Government shelves equal pay audits

In 2008 the Lib Dem equality spokesperson Lynne Featherstone talking about the Equalities Bill said "Efforts to tackle entrenched inequality are welcome, but serious questions must be asked about why the private sector is getting off so lightly."

"A voluntary audit system for private industry is hardly worth the paper it's printed on. We need to know when the government actually plans to step in if progress isn't made."


The ConDem coalition has announced that compulsory audits to close the gender pay gap have been abandoned, instead, companies will be asked to disclose their pay figures voluntarily.

These plans were announced today by Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone.

Today, she said: “We want to move away from the arrogant notion that government knows best, to one where government empowers individuals, businesses and communities to make change happen.”
"Different organisations face different challenges in promoting equality so if we are to get this right for everybody a much more flexible approach is needed."

The coalition are undermining fair pay and a fair society.

Publication of Fair Pay Review Interim Report

The Fair Pay Review undertaken by Will Hutton published its Interim Report on the 1^st December 2010. 

Having a fair pay system attracts the best employees, enabling innovation and skill and business development. It retains employees reducing turn over, loss of business critical skills and recruiting costs.

We would suggest that “Fairness” in all aspects of employment contribute to the success of an organisations performance whether that is in the Public or Private Sector and impacts beneficially on our economy.

The Fair Pay Review Interim Report acknowledges this “There is abundant evidence that fair organisations are high performing organisations. Organisations are above all social affairs that depend on everyone pulling together to achieve common ends; front line workers and those in the middle of the organisation need to be motivated and engaged if the organisation is to perform. They will do so much more if they feel they work for a fair employer, and that their managers belong to the same committed ethos. The benefits of fairness extend to the wider economy and society. Britain, like every other advanced modern economy, needs a high performing public sector not just to ensure value for money for taxpayers but because there is a co-dependence between private and public. The public sector is the co-creator of wealth, from public investment in science, education and skills through to sustaining the soft infrastructure that underpins private innovation and investment. It is the custodian of the countries social settlement and preserves law and order. A second or third class public sector can only damage the wider economy and society”.

The premise that the Fair Pay Review should assess how we tackle pay inequalities between top executive pay and the rest of the workforce should be welcomed. However; the Interim Report does not appear to address the key “fair pay” issues facing people working in the public sector.

Those key issues include:

• A two year pay freeze equating to a pay cut
• Almost half (48%) of civil servants are in admin grades where the average (median) pay in 2009 was £17,120 for women and £17,600 for men
• Excluding the very highest earners, the average civil service pension is £4,200 a year.
• More than 100,000 people receive a civil service pension of £2,000 or less a year: over 40,000 receive less than £1,000, and more than 60,000 get between £1,000 and £2,000
• Half a million Public sector jobs to be cut under the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010
• The Civil Service Compensation scheme being ripped apart to cut jobs on the cheap

 

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'At a time when average earnings are failing to keep pace with inflation and many workers are facing pay freezes, FTSE 100 directors saw their total earnings boosted by a massive 45 per cent last year. It is hard to talk about 'fair pay' when there is such a gulf between shop-floor and boardroom rewards.'

We would add “it is impossible to trust a report commissioned by the Con-Dem coalition who are destroying the public sector, the services they provide and economy in which they operate”.

The interim report has not addressed any of the key issues facing fair pay in the public sector.

Human rights committee sides with PCS against cuts

An influential parliamentary committee has criticised the government's plans to cut civil service redundancy pay as being in breach of human rights legislation, after evidence submitted by PCS.

The human rights joint committee said the government had not made the case for imposing caps on payments under the civil service redundancy scheme, which governs the terms available to civil servants who are made redundant either by compulsion or agreement.

The committee has scrutinised the superannuation bill which is currently going through parliament and is scheduled to have its report stage in the House of Lords tomorrow (1 December).

Its findings support the union’s case that because civil servants have accrued a right to certain redundancy terms through their length of service, this is classed as a “possession” for the purposes of human rights law, and should not be “interfered with” unless there is an over-riding public interest.

The committee says the government has failed to explain the justification for applying arbitrary caps that would severely limit payments.

---

Read the human rights committee's report

Find out how minister reneged on pledge

Read a timeline of the negotiations 

---

The previous government’s attempt to impose a new redundancy scheme was struck down by the High Court earlier this year following a successful judicial review taken by the union.

Last week PCS accused Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude of misleading MPs when he claimed in parliament that the union had declined invitations to negotiate. In fact, the government has refused an offer to meet to discuss an alternative proposal for reform of the compensation scheme.

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: “Every time this or the previous government’s plans to cut civil service redundancy pay have been tested against legislation, they have been found to be unlawful.

“As by far the largest civil service union, we are committed to opposing these cuts, and we say again to the government that it’s time to stop attacking its own workforce and talk to us about agreeing a fair scheme that protects people’s rights.”

