Public and Commercial Services Union

Affiliations

The Thursday afternoon session opened with a debate on the organisations that PCS should be affiliated to.

Urging the conference to back affiliation to the Right to Work campaign, Dave Owens, DWP Liverpool, moving motion A70, warned “They’re going to come for us - as well as education, health, pay, jobs; we need to be organised to fightback against this attack.” 

The Right to Work campaign “is an attempt to bring the different groups fighting back together,” said Dave.

Opposing affiliation, David Vincent, MoJ Greater Manchester, said the problem in the motion was its call to “defend migrant workers - jobs for all”. We have to listen to what our members say about this,” he said. “Most people accept immigration, but say there should be some limits.” Open borders was a controversial subject.

Replying, Dave Owens said the point raised was unambiguous: “migrant workers are being used as scapegoats. There’s an attack on all of us – we need unity across the entire working class.”

The motion was carried.

There was a sharp difference of opinion on attitudes to Venezuela and affiliation to support campaigns.

Moving motion, calling for affiliation to the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, Robin Coles, National Archives, reported that their had been difficulties for the Chavez regime as it transferred income from oil into social programmes for the poor; “the lies and distortion in the media against the regime continue,” he said. The Venezuela Solidarity Campaign “engages with unions in Venezuela and combats media lies.”

But, moving motion A72, calling for disaffiliation from Hands Off Venezuela, Hubert Geisen, DEFRA Marine Fisheries Agency, claimed President Chavez was very anti-union, corrupt and undemocratic. Rob Bryson, DWP Central London, seconding said Chavez had “expressed deep hostility to our country, and forged close links with Iran, Syria and the FARC in Colombia.”

Martin Hawkins, DWP Devon, countered that motion A72 misunderstood the situation in Latin America. “The attacks on trade unionists in Venezuela come from right wing death squads still at large – they’re still there because it’s a democracy.”

Rebecca Allen, MoJ West Yorkshire, warned that all the reforms that Venezuelan peasants and workers had won were under threat. “The question is sovereignty, not Chavez’s presidency.” Another right wing coup or Colombian invasion “would do nothing for workers’ rights,” she said.

Rob Williams, NEC, opposing A72, said PCS was affiliated to Hands off Venezuela “because we strongly support trade union rights in Venezuela, as well as Iran and all over the world.” He called on the union to “support the Venezuelan people against the demands of the world’s bankers and multinationals - support their socialist transformation.” 

In the vote, motion A71 was passed and motion A72 fell.

Finance report

The next conference session covered finance, with a presentation of the union’s 2009 accounts by Christine Grant, PCS’s new Director of Finance, and the 2010 finance report by Treasurer Chris Baugh.

Christine explained that the union was in deficit in 2009. However, “increased cooperation between departments in producing financial data will produce more effective finance management in the future.” She said the good news was that subscription income had reversed the falls of 2008. “The 2009 deficit does not arise from widespread overspend, but from specific issues,” she explained.

Projected deficits would continue because of pension scheme obligations and continued campaigning costs. “We have to make choices on the allocation of resources,” said Christine, adding that she was “encouraged by the union’s transparency in financial matters.”

Chris Baugh introduced the 2010 financial report – already circulated to branches. “There’s plenty of scope for increasing members and membership income, but the report is based on current levels of membership,” he said.

There was to be an imminent move to a Leeds office, “but we need savings in union accommodation.” There would also need to be savings in legal expenditure.

In the union’s communications, “we need to radically reduce paper and postage” and look at the frequency of PCS View and other publications.

On subscriptions, Chris said the union would review any scope to increase subscriptions and income, “but only if we don’t deter our ability to recruit and retain members.”

The process for expenses claims had been revised and audited rigorously – “it’s a transparent policy,” Chris said.

PCS aimed to launch the union’s Credit Union as soon after conference as possible “to offer benefits to members and their families.”

He ended by thanking Christine and the work of the lay treasurers.

The report was followed by a debate on financial issues.

Moving motion A77, Ian McGill, Aviation Group, requested the NEC to explore options to cover the financial costs of the work carried out by lay activists. “The issue of pre-funded credit cards and use of a travel management facility to book accommodation would help to relieve the financial pressure on existing reps, and lift a potential barrier to representation for members.”

Kevin McCafferty, DWP Glasgow, spoke of the financial burden on activists as they carried out their duties. “It’s wrong for them to use their own credit cards to fulfil their duties. No one should be disengaged because of their finances.”

Calling for remission, John McCouglin, Education and Skills London, endorsed the motion’s proposition, but not its prescriptive options. “They are not necessarily the only solutions.”

Opposing the motion, Ian Barker, Leicester HMRC, said he didn’t want outside companies involved: “that will increase costs. It’s the right idea, but wrong way of doing it.”

Supporting the motion, Lesley Crowden, DWP Leeds HQ, recounted that “I couldn’t go to a meeting to represent my members until a colleague loaned me the money.” She was “embarrassed and humiliated”. The motion was not prