13.11.2008

PCS opts for talks

PCS militant Dave Vincent discusses the mood of workers following the suspension of the civil service pay strike

The Public and Commercial Services union national strike was all set to take place across most of the civil service on Monday November 10. However, an emergency meeting of the PCS national executive took place on the morning of Friday November 7 to consider an offer of talks made by minister for the civil service Gus O’Donnell. By lunchtime PCS sent the message to all activists that the strike was suspended.

The build-up to this strike had seen an unprecedented amount of campaigning material issued by the NEC to branches, direct mailing to members and activists’ meetings called at regional level. Nevertheless, in my ministry of justice branch the news that it had been called off was greeted with huge relief by ordinary members who had been won round to take action out of loyalty, not enthusiasm. Partly this may be explained by the fact that members in the MOJ are the only ones to have had regional pay imposed after a sell-out by the group executive, possibly following the orders of the NEC. It seems the idea was to force MOJ members to abandon group action in favour of supporting the looming national campaign.

The Socialist Workers Party is saying the strike should not have been called off for vague talks without a firm commitment to at least go some way to meet PCS demands: ie, for a return to national collective pay bargaining, and for the separate funding of pay progression increments on top of annual pay rises. This happens across the wider public sector, but only in the civil service are both aspects funded from the same pay budget. One in four PCS members earns less than £16,000 per year and more than half earn less than £20,000.

The ballot produced a majority of only 54% for strike action, although 80% backed action short of a strike (overtime ban, work to rule). The result was described by the union as “a real achievement, considering the economic climate and that the treasury expected PCS to lose”. However, activists feared the 54% result meant that support for the latest action in terms of members actually coming out was going to be significantly lower than for previous strikes and if that were the case it would represent a huge setback for the national campaign.

I attended a meeting for north-west activists in Liverpool on November 3, where the SWP’s Sue Bond, a national vice-president, told us the action was definitely going ahead and urged us to build support. There was no attempt to determine the mood of activists or the level of membership support. Even after I asked that this be done, a number of comrades just repeated the ‘We must build for action’ mantra without saying what the attitude of their members was.

There was no recognition that this strike had commanded the smallest majority for national action in memory and no discussion of what the consequences would be if fewer actually came out as a result. No union mounting the number of strikes PCS does can be seen to be losing support surely.

Also avoided was any explanation of why PCS, by now almost alone (the National Union of Teachers was still balloting and would therefore not be taking action on the same day, as had been hoped), can possibly win - certainly not with a ‘day here, day there’ strategy.

I stated that Unite, Unison and the GMB had already abandoned the public sector unity agreed at the TUC (just weeks ago!) by agreeing to arbitration and therefore bailing out the Labour government, whose party these unions are affiliated to. I was asked what my alternative was and replied that the action should be put off until the new year to see what the climate was then and to see who else may be with us. If that meant another ballot, then that would be no bad thing. Members would either agree action was now unlikely to win or would deliver a higher majority in support - either way we would know where our members really are on this.

Subsequently the NUT announced the result of its ballot - the majority for action was just 51% and its NEC called it off, saying this was too low a mandate. So, after results of 54% for PCS and 51% for the NUT, the SWP is now looking to the ballot of Unite healthworkers to provide the basis for united action (I cannot recall the last time healthworkers took national strike action over pay).

The SWP demands that unions consider the wider interests of the working class and not just their own disputes. But the SWP is well aware that a number of union tops have decided Labour must be re-elected and union resistance to government attacks might cost Labour victory!

General secretary Mark Serwotka, together with the SWP and Socialist Party (whose comrades dominate the NEC), has correctly asserted that workers should not be made to pay for the banking crisis. But the media managed to make workers feel guilty about fighting for a pay rise despite the threat of further job losses and house repossessions. Gordon Brown and the government have increased their popularity by appearing to handle the crisis fairly well. Petrol prices are down, record interest rate cuts will give mortgage-payers more money back, food prices are coming down. If Gordon can get the gas and electricity companies to put off planned increases, it will look like things are not that bad after all. There was even talk of the government going for an early election!

The SP has claimed that ‘the threat of action brought the government to the table’ and ‘members would expect action to be suspended if talks are offered’ (even if no promises are made in advance). While the SP always comes out with this line, I can report that some members in my branch who were originally against strike action admit their surprise at the offer of talks and now realise we need to stick together. They have promised they will support future action.

If, following talks with the treasury, worthwhile concessions are made (with the members judging this, not the NEC), then the strategy will be hailed a success. However, if the talks get nowhere, then action will have to be put back on the agenda. This delay gives PCS time to win more members round to supporting action. I still incline to another ballot after Christmas is out of the way and warning members they may need to fight in 2009. Much will then depend on the economic situation and the confidence of workers.

Ordinary members had been feeling PCS cannot ‘win it alone’. But the surprise offer of talks following our threatened action is leading some to wonder if perhaps we can after all. Let us recall the fact that PCS members voted by a 80% majority for action short of a strike. I think this could well hit the government more than the occasional 24-hour walkout (if it can be delivered!). Perhaps it was the much better supported overtime ban that really brought the government to the table.

The question remains, however, why were the other unions allowed to get away with abandoning the agreed call for public sector unity so easily? Where is the left in those Labour-affiliated unions? I note that, according to Socialist Worker, “the left” in Unite has now agreed to stand a candidate against Derek Simpson for general secretary, despite having backed him last time. They now say he puts the interests of the Labour Party above those of Unite members. Er, didn’t they ask about his Labour Party attitude and record before they backed him in the first place?

Now Socialist Worker wants Unite members to support another Labour Party member who is said to be more leftwing. But what if, at the next general election, it comes down to a choice between mounting strike action against the Labour government and getting that government re-elected? What choice would be made by a new ‘left’ general secretary?

I despair.