Public and Commercial Services Union

In HO/MB/58/09, PCS made an open call to the ISU leadership to create one united Union in UKBA.

This was against the backdrop of the failure of the ISU leadership to ballot its members on a statutory basis to enable them to take part in industrial action in order to defend their future working lives.

PCS did ballot its members on this basis and this led to us securing an agreement on no compulsion for members in relation to secondary integration activity. Details of the agreement were contained in HO/MB/48/09.

ISU circulars – Parts 1, 2 and 3

Members may have seen the ISU Circulars Parts 1, 2 and 3 dated 27, 30 and 31 August 2009. Each part contains an attack on PCS.

It is a pity that the ISU leadership has ignored our call to create a united position and chosen instead to attack PCS in order to disguise the bankruptcy of their position.

Whilst we continue to call for one united union in UKBA, it is incumbent upon us to respond to the ISU leadership’s attack on us by setting matters straight.

Part 1

This circular is entitled, without any sense of irony, “Message from the PCS – what they don’t want to talk about - PART 1: The humiliating collapse of the PCS strike”.

“Civil war”?

The ISU leadership state that PCS “are in a state of near civil war, with the Home Office (they no longer have an immigration branch) and Customs members at loggerheads over terms and conditions”

This is a misrepresentation of the position. PCS has a united position across both groups.

We are working hard to secure the best possible deal for both sets of members involving guarantees of no compulsion and coherence on the best possible terms.

PCS negotiators in both groups tabled this approach to the employer in November 2007(it took the ISU 20 months to catch up and ask for similar guarantees).

Members will recall that when management threatened to use Customs workers to cover the jobs of striking PCS members in the Home Office, PCS Customs negotiators made an immediate submission to the union’s national disputes committee in order to ballot Customs workers on industrial action in support of our campaign.

This is an outstanding show of solidarity and demonstrates the unity that exists on the PCS side. This hardly amounts to “Civil War”. It is the hallmark of good, principled trade unionism and is an approach that the ISU leadership would do well to learn from.

“Debacle”?

The ISU leadership state that “As Lin Homer has helpfully told you in more than one gleeful official circular, the PCS strike ballot was nothing short of a debacle.

Of 1092 PCS members balloted a meagre 343 bothered to respond, a response rate of less than one third. Of those voting only 267 were in favour of action, giving an endorsement of PCS strike action by less than one quarter of the members balloted.”

It is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, to see the ISU leadership parroting the management line.

It is common for employers to play down ballot results in order to dissuade members from taking part in action. The reality is that a turnout of one third in a postal ballot is above average.

The ISU leadership can perhaps be forgiven for not being aware of this, as they have failed to ever run a ballot of this nature. The PCS ballot secured a 78% vote in favour of strike action and 88% in favour of action short of strike action.

This ballot result was hugely significant in securing the agreement we did. This is far from a “debacle”. What is the ISU leaderships position on balloting, ie, running an “indicative ballot” that they know will not enable their members to take industrial action.

“Losing touch”?

The ISU leadership states that “the PCS leadership lost sight of the need to keep in touch with their members and to listen to their views” and “Within twenty-four hours management were boasting off the record that PCS were desperate to avoid taking strike action that would fall flat on its face and were looking for a settlement on any terms they could get.

If you think this is untrue or unfair, ask yourself what the PCS have put out about the agreement. Have you seen anything apart from the joint statement put out by management? That alone tells you what PCS think of the agreement they so hastily signed up to.”

Once again, it is disappointing to see the ISU leadership parroting the management line. PCS held members meetings at workplaces in the run up to and during the ballot.

We were well aware of our member’s views. We also engaged in political campaigning through our Parliamentary Group in order to secure an acceptable deal.

The pressure created by our approach meant that we secured concessions that the employer was not making before we embarked on this process.

As for PCS not putting out anything about the agreement, it seems that it is the ISU leadership who are “losing touch”. Our Newsbrief HO/MB/48/09 was issued to members on 19 August 2009 and contained details of the agreement reached.

“What the ISU is doing”?

It’s tempting to say insert your own jokes here, but we’ll stick to the script!