PCS ballot to reject government offer after minister reneges on promise of further talks

We are balloting PCS members on the rejection of the government’s proposed cuts in the civil service compensation scheme. The ballot will start on 7 December and end on 14 January.

Following our industrial action earlier this year, the High Court ruled the previous government had acted unlawfully when it introduced a new scheme - without PCS consultation - which cut members’ accrued rights as required by the 1972 Superannuation Act.

Following the High Court ruling we wrote to the Cabinet Office offering negotiations to agree a fair and legal deal. Since then talks have been taking place between the Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) and the Cabinet Office to see if agreement could be reached on a new scheme.

However, the government has introduced legislation in parliament which would change the 1972 Superannuation Act to remove the need to agree detrimental changes with the unions.

The talks with the Cabinet Office have therefore been conducted under the threat of legislation: the government has attempted to use the superannuation bill as a blunt bargaining tool to influence the negotiating process.

The PCS position has been very clear: that we have been always prepared to negotiate to reach agreement, but any agreement should be fair to all parties, recognise the accrued rights held by all civil service staff and be fair to new entrants to the civil service.

 

Government proposals

 

The government has issued final proposals, despite PCS and the Prisojn OFficers' Association writing to the minister for the civil service, Francis Maude MP, making suggestions on an agreement which would be both fair and affordable. Mr Maude had previously told the House of Commons that his government would “strain every sinew” towards achieving a negotiated scheme supported by all six trade unions. He had told PCS and the POA that further proposals from the unions would lead to talks.

Instead, the Cabinet Office has decided to impose terms which four other unions - Prospect, FDA, Unite and GMB, representing a minority of civil servants - have settled for. PCS (by far the largest civil service union) and POA (the second largest) represent more than three times the civil and public servants covered by the CSCS than the other unions combined.

The government’s proposals would cap payments at 12 months for compulsory redundancy and 21 months for voluntary exits. The union believes the government’s plans unfairly discriminate against lower and middle paid staff under the age of 50 and disproportionately favour higher paid staff.

The Treasury has imposed a cost envelope – a total amount of money that would set the parameters of any agreement. The details have not been explained. We believe, however, that the costs have been calculated on the basis of the large numbers of jobs the government plans to cut.

The terms on offer are so significantly detrimental to the overwhelming majority of members - at a time of imminent attacks on our jobs - that the union could not agree to the government’s proposals.

 

Ballot

 

Our national executive has decided we should ballot members on the government’s proposals with a recommendation to reject them. The ballot will start on 7 December and end on 14 January.

The POA will also ballot its members and is considering the same timetable as PCS.

The ballot will also contain a question on support for the union’s national campaign. Members will also be asked if they support the aims of our campaign based on the defence of jobs, pay pensions and public services.

Our campaign for an alternative to the government’s cuts programme is inextricably linked to our work to achieve a fair agreement on the CSCS.

We are continuing to lobby MPs, to campaign widely with other unions against these changes and to press Ministers to reopen talks. We are also taking further legal action to defend members’ rights, under the Human Rights Act. Further industrial action would be considered as a last resort.

 

Branches are urged to:

 

• Make plans for members’ meetings and other face to face contact to build a 'yes' vote. A flyer for members and a speakers' briefing will be issued shortly
• Encourage members to write to their MPs asking them to lobby on our behalf against the new CSCS legislation
• Sign up to our e-action and continue to use social networking and the local media to protest at these proposals.

Building a large 'yes' vote on rejecting the government’s cuts in the CSCS, and a large 'yes' vote for the aims of our national campaign, is vital to strengthening us in the fight to defend jobs, pensions, pay and public services.

Mark Serwotka                       Janice Godrich
General Secretary                  President

UK defence cuts 'manageable risk' - HOG WASH

The UK's armed forces Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen Sir David Richards has said losing military capability as a result of defence budget cuts will pose risks - but they will be manageable.

Lord Boyce a former Chief of the Defence Staff has said the government has taken an "enormous gamble" with the UK's defences with its spending cuts

Ex-defence chiefs and ministers lined up to attack the defence review in the House of Lords.

Marshall of the RAF Lord Craig of Radley, who was chief of the defence staff from 1988 to 1991, attacked the "savage savings" in the defence review. He said cutting the number of frigates and destroyers to 19 and the scrapping of Nimrod spy planes had "collectively blown an enormous hole in national maritime capability".

Lord Boyce and Lord Craig were joined in their criticism by General Lord Walker of Aldringham, chief of the defence staff from 2003 to 2006, who branded the review "merely a salami-slicing exercise".

The former defence chiefs were followed by a string of Labour former defence ministers who attacked the review, which will cut about 17,000 personnel and 25,000 civilian jobs from the MoD.

