07.04.2004

PCSU: Winning strategy needed

The two-day strike by members of the Public and Commercial Services Union working in the Department for Work and Pensions will go ahead on April 13 and 14 - despite the claim of DWP permanent secretary Sir Richard Mottram that “the dispute is over”.

He dismissed the PCSU action in support of its pay claim as “pointless”, since the department has now imposed the second phase - just as it had the first in November. It has also imposed a new appraisal scheme, which will further hit pay packets. All this comes on top of the major job cuts announced in last month’s budget. The DWP employs 140,000 staff, of which around 93,000 are union members (an increase of some 11,000 since last October).

Management has not moved on either salaries or appraisal since the last strike in February, but the pay offer made then has been rejected out of hand by the union’s DWP executive. Management says it amounts to 5%, while the union is claiming the offer is only worth 2.6%. In reality it would probably work out at about 3.5% on average. Management is offering further talks on appraisal, but insists that in the meantime the new scheme must come into effect.

Whereas under the old system most members would expect at least a B marking, now under ‘relative assessment’ the majority will only qualify for a C. Instead of judging each individual solely on ‘merit’ (whatever the obvious problems with this), management is now insisting that no more than 10% can be awarded an A marking and no more than 30% can qualify for a B. As each individual’s annual pay award is linked to these ‘box markings’, 60% of members will be held to the lowest rise. By linking a greater proportion of the pay packet to individual performance, management hopes to stymie collective resistance and sideline the union.

Our boycott of the imposed scheme has been biting. Appraisals should have been carried out in March, but the vast majority were not done thanks to the members’ action. This caused something of a crisis for management and there will now undoubtedly be a test of wills, since the employer is now stating that cooperation with the new system is a requirement of the job. It remains to be seen whether members will stand firm and continue refusing to cooperate with their appraisal interviews, etc, under this threat of discipline.

Unfortunately, however, the Socialist Party-dominated union leadership in the DWP has no strategy for winning the dispute. After a two-month gap since the last 48-hour strike, we are simply repeating the tactic, with no idea of where we go afterwards. The work to rule has had some effect in social security offices and pension centres, but in job centres it has been much more limited because of the nature of the work.

We in the left opposition Socialist Caucus have been arguing that the gap between walkouts was far too long. We have also suggested more imaginative forms of industrial action. Something like a half-day walkout for a whole week would be more effective. After two days out, members return and slowly work their way through the backlog until they catch up. We have also argued for week-long actions in particular sections of the DWP, allowing for workers to receive strike pay. This would certainly hit management’s targets.

Because of the lack of imagination and strategy - Mark Serwotka, for example, talks about a “long haul” - members are not necessarily inspired that we are going to win, which could mean some falling away of support. There is no real feeling for all-out action at present, but it might become necessary - and possible - if our members can see we have a viable strategy. As many are so poorly paid, they do not have big savings and would find extended strikes difficult.

That is why it is doubly unfortunate that the union has failed to contribute to branch hardship funds. I have proposed that a one-off payment of £1 per member should be paid to branches from central funds. A lump sum of, say, £500 paid to a branch would enable it to deal with cases of particular hardship. But instead of investing £93,000 in this way, the union has preferred to spend £80,000 on a shopping guide and £40,000 on gold badges for long service to the PCSU.

A commitment by the union leadership to contribute to hardship funds would send out a message to members and management alike that it is serious about winning the dispute. It would also act as a boost to encourage branches to raise funds themselves. Some are already collecting money - I have just come back from a trades council meeting where I urged other unions to support us - but an injection from headquarters would have given a kick-start. After all, with 300,000 members the PCSU has in excess of £2 million coming in every month.

The majority of those members are women and we have a large number of part-timers, but they are equally supportive of the action. However, a two-day strike can have a disproportionate effect on part-timers - perhaps the two days fall when a particular individual is off work anyway or perhaps they coincide with two of their three days at work that week. It is made more difficult, of course, by the fact that only two-thirds of DWP staff are in the union, despite the recent increase in membership.

However, our biggest handicap is the absence of any viable strategy on the part of the leadership. Elections to the executive are taking place in May and this fact is hanging over the conduct of the dispute. On the one hand, the leadership does not want to be seen to call the action, but, on the other, there is a fear of trying to take it forward - failure costs votes.