The ISU leadership states that “Unlike the PCS the ISU did not rush into the legal limitations of a formal ballot. Our survey produced a return of over 50% with 1745 members indicating a wish to be balloted.”

The ISU leadership has, quite spectacularly, missed the point. A statutory ballot is the only way to enable workers to take industrial action.

Their “survey” is utterly pointless and does not enable their members to take action.

Once again, the ISU leadership may be forgiven for not understanding this as they have never in their history run a ballot that would enable members to take industrial action. In a climate where the employer has been less than generous in its approach to the workforce, this is a dereliction of duty.

“Position of strength”?

The ISU leadership states that “Unlike the PCS we began negotiations from a position of strength. Our opening demand was for a three-year moratorium on changes.

Frustratingly the collapse of the PCS strike and their panicked rush into an agreement has emboldened management and made real progress that much more difficult”.

You have to admire their nerve! Members will rightly ask how failure to ballot your members to enable them to take action constitutes a “position of strength”.

PCS balloted our members, won the ballot and won an agreement. The ISU leadership has attempted to ride on the back of that and secure an agreement for themselves.

Their claim that they now face an “emboldened management” is an indication that they are not making any real progress. Their failure to ballot has left them negotiating from a position of weakness.

Their bluff has been called and they are preparing for their usual climbdown, whilst desperately looking to shift the blame for their tactical ineptitude elsewhere.

Part 2:This circular is entitled “The future”.

“The future”?

The ISU leadership states that “The future of all Home Office Trade Unions is uncertain. It looks increasingly likely that we will have a new government by the spring. Conservative policy is to create a Border Police Force, with a Chief Constable and manned by police officers.

Police officers cannot be members of a trade union, which will (if it comes to pass) create huge problems for all the trade unions including the ISU. So if you are looking to the future it makes no sense to look beyond next spring and the, as yet, unknown changes it will bring.”

So, the position of the ISU leadership is that they cannot plan for any eventuality beyond next Spring! Any Trade Union leadership worthy of the name would be planning for all eventualities. In the event a Border Police Force is created by

whichever government is elected next year, PCS will robustly defend the right of its members to belong to a Trade Union. The absence of such a commitment from the ISU leadership is telling. Led in this manner, the ISU has no future.

Immigration v Generalist?

The ISU leadership states that “The PCS have a much more immediate and urgent problem. The 1200 or so PCS members in Immigration grades are already a minority amongst PCS Home Office Branch.

Soon they will have to merge with 4000 or so PCS Customs members. Given that PCS Home Office members in generalist grades are not interested in preserving duty requests, double night shifts, and terminal meal breaks and 4000 PCS Customs members actively want to see them abolished, what say will the minority of PCS Immigration members, who do care about the impact of these changes on their working lives, have?”

They also quote from a circular written by the PCS Revenue & Customs Deputy Group Secretary in order to attempt to justify their claims. They are once again seriously misrepresenting the position.

Firstly, PCS does not divide its membership into generalist v immigration grades. This is a trap that we will not fall into as it serves only the divide and rule agenda of the employer.

Secondly, our GEC is drawn from generalist and immigration grades. The GEC was unanimous in its support for the action that members in Border Force indicated they were willing to take. Thirdly, there is no PCS Home Office Branch.

There is a PCS Home Office Group. Our members in Immigration will not merge with 4000 Customs members. The Customs members will be transferred into the PCS Home Office Group.

Finally, in respect of terminal meal breaks, double night shift, shift swaps and shift requests, reference to our many circulars will confirm that PCS will defend existing terms and conditions and ways of working unless members choose to change.

“...what say will the minority of PCS Immigration members, who do care about the impact of these changes on their working lives, have?” PCS believe they will say that they are happy to know that they have strength in numbers and support from fellow PCS members and reps outside of the Border Force area. The question for ISU members is where do they feel they are best protected? Is it by the current ISU leadership that is inward looking, not planning for the future and failing to grasp the opportunity to secure a place for their members in a wider and stronger movement? Or is it in a Trade Union of 300,000 members looking after each other regardless of which management discipline they work in?