  

The cuts in defence are politically driven and are nothing more than a head count reduction that takes little account of Armed Forces capability and the value for money that employing civilians in supporting the front line generates.

If the cuts were not politically driven the government would have looked at alternatives for producing value for money, such as cutting back on the use of consultants and civilianising posts that do not need military experience.

We anticipate instead the government will slash jobs underming economic viability in remote rural areas where many MoD bases are located and persue whole sale out-sourcing.

Organising to stop the cuts

As part of our response to the comprehensive spending review, branches are urged to gather information on cuts and participate in campaign activities taking place over the coming weeks and months, alongside recruitment and organising work.

 

Groups are engaging with management to seek information on cuts and, wherever possible, assurances on jobs and terms and conditions. Branches are asked to feed through to Group officers details, as they emerge, of how the cuts will implemented.

A national campaign liaison group (NCLG) meeting will be held on 23 November to consider the detailed cuts programmes and to coordinate campaign activities. Guidance will be issued to negotiators. The national executive will consider feedback from the NCLG at its meeting in early December.

 

Campaigning action

We are entering a new phase in our national campaign as cuts programmes are announced across the civil and public services. We are playing a key role in building a popular movement opposing the cuts across the trade unions and our communities.

Our pamphlet - “There is an alternative: the case against cuts in public spending” - has been very influential and helped to shift the debate away from the inevitability of cuts. Branches are urged to order copies for local use. It can also be downloaded from our campaign pages.

PCS is working with other unions, the TUC, campaigning organisations and our parliamentary group to organise a number of national events protests, lobbies of MPs and a conference to promote the alternative to cuts.

This work is focusing on a range of issues including job cuts and cuts in welfare and tax justice. Over pensions, we continue to work with the TUC and other unions to oppose an increase in members’ contributions, and we are pursuing the possibility of a legal challenge to the change from RPI to CPI indexation.

At the local level we must work to mobilise members. Across the country PCS reps and members are involved in forming anti-cuts alliances on a town or regional basis. Branches are asked to use the campaign materials available to highlight the alternatives to cuts both among members and the wider public.

Details of campaigning activities taking place in the coming weeks across the UK can be obtained from this PCS website. Branches are urged to make contact with other unions, trades councils and community organisations, and participate in local campaigns.

 

National demonstration

The TUC has now confirmed 26 March 2011 as the date for a national demonstration against cuts and privatisation in London. This should be a huge protest. Branches are asked to start planning how they will mobilise the maximum number of members, and their families and friends, to go on the demonstration. Further briefings will be issued on building for this event.

Given the speed with which the government’s cuts will impact, PCS has been arguing for an earlier national demonstration. We proposed such a demonstration at the TUC’s public sector liaison group on 8 November.

Unfortunately, a majority of the unions represented there did not agree to the proposal. We will therefore be discussing with other unions what initiatives can be taken to build as much activity as possible over the coming months.

 

Industrial action

The NEC will consider feedback from the NCLG at its meeting in early December, including the possibility of national industrial action. A national ballot is likely at some stage, possibly alongside other unions. But we do not yet know what will trigger a national dispute.

Branches should not wait for national action to oppose cuts. We need action at every level. Branches and groups will be faced with job losses and other industrial issues arising from the government’s cuts policies.

These may give rise to disputes with clear, achievable objectives. For example, reducing the number of job cuts in a particular bargaining area, or preventing an office closure. The more branch or group action that takes place which wins concessions, the more likely the prospect of successful national action and, potentially, joint union action. National disputes committee submissions should be made where members would support action and the objectives of action are clear.

 

Recruitment

In the current circumstances, recruitment of non-members is an important part of our strategy, increasing our bargaining strength and our ability to mount successful campaigns. Branches are urged to prioritise recruitment activity alongside campaigning action to defend jobs and services.

 

Branches are urged to:

• Feed through to group officers further details, as they emerge, of how the cuts will implemented,
• Distribute campaign materials to members, and continue to organise members’ meetings on the national campaign
• Continue to forge local links with other unions and build support for local protests and demos - use the joint statement with Unison
• Begin planning for the TUC demonstration next March
• Recruit your colleagues to the union - there’s never been a more important time to join PCS.

Political campaigning - Consultation with branches on ADC 2010 motion A40

Introduction: why this consultation is important for you

Annual Delegate Conference 2010 carried motion A40 on political campaigning. The NEC was instructed to consult branches on detailed proposals for standing or supporting candidates in elections. This page explains how your branch can submit its view to the consultation.

This consultation comes at a time when members’ interests are under greater attack than ever from this new Coalition Government and its programme of cuts. Already the proposals announced amount to – in the words of the Institute for Fiscal Studies – “the longest, deepest, sustained periods of spending cuts since at least the Second World War”. Every major political party is arguing that cuts are necessary to solve the national deficit, but we know there are alternatives. The consultation is part of this campaign, by adding another campaigning tool to our union.

