04.05.2011

Can the left win over the members?

National executive candidate Dave Vincent looks forward to the conference of the civil service union

The annual conference of the Public and Commercial Services union takes place during the week of May 16-20, with delegates from the entire union coming together on May 18-20, following the various departmental group conferences. PCS is, of course, significant in that its national executive is dominated by the Socialist Party, while activists of the SP-controlled Left Unity faction will have a large presence on the conference floor. Our general secretary is Mark Serwotka, a militant leftwinger, who heads a union not affiliated to the Labour Party.

Conference takes place less than two months after the fantastic March 26 TUC anti-cuts demonstration (PCS had been amongst those leading the calls for the demo and mobilised a large section of its membership on the day) and when the coalition government’s cuts are clearer and starting to bite. It is certain that both of these will be repeatedly referred to by the NEC and delegates. They will also feature in the speeches of two of the main guests invited to address conference: the usual (and always very popular) John McDonnell MP, and, for the first time, Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite.

Main motions

So let me look briefly at the main expected debates. It is once again very evident that the NEC has looked at the motions from branches and then cobbled its own together in order to lead the discussion in the direction preferred by the SP.

First off will be ‘Protecting public services’, with three main motions condemning the various attacks of the coalition government on education, pensions, public services and the scandal of tax evasion. The NEC’s motion A1 asks for the usual reaffirmation of current policies in the shape of ‘the PCS national campaign’. The actual demands are to seek assurances from the employer on jobs, pensions, pay and public services, failing which we will ballot for national (unspecified) industrial action, timed to achieve maximum unity of action with other unions.

Motion A2 calls for nationalisation of the banks, renationalisation of public utilities and tax justice. To continue building anti-cuts alliances, protests, demonstrations and industrial action, and to raise the issue of a general strike. A3 talks about the creation of a million climate jobs, council house building, is also against privatisation, and has condemnations and demands along the lines of the first two, including for a general strike to be called by the TUC. So far, so SP.

The only motion in this section that will fall if the others are carried is from the department for work and pensions HQ (motion A4), yet I cannot see what is so different from the others about its demands, except for the omission of any call for a general strike. But A1 from the NEC does not mention a general strike either. Odd.

Next we will be setting our policy on pensions - motion A16 calls for opposition to the attacks recommended in the Hutton report. One motion on equality is of particular note: A22 calls for the restoration of the ‘socio-economic duty’ to the Equality Act 2010 (which would have forced public authorities to take disadvantage into account in determining policies, but was removed by this government), while A25 calls for sexually active gay men to be able to give blood to the National Blood Service.

Under ‘Social and economic’ are motions opposing harsher sanctions being applied to claimants (A44), the promotion of a ‘Young Workers United Against Cuts’ campaign (A45, which also opposes cuts to the education maintenance allowance, youth services, the increase in university fees and youth unemployment). Two motions are ranged against each other (A47 and A48) concerning the treatment of the student protestors in November 2010 and the later imprisonment of some. This is contrasted with the violence meted out by the police that went unpunished.

Motion A48 concerns the rise of the English Defence League and calls for support for Unite Against Fascism and other such groups and for mobilisation against the EDL’s expected return to Luton in July 2011.

A94 sees the NEC calling for an end to the pay freeze imposed on the public sector, the re-introduction of national pay bargaining, and “coordinated action on pay”, which avoids mention of any specific ballot on pay alone. I think the intent is to make pay one of the three main issues PCS will be balloting members on - after conference has carried an NEC emergency motion, which we have not yet seen, but have, unusually, been given some advance notice about. Presumably the idea is to warn branches to be ready for a rushed ballot to ensure we can join the action expected to be called by the National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, set for late June. The aim is to maintain the momentum of March 26, following the huge turnout and the very obvious unity on display of workers from different unions - in particular the enthusiastic response to Mark Serwotka’s speech calling for united strike action.

Of real concern is that Unite is not on board and, despite the much hyped ‘joint working agreement’ with PCS, neither is Unison (nor will there be a Unison speaker at conference). Both Unite and Unison are affiliated to the Labour Party and seem more keen on helping Labour get re-elected than rocking the Miliband boat through strike action. We shall see what (if anything) Len McCluskey promises at conference.

The NEC is obviously hoping that united action with the NUT and ATL (and anyone else able to come on board) in late June will have Unison’s and Unite’s ordinary members demanding that their own unions agree to common action later in the year. A rerun of what happened over pensions in 2004 perhaps: PCS first, the rest later, with the Labour government temporarily climbing down to pre-empt united action.

Two concerns - we do not yet know what PCS members think about the proposed June action (and we will not be allowed works time to call them together to build for this); secondly, the NUT has won a ballot for action before - and then called it off because the majority was wafer-thin. The June action would be a huge gamble to take, and not worth it, if either union lost the ballot. It would also set back united action later. The NEC is hoping that even our more passive members (the majority) know the extent of the cuts and will take strike action in the realisation that no job is safe, no office is safe and that Cameron has declared the whole public sector “open for business”.