Part 3:This circular is entitled “Can the unions work together?”

"Legally complex”?

The ISU leadership states that “The PCS have made much of their offer to the leadership of the ISU to join with them in taking industrial action. This offer was in reality part of a thinly disguised attempt to divert attention from their failure to obtain the support of the majority of their own members for a rushed call to strike action.

The leadership of the PCS are as aware as anyone of the complex legal requirements, and of the lengthy time scales set out by law, that need to be met before a ballot can be completed.

The PCS knew that the ISU could not legally join in a rushed ballot that they had already spent time in arranging.”

Firstly, PCS obtained majority support for the action upon which we balloted – 78% in favour of strike action, 88% in favour of action short of a strike. That is some failure! Secondly, it is not “legally complex” to run a ballot for action. The steps are simple:

• Identify your members and their workplaces
• Write to the employer telling them who you are balloting
• Send your members a ballot paper
• Er....That’s it!

Once again, the ISU leadership may be forgiven for not understanding how simple this is, as they have never run a ballot of this nature in their entire existence.

We at PCS however, are experienced at balloting for action to defend members’ interests and it was our willingness to do so on this occasion that won the agreement for all workers in Border Force.

Lame excuses about alleged legal complexities cannot cover up the ISU leadership’s failure on this issue.

“Equal partner”?

The ISU leadership states that “The ISU has always been in favour of working with the PCS as an equal partner in meetings with management.” And “ISU members should be clear that any offer by the PCS for joint working comes with a threat.

The PCS want the ISU first to agree to merge with the PCS before there is any agreement to work together. In effect this would mean the ISU would agree to its own destruction.”

The ISU is a body containing around 4,300 members. It is not an affiliate of the Trades Union Congress and is not recognised as part of the Trade Union family by the rest of the movement.

It is a breakaway organisation from a former Civil Service Trade Union. The breakaway was engineered by those who still run it and in its existence has only served to undermine unity.

PCS is a Trade Union of 300,000 members. We are a major player in the Trades Union Congress. It is nonsense to suggest that we should consider the ISU an “equal partner”.

We do however, want to see one united Union in the Border Agency. We believe that ISU members are best protected by a Trade Union leadership that is willing to fight to defend their interests and willing to mobilise them for action when necessary.

PCS is a fighting, organising, campaigning Union that is at the forefront of the battle to defend Civil Service wide terms and conditions. The attack on the Civil Service Compensation Scheme is a case in point.

The ISU does not even have a seat at the negotiating table on this issue as it is not recognised by anyone other than Home Office management. These are strange bedfellows and all workers should ask themselves why this is?

“A Voice in your future”?

A Trade Union leadership has a duty to plan for the future and to respond to the challenges presented by organising, campaigning and mobilising its membership to defend their interests.

The ISU leadership’s idea of planning for the future appears to involve not looking beyond next Spring, having a website lying dormant since 2007 and not balloting its membership to take action on any issue of note.

It is hugely disappointing that the ISU leadership are attempting to cover up their shortcomings by issuing circulars purely designed to sling mud at PCS. We would much rather get on with the business of defending members. The best way to do that would be by forming one united Union in UKBA.

PCS – A real trade union!

PCS is, unlike the ISU, a member of the Trades Union Congress. This makes us part of a family of around 7 million workers, 300,000 of whom are members of PCS.

We are now the numerically dominant Union in the Border Force, as well as the UK Border Agency, the Home Office and the entire Civil Service. This is an organizational strength that the ISU cannot match.

The logic for the continuing existence of the ISU is rapidly diminishing. Coupled with the bankruptcy of the ISU leadership’s industrial approach, the argument for one united Union in the UKBA is now overwhelming.

The time has come for all workers in UKBA to become part of one united Union.

Major challenges are coming our way and we need to maximize our negotiating strength and make the best possible gains for members. We are therefore once again calling on the ISU leadership to begin talks which will seek to unite all staff across the Home Office.

PCS also calls upon all workers in UKBA to become part of a fighting, organising, campaigning trade union that understands the principle of mobilising members to secure real gains.Join PCS!