In this period, the union is seeking to build alliances – working with other trade unions and community campaigns – to fight the cuts consensus. Our political campaigning is an essential part of that struggle. Standing or supporting electoral candidates could be a useful tool in some circumstances – enabling us to build alliances and making us better-placed to raise the alternatives.

This consultation looks at some of the detailed practical questions about our union standing or supporting candidates in national elections, which we would like members to discuss in their branches, groups, regions and equality networks.

This consultation is therefore different to the consultation on motion A72 last year, which asked for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the principle of standing or supporting candidates. We are now asking branches to discuss how we might stand candidates in practice, as part of our overall campaigning strategy, and how some of the issues and concerns raised through the A72 consultation might be dealt with.

Responses to this consultation will inform proposals to ADC 2011. If the ADC approves these proposals, they would then be put to PCS members in a full membership ballot. We have sought to engage members throughout this process – and it will be members that decide whether PCS, like many other unions, has the ability to stand or support candidates.

The proposal has always been that PCS would only consider standing or supporting candidates in constituencies where no other candidate supported our aims, and where it would benefit our campaigns. In practice, this means that PCS would not seek – either alone or in conjunction with others – to run candidates in every seat, but to have the option to stand where it would extend our campaigning to benefit members’ interests.

There are no implications for members’ subs from these proposals. Any funding required would be drawn from the Political Fund – and membership subscriptions would not increase to fund the standing or supporting of candidates.

Mark Serwotka       Janice Godrich
General Secretary  President

Background: The need for a political campaigning approach

PCS has built a reputation among members and the wider movement as an effective campaigning organisation. We campaign to advance the core interests of PCS members in protecting their terms and conditions, their rights at work, and to defend the welfare state and public services generally.

Our campaigning takes different forms: from local leafleting and using petitions with the public to using the national media, lobbying MPs and other work in the political arena.

We engage in political campaigning because MPs and Ministers take the decisions which determine members’ pay, jobs, pensions and working conditions, as well as the public services we both deliver and use. By getting involved in such work we are able to fight much harder to defend our basic interests.

Political campaigning is not a separate agenda, but a tool to advance our aims in the workplace – to support our industrial strategy, to help us in bargaining situations, and to give us a campaigning voice to argue for alternatives.

Political Fund

In 2005, members voted 80% in favour of establishing a Political Fund. This permitted PCS to engage in campaigning that is perceived to be ‘political’. When campaigning to defend jobs, pay and pensions we wanted to be able to use every possible weapon in our armoury. The overwhelming ‘yes’ vote for a Political Fund enabled us to break free of the legal constraints we faced and step up our campaigns.

Today, our political campaigning includes the ongoing work of our Parliamentary Group, our Make Your Vote Count (MYVC) campaign, and our anti-fascist campaigning.

The rules of our Political Fund make clear that the funds will not be used to affiliate to any political party – and there is no intention to change that. We campaign politically, but we remain politically independent, driven by our members and their priorities. Our only loyalty is to members.

Working in Parliament

Our parliamentary groups in Westminster, Scotland and Wales have been working on members’ behalf for several years now. We also work with members of the legislative assembly in Northern Ireland. Reflecting the fact that PCS is not affiliated to any political party, we have members of all political parties in our groups. They ask questions, meet Ministers, and initiate debates on behalf of members.

This approach – combined with members lobbying their political representatives – has enabled us to save workplaces from closure and privatisation, and to defend our members’ terms and conditions.

MYVC campaign

Our MYVC campaign began in 2007 in response to the growing political consensus among the major political parties for civil service job cuts. MYVC has boosted our campaigns and our profile as a union.

MYVC aims to involve as many PCS members as possible in asking their candidates at election times where they stand on the key issues that affect our members. We then publish the candidates’ answers locally and on our website ahead of the elections so that members can use the information when they cast their vote.

This process has often been effective in making politicians aware of our concerns, but it has also exposed the lack of real choice often faced by our members and others at election times as the consensus over cuts in civil and public services prevails. We also know that some politicians will say one thing before an election, but act differently after the election.

Anti-fascist campaigning

In our MYVC we exclude parties of the far right, like the BNP, because they are opposed to our fundamental commitment to equality. PCS members, and the union nationally, have worked with local anti-fascist groups and supported national initiatives run by Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism to oppose the far right.

---

Consulting with members about Political Campaigning

Annual Delegate Conference (ADC) 2009 carried motion A72 on political campaigning (see Appendix 1). The motion instructed the NEC to consult branches on the question of supporting trade union candidates in elections, and on the question of PCS candidates standing in elections, and then report to ADC 2010.