Other issues

On international issues there are motions about the risings in the Middle East (A135) supporting the peoples of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, backing the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (A136), and supporting the workers of Wisconsin USA (A138).

And what of the PCS policy of standing PCS anti cuts candidates in local and national elections? The aim was to raise publicity for our anti-cuts campaigns and the ‘PCS alternative’ (collect the £120 billion in taxes evaded, avoided and uncollected, scrap Trident, troops out of Afghanistan, not a single job lost, not a single penny off public service budgets).

Not one Democracy Alliance NEC candidate mentioned this aim in their election addresses (the DA is an electoral pact between Left Unity and the PCS Democrats to keep the rightwing ‘4themembers’ from regaining control of the NEC). But I have submitted three motions via my branch on the question of PCS members voting in elections.

E496 calls for the NEC to make the PCS Make Your Vote Count campaign (‘How?’ I keep on asking) more effective by actually recommending to members who they should vote for. The recommendations could be based on candidates’ answers to the “five PCS pledges” they are asked to sign up to.

E497 declares we should also give support to anti-cuts candidates, such as that good friend of PCS, John McDonnell MP (and perhaps Caroline Lucas of the Green Party, etc), as well as standing our own anti-cuts candidates.

Finally we have A143, which details the selection process to be used in nominating and selecting PCS anti-cuts candidates (basically that it be PCS members in the relevant constituencies who decide the candidate, not the SP-dominated NEC).

What is the NEC response? It has cobbled together a long-winded composite (A142), which incorporates and waters down E496 and E497. It intends to stand as few anti-cuts candidates as possible, with the NEC deciding who they will be (SP members, by any chance?). The composite places me in the incredible position of seconding the NEC motion and thereby arguing against our motion A143 - or arguing against two of our own motions in favour of the third! What a stitch-up - which also craftily ensures I get just three minutes to try to explain our three branch motions and my subsequent dilemma, whilst the NEC gets five minutes to move the composite, followed by all the SP’s supporters on the conference floor, and then a three-minute right of reply.

My mandating meeting will discuss this, but I am minded to argue the primacy of PCS members, not the NEC, deciding who our anti-cuts candidates will be.

PCS proclaims itself to be an “organising, member-centred union” - except when it comes to allowing members to make decisions for themselves! This will be one of the main contentious debates of the conference - if, that is, other delegates are concerned about the intended stitch-up of a policy PCS has taken two years to develop, but now seems to be getting very cold feet over without explaining why.

Mischievous

What of the right wing? I am told NEC members voted unanimously for the June action - which must include those belonging to ‘4themembers’, in contrast to the 4tm NEC election statements condemning the NEC as strike-happy.

I can only detect motions from one 4tm branch - the one led by NEC candidate Hubert Gieschen. The first mischievously calls on PCS to affiliate to the Burma Campaign UK (A134), whilst A137 demands that PCS protest against the cuts agenda in Cuba (knowing PCS is affiliated to the Cuba Solidarity Campaign).

So very few 4tm leading lights seem to have put any motions to conference through their branches (though this can also be said of some of the more lightweight Democracy Alliance NEC candidates).

Another controversial motion is A131, calling for PCS to disaffiliate from Abortion Rights - I know many ordinary members would support this, especially with the rise of the religious right in recent years. I will raise this at my mandating meeting, but I wonder how many other delegates will keep quiet about it in order to avoid the argument and landing themselves with the ‘wrong’ mandate?

Finally a ‘looks reasonable’ motion from the NEC (A122) seeks authority to review conference arrangements. This can only mean one thing - reducing the number of delegates branches can send. PCS is generous in branch delegate representation compared to far larger unions. However, the left condemned the right when it led PCS (and the Civil and Public Services Association before it) for moving to biennial NEC elections and national conferences. So will we see the SP-dominated NEC condemn government cuts to save money, while cutting delegate numbers to future PCS conferences, so we can book smaller venues and save money ourselves? It has never been explained quite why PCS has been in the red for the last two years, but was in surplus before that.

As my previous article (‘Push for anti-cuts candidates’, April 21) explained, the elections for the NEC are now in full swing and nowhere in the Democracy Alliance’s glossy election leaflets is there a mention of anyone being a socialist or belonging to Left Unity. Ten years of a left-led NEC, numerous appointments of SP members as full-time PCS negotiation officials controlling departmental group committees, and still they have to hide their politics. They have the activists on board, but they are not making inroads in winning over the passive 85% of members.

So these motions are what you would expect from a left-led, non-Labour-affiliated public sector union in the current climate. Can other Weekly Worker readers submit an analysis of their unions’ conference motions in similar vein? In particular - are Labour-affiliated unions calling for united public sector strike action now - or suppressing action to help Labour get re-elected? Are they making any demands on a future Labour government in return for donations and campaigning for them? Have those witch-hunts of leftwing activists all stopped?