14.04.2004

Boost to action

Up to 100,000 members of the Public and Commercial Services Union walked out on another 48-hour strike over April 13-14, writes Lee Rock

The support held up well, compared to February’s two-day action, with around the same numbers as last time following the union’s call, although we have been helped to some extent by the fact that, this being Easter week, more people had applied for annual leave to coincide with the school holidays - around 80% of staff in some departments are women, many of whom will be prime carers. The atmosphere on the picket line has been good, despite the obvious lack of direction of the dispute so far. Will we be called out for another two days after a couple of months once again?

The biggest number of strikers - around 90,000 - were those employed by the department for work and pensions (DWP), and they were joined by 5,000 administration and training staff from the prison service and 2,000 workers from the office for national statistics (ONS). There is one factor which links the three disputes - the imposition of a pay settlement for 2003 by management. For the DWP the pay award is worth just over three percent on average, while prison members have had a one percent cost of living payment imposed and ONS workers a package worth less than three percent.

It is no coincidence that all three disputes have developed in the same way. The various departments have been instructed by the government to settle for a maximum of 3.5% - with or without union agreement. But the Socialist Party-dominated union leadership has hit back in what could turn out to be a morale-boosting move.

For years the left has been demanding a national pay campaign and I am pleased to say - even before the 2003 disputes have been settled - the PCSU has launched a 2004 claim for 3.5% across the board, for all members in all departments. While this is a very low figure - the minimum salary would still only be £13,500 - it does at least represent an attempt to overcome the divide-and-rule splintering of the membership into over 200 bargaining units.

Of course, no department is genuinely ‘independent’ when it comes to negotiating pay rounds: budgets are fixed centrally. For instance, after the treasury solicitors seemed to have reached agreement following their dispute earlier this year, the deal was suddenly withdrawn because it was not to the liking of the government. The idea has been to weaken the union and restrict its ability to coordinate action across the whole civil service. This has resulted in a situation where identically evaluated jobs are paid differently according to the government department or agency concerned. For example, an administration officer in one section may receive up to £3,000 more than an AO in another.

The union is now talking about suing the DWP for its imposition of a new ‘relative assessment’ appraisal system. The PCSU’s solicitors have advised that this is in breach of members’ individual contracts, since the DWP is not entitled to impose unilateral changes relating to agreed methods. This development might also serve to boost members’ morale and hold up management’s plans.

In one sense, appraisal is a bigger issue than pay, since an attempt using dubious means to deny members what has come to be regarded as the entitlement of an annual bonus for performance has produced a great deal of bitterness, even though the sums are comparatively small. Under management’s imposed scheme, only 10% of staff will receive the top marking, and therefore the biggest bonus, irrespective of their actual performance, because of a predetermined ratio.

The leadership’s attempt to bring together negotiations across the whole of the civil service is an excellent development, but in the meantime we are still left struggling with our separate disputes in the here and now. We desperately need a more imaginative strategy along the lines proposed by the Socialist Caucus left opposition.