The consultation with branches took place from December 2009 until the end of February 2010. As reported to ADC 2010, the A72 consultation responses showed a majority of branches (about 64%) in favour of standing or supporting candidates in elections in certain circumstances.

However, the A72 consultation also raised a number of detailed questions about how this would work in practice – both from branches who voted in favour and against the proposal.

The NEC considered these issues, raised in the A72 consultation, and drafted motion A40 (see Appendix 2) to ADC 2010. A40 calls for a further consultation within the union about how standing or supporting candidates might work in practice – examining all the potential problems that were raised through the A72 consultation.

Delegates at ADC 2010 passed A40 on a card vote by 153,470 (64%) to 86,799 (36%), and so this consultation continues the process of consulting with members about this proposal.

We are asking branches to respond to this consultation by 22 November 2010.

After the NEC has analysed the responses, they will consider a new resolution to be put to ADC 2011. If the resolution supports the idea of standing or supporting candidates in elections – and if delegates back the motion – then the whole membership of the union would be balloted to decide whether we wish to proceed.

The political situation has of course changed since motion A72 was passed in 2009, and branches were first consulted. We now have a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in government and a programme of devastating spending cuts before us.

We believe it is more important than ever that our political profile is raised and alternative voices are heard. This consultation takes forward the proposals to stand or support candidates and seeks to give us another way in which to challenge the cuts consensus.

---

A40 consultation debates:

There are several issues that were identified in the A72 consultation on Political Campaigning that require further and more in-depth discussion within the union.

Below is a summary of the debates that emerged from the A72 consultation, about which this consultation seeks to hear members’ views:

The Issue: Candidate Selection process

What’s in question? How the process of candidate selection works: what is the role for local members and branches; and what role for the NEC, as the ruling body of the union

NEC comment: We believe that local members must have a say in choosing the candidate for their area.

However, the decision to stand in the first place is a strategic one and would need NEC approval for the candidate to be recognised as PCS-backed. We would seek to stand in constituencies where we could advance members’ interests as part of our overall strategy. While the NEC would take the final decision on this, it would need input from local members and branches to inform its decision.

The NEC supports the idea of consulting local members and branches, since it would be local members who would be needed to support the election campaign on the ground.

As we seek to work with others (i.e. other unions or community campaigns) in supporting or standing candidates we cannot be too prescriptive. However, any candidate selection process would have to be consistent with the union’s democratic principles.

The issue: Civil Service Code

What’s in question? PCS members are prevented from standing for Parliament by the civil service code. Members working in the civil service would have to resign their jobs before standing without any guarantee of re-employment after the election campaign.

In the consultation, some branches recommended that the union should campaign to change the civil service code to allow members to stand.

NEC comment: In some departments, there are agreements in place whereby non-elected candidates can return to their jobs after an election campaign. However, such agreements are not in place across the whole civil service.

As a union we are opposed to political restrictions on members, which are an undemocratic assault on their civil rights. We will campaign and negotiate for their repeal. This should not however be a generalised problem since we would only ever be seeking to stand in a handful of constituencies, and so would not require a huge pool of candidates. We are also seeking to work with others (e.g. other trade unions or campaigning organisations) and so it will not necessarily be the case that a candidate is a PCS member.

The Issue: Backing candidates from other parties

What’s in question? Whether the union backs candidates from existing parties where they have supported PCS campaigns and policies or whether we should only back independents / candidates as part of a one-off coalition

NEC comment: In the consultation the question was raised as to whether the union might give funding to the election campaigns of individual candidates who are members of political parties (e.g. Labour MP John McDonnell).

We will not seek to affiliate to any political party. The union’s Political Fund rules states that:

Rule F4: No payments shall be made from the fund in respect of the affiliation by the union to any political party, save where such affiliation has been approved by the members of the union in a ballot held in accordance with the union’s rules.

Other non-affiliated unions such as the FBU and RMT do back individual candidates or one-off coalitions in elections without giving any money to a political party centrally.

The main focus of moving towards a policy of standing or supporting candidates is to give voters a choice where none currently exists, and to get a wider audience for the union’s policies. 

This would mean our prime focus would be to support or stand candidates where there is no choice, although members may wish to support existing candidates in exceptional circumstances.

The Issue: the BNP

What’s in question? Some have argued that standing in areas where the BNP is strong could split the vote and let the fascists in, while others suggest that standing candidates in exactly these places gives us the opportunity to argue more directly against the BNP.

NEC comment: The NEC values the anti-fascist work members do in support of Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism. Our anti-fascist work is done in consultation with other unions and anti-fascist organisations.

The NEC would therefore make an assessment of the situation in the constituency before deciding on standing or supporting candidates in any area where the BNP was strong.

