late 80s I was a CPSA rep in Guildford. In 1987 I stood on the picket line in the rain watching car after car go in to work.

Last Friday the Defra Guildford office was shut down on strike. The York office was shut. The Exeter office was shut. The Carlise office was shut. The Workington office was shut....

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The sound of silence.....

Not at all. You posted up the Left Unity statement on the issue which made an eloquent case for accepting the deal. This is an important though only partial victory. In particular I think the section below very effectively deals with the kind of "fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood" posturing which certain people like to engage in:

Rejecting the deal would mean its withdrawal and would shatter the unity built by the hard efforts of PCS as some unions signed up to the deal and others did not. In fact it would raise the very real, arguably inevitable prospect of PCS being left isolated as the unions representing the bulk of health and teaching workers accepted the deal.

Yet, even this is in some respects secondary to the reality that PCS members would see its union's refusal of an agreement that protected their pensions as an act of madness that would result in major, crippling division within PCS. In such circumstances the Government and its press allies would show no mercy and not only would we lose any concessions on pensions but the job cuts agenda would be pursued with greater vigour with our union divided from top to bottom.

These types of strategic considerations are foreign to some, including the two NEC members who opposed the deal, one voting against and the other abstaining. They find it difficult to take any responsibility for making the type hard decisions any leadership, particularly left leaderships, need to take. Nor do they offer any alternative whatsoever knowing their position would not have the support of even a tiny percentage of members. Almost every PCS activist understands that members would not vote to take the type of extensive strike action required to win a complete victory, given that their own pensions have been secured. To argue for rejection of the deal when there is no prospect of delivering action to get a better one is simply posturing.

As an aside I note that the other organised group within Left Unity, the Socialist Caucus appears to have split three ways on the deals. SC involves some smaller left groups and some independents. There are three SC members on the NEC and they appear to have voted three different ways - one for, one abstaining and one against.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Fab! I used to be in Socialist Caucus and that's exactly what we would normally expect to do.

 

[Groucho]

In particular I think the section below very effectively deals with the kind of "fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood" posturing which certain people like to engage in:

The New Labour Govt. announced an intention to sack 140,000 Civil Servants, further break up pay bargaining, increase privatisation, create more Agencies on devolved pay and conditions, and change the pension age in the public sector from 60 to 65.

The CS union has been led by the left for nearly two years. They were elected on a platform of adhering to conference policy and leading resistance to New Labour attacks. Conference has mandated them to lead a fight to return to national pay bargaining to include national industrial action, protecting the pension age of 60 with no detriment for all Civil Servants including new entrants, lead a battle including national action to halt privatisation, outsourcing, redundancies and relocation.

In that time more pay bargaining areas have been created, more areas have been privatised, more agencies have been created, and the pensions age for new entrants is now to be increased from 60 to 65 years.

The union balloted for a one day CS wide strike that was well supported in Nov 5th 2004. No further national action has been called, although a subsequent national ballot in favour of discontinuous action was squandered. There are no plans for further national action, instead everything has been pushed back to the groups. Groups like Defra and DCA have balloted in favour of action (no SP influence there). Offices are scheduled to close, workers have been issued with redundancy notices....

..and those who call for more action are denounced for 'posturing'.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

..and those who call for more action are denounced for 'posturing'.

Well, not "denounced", no. But there's a world of difference between recognising that deal is going to cause much trouble in the future, and calling for strikes against that deal that are simply not going to happen.

 

[Sorry.]

Well, not "denounced", no. But there's a world of difference between recognising that deal is going to cause much trouble in the future, and calling for strikes against that deal that are simply not going to happen.

But what exactly is the point of a "vanguard" that keeps quiet when it really thinks the union needs to fight?

Surely when the reality of the deal becomes clear, you're left either telling members either that everything is still fine or contradicting yourself. Either way not exactly a brilliant advert for revolutionary socialism.

I'm not sure exactly what the harm in 'posturing' would have been...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I'm not sure exactly what the harm in 'posturing' would have been...

Because, as I said in a posting above, if it's what you do then the membership comes to the conclusion that you're detached from reality and votes in Marion Chambers, John Ellis and Barry Reamsbottom.