The issue: Electoral platform

What’s in question? Motion A72 from ADC 2009, mentioned the debate on standing or supporting candidates “on the basis of opposition to privatisation, closures, and attacks on workers’ rights”. However, in the subsequent consultation many respondents thought the platform must be wider than this encompassing other issues such as equalities, international policy, etc

NEC comment: As a predominantly public sector trade union, our main spur to standing or supporting candidates would be where no candidate supports the direct interests of our members on job security, pay, pensions, etc. The MYVC campaign identified that in some areas no candidate was standing up for public services, and opposed to privatisation. That is the gap that standing or supporting candidates seeks to fill.

A commitment to the union’s equality policies would of course be non-negotiable for any candidate seeking our support. Other policies as part of the electoral platform would depend on what is a topical issue at the time of the election.

As we seek to work with others (i.e. other unions or community campaigns) in supporting or standing candidates we cannot be too prescriptive. However, any campaign supported by PCS would have to be consistent with the union’s principle rules and policies.

The issue: Standing in ‘list system’ elections (of particular interest to members in Scotland and Wales)

What’s in question? In Scotland and Wales, the national elections use the Additional Member System (AMS). This means that as well as the traditional constituency seats being contested, there are also so-called ‘top-up’ seats elected under proportional representation from a wider area, by party lists. Electors therefore have two votes: one for a candidate in their constituency and the second for a party list in their region.

NEC comment: Motion A72 from ADC 2009, asked for the consideration of whether to “stand candidates on the basis of opposition to privatisation, closures, and attacks on workers’ rights”. We believe that local campaigns are the most effective in highlighting local office closures and campaigns – and evidence shows that there is higher media coverage of contests in constituency seats than there is on list candidates.

We are also explicitly not proposing to either form or support parties, and therefore do not believe we would stand candidates under list systems.

The referendum on electoral reform

The proposed referendum on electoral reform for Westminster elections is on the Alternative Vote (AV) system. AV keeps single member constituencies, and is not a proportional system. PCS policy is in favour of proportional representation (PR), and so it is disappointing that the coalition government has ignored calls for PR.

Under AV, if no candidate is the first preference of a majority of voters, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate's ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next preference on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among the remaining candidates.

The result of the referendum will have little impact on the proposals in this paper. However, there would be some who would see AV as a significant change as it would enable them to use a second preference vote as well if they felt torn between two options or could vote for a least worst option to keep out a candidate or party they did not want.

The referendum on whether to change from the current ‘First-past-the-post’ system to AV will take place in May 2011.

---

How this might all work in practice

To assist branches in their discussions, we have set out below some possible scenarios about how the process might work in practice – referring to the issues raised above. These examples are given to prompt debate and raise ideas about what issues might arise when considering standing or supporting candidates:

Scenario 1

A by-election has been called where the MP has resigned due to ill health. In the same constituency a local public service has been earmarked for closure. PCS members and members of the public have been campaigning locally to keep the office open and have been lobbying the relevant ministers, to no avail. The three main political parties and their candidates are not supportive of the local campaign – all finding good reasons in their minds for the service to be closed.

A leading PCS member of the campaign is happy to stand as a candidate on a defend public services platform. They accept that they will have to quit their job to stand as they have an agreement with their employer to return to their job. Local members back the candidate standing, and widespread support is built up locally. Following a recommendation from local branches, the NEC agrees to back the candidate.

Scenario 2

A by-election has been called in a constituency where an MP has died. In the constituency there has been cross union public service alliance work taking place in defence of a local sorting office and against the closure of a small hospital. A wide range of union members, together with local community groups and members of the public have been working together to publicise the proposed cuts and closures.

A member of a local community group decides to stand in the election on a ‘no cuts’ platform. Labour affiliated unions locally cannot formally support the standing of the candidate, but many of the local members do support the candidate’s election campaign. PCS and the local community swing behind the election campaign. The campaign is focused on the local hospital, but there are wider statements in defence of public services.

Scenario 3

A prominent government minister, responsible for widespread cuts is standing for re-election at a general election. Opponents from the major political parties are not campaigning against the cuts that the minister has made. Local trade union members and activists groups come together to select an anti-cuts candidate who will stand and whose campaign will highlight the case against cuts and for well-funded public services.

Scenario 4

An unpopular Minister is standing for re-election. The Minister does not have a record of supporting public services, and will not sign up to the PCS MYVC pledges. The opposition parties are also supporting cuts. A fascist party is also standing and has an outside chance of winning the seat. One local PCS branch is in favour of standing a candidate while another is not.

The NEC consults with branches and with anti-fascist organisations and decides that it would be the best use of resources to fund the local anti-fascist campaign with specific pro-public services materials.

Scenario 5

An MP is standing for re-election to Parliament. The MP in question has worked tirelessly on behalf of PCS members, supported our campaigns and joined our members on picket lines – they also pledge to continue this work in the future. 

The NEC and local branches call for the MP to be backed in recognition of the work the MP has done in not only defending our services, but voicing an alternative to cuts.

---

How to respond

Please discuss the issues in your Branch. Then answer the consultation questions and respond:

By email: A40consultation@pcs.org.uk or

By post:
A40 consultation
General Secretary’s Office
PCS
160 Falcon Road
London
SW11 2LN

The deadline for receipt of responses is 22 November 2010

---

What happens next?

The NEC will consider the results of the consultation and submit a motion to ADC 2011. If ADC 2011 decided to proceed with the idea of standing or supporting candidates then there would be a full membership ballot to endorse or reject this proposal.

---

 

MOD Branch Engagement with PCS Regional Structures

The importance of MOD branches linking into PCS’s national regional structures was highlighted in MOD conference 2010 Motion A10 which called on the GEC to seek to ensure that all MoD branches play their part in the activities of their PCS region’s activities as a priority.

PCS has number of regional offices and we would urge all MOD branches to contact their appropriate regional office to set up lines of communication and become involved in the initiatives the regional offices are taking forward.

 

PCS Scotland Glenorchy House, 20 Union Street, Edinburgh, EH1 3LR Telephone: 0131 556 0407	PCS Midlands New Oxford House, 16 Waterloo Street, Birmingham, B2 5UG Telephone: 0121 643 4342
PCS Cymru/Wales Phoenix House, 8 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF1 9LJ Telephone: 029 2066 6363	PCS Northern region Transport House, John Dobson Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8TW Telephone: 0191 222 0330
PCS Eastern regional office Ground floor, 46 Priestgate, Peterborough PE1 1LF Telephone: 01733 896336	PCS North west 4th Floor, 35-37 Dale Street, Liverpool L2 2HF Telephone: 0151 231 6120
PCS London and the south east Douglas Houghton House, 231 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London, SW1V 1EH Telephone: 020 7801 2764	PCS Northern Ireland 40 Wellington Park Belfast Telephone: 0151 231 6120
PCS South west 1st Floor, Suite 3, Quintana Gate, Bartholomew Street, Exeter, EX4 3BH Telephone: 01392 410 105	PCS Yorkshire and Humber 3rd Floor, Town Centre House, Merrion Centre, Leeds, LS2 8LY Telephone: 0113 200 5300

All Together for Public ServicesAll Together for Public Services

The TUC now have a date for the national demonstration against the cuts, as the Royal Parks have confirmed that we can use Hyde Park on Saturday March 26th next year. Although we have yet to work out the full details of the route, we confidently expect that it will start on Victoria Embankment on the stretch between Temple and Embankment tube stations.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-18793-f0.cfm?theme=alltogether

PCS keeps up pressure on compensation scheme

The union continues to fight the proposed changes to the civil service compensation scheme (CSCS) by putting pressure on the government to improve its offer. 

PCS is the largest union of civil servants, representing workers the majority of whom earn less than £22,000 a year. The coalition wants, through its superannuation bill, to limit compulsory redundancy payouts to 12 months pensionable earnings, and voluntary to 15 months, which we argue interferes with civil servants’ human rights.

PCS argues that the effect of the bill is to extinguish, in one measure, the right of the unions to bargain collectively in relation to the worsening of benefits under the CSCS, bringing to an end at once an intricate and cooperative tradition and practice going back several decades. At the same time, the government proposes to implement a new scheme which would change redundancy compensation for people below their normal pension age on their final day of service and leaving on compulsory terms to 12 months salary and voluntary terms to 21 months.

At a meeting of Council of Civil Service Unions representatives on Tuesday fresh proposals to put to Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude were discussed. The PCS national executive committee has agreed that if any further negotiations prove unsuccessful or if the Cabinet Office refuses fresh talks, there will be a membership ballot to seek members’ approval to reject the offer.

The bill was debated by a House of Lords committee yesterday, where the government emphasised it was anxious its attempts to introduce a new scheme should not be delayed by “continuing litigation”. The bill is expected to reach the report stage in the Lords within a fortnight and will then return to the House of Commons. PCS submitted legal evidence on the bill to the joint committee on human rights on Friday.

Ballots on the compensation scheme have been suspended in FDA and Prospect partly because of a legal issue. In Europe very recently there was a judgement that has implications for both state and occupational redundancy schemes which may have implications for compensation arrangements that limit payments to a person over normal pension age 60, or 65 for those who are members of Nuvos - who have joined the principal civil service pension scheme since 2007 and are not currently in the CSCS.

Welfare plans punish the vulnerable for government's failure

The government's plans to increase the sanctions on benefit recipients will do nothing to alleviate poverty without the creation of more jobs with decent pay, PCS says.

Responding to publication of the welfare reform white paper, the union says the coalition government is unfairly targeting unemployed people and seeking to punish them for the recession and a shortage of work.

Recent claims by work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith that people in Merthyr Tydfil in south Wales could 'get on the bus' to Cardiff to find work were immediately debunked by PCS, which pointed out that for every job vacancy in the city there were nine unemployed people.

Research by the union also showed the vast majority of job vacancies were temporary and part-time work, often doing unskilled jobs for just one or three weeks’ duration.

Increasing sanctions on jobseekers and forcing some to do voluntary work to qualify for benefits is unfair, the union says. It is also unfair to ask jobcentre staff, who are already overstretched because of cuts, to police decisions about who should have their benefits cut.

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "This is part of an orchestrated campaign by ministers to portray some of the most vulnerable members of our society as the new ‘undeserving poor’ to persuade the public that some cuts are fair.

"Not only is this cruel, it is directly at odds with the fact the government has admitted half a million public sector workers are set to lose their jobs, with even more expected in the private sector."

Thousands join march to support RAF Lossiemouth

Up to 7,000 people have taken part in a march and rally in support of the RAF base at Lossiemouth in Moray.

 

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and the leaders of the other three main parties at Holyrood were among those attending.

Actor Ewan McGregor has backed the campaign. His brother Colin used to be based at Lossiemouth. The Star Wars actor said closing it would "devastate" the local community.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise said RAF Kinloss supported 2,341 jobs on the base and in the wider community, and contributed £68m a year to the local economy.

The base at Lossiemouth supports a further 3,370 jobs and contributes £90.3m annually. It is home to four squadrons flying the Tornado, which is the UK's primary ground attack aircraft.

MoD Civilian Covenant

Representatives from the unions: PCS, Prospect, GMB, and Unite marked the first day of new MOD Permanent Secretary, Ursula Brennan’s tenure by presenting her with a proposed civilian covenant. 

Morale is at an all time low in the MoD as the department moves to cut 25,000 civilian jobs.

The unions want a civilian covenant on similar lines to the military covenant setting out a two-way commitment between the armed forces and the civilian staff who support them.

The MOD Civilian Covenant: Valuing the 4^th Service

Loyalty and commitment: MOD civil servants shall remain totally committed to the Defence Aim; they undertake to strive for excellence in all of their roles but, in particular, in the support they give to the armed forces.

Valuing the 4^th Service: the MOD shall enhance public understanding of the role of its civil service through inter alia a defined programme of public awareness briefings, and shall defend quickly, robustly and publicly its civil servants against ill-informed and unjustified attack from the media and politicians.

Job Security: the MOD shall make decisions on the basis of a clear understanding of what the department does and who it needs to do it. It shall plan its requirements on the basis of a proper assessment of the correct balance between contractors and its own staff and between military and civilian personnel. Staffing levels shall be managed in a sensitive manner with due regard to the dignity of employees.

Skills and careers: the MOD shall invest in the training and development of its staff, so as to improve the efficacy of its business and to enhance the productivity and job satisfaction of its staff through the maintenance of rewarding careers. Training and development activity should recognise the need to retain the MOD’s ‘intelligent customer’ capability through the maintenance of specialist skills and effective succession planning.

Recognition and reward: the MOD shall develop and maintain civilian pay and conditions which are fair and enable it to recruit and retain high quality staff. Specifically the MOD shall identify and provide additional reward to the specialists in its workforce who deliver an essential contribution to military capability. 

Fair and effective management: the MOD shall establish and maintain a skilled and supportive line management chain, supported by logical and fair personnel management processes. The MOD shall encourage flexible working among its workforce, so as to enhance business efficiency and the achievement of work-life balance for staff.

Occupational health and welfare: the MOD shall ensure that its workplaces and its working practices comply with best practice when it comes to occupational health and safety; it shall invest in its business and thus ensure that staff have the facilities and equipment necessary to do an effective job. The MOD shall provide world class occupational health and welfare support for its civilian staff.

Change without trauma: the MOD commits to rational and transparent decision-making and meaningful consultation with a view to reaching agreement in change programmes, including the use of properly constructed Value for Money Benchmarks. It undertakes to do everything in its power to avoid enforced redundancies or relocations; and it aims to provide staff with the maximum choice about their future when work is privatised or contracted-out.

Dignity and respect: the MOD shall treat all of its employees with dignity, without bullying or harassment (or the fear of these) and with equality of opportunity. The MOD recognises the role of its union representatives in enabling staff to maximise their contribution to Defence.

March & Rally in support of RAF Lossiemouth and the Local Community

Where: Meeting next to RAF Lossiemouth's Main Entrance then marching to Lossiemouth FC's ground where a rally will take place. 

When: 07 November from 14:00 to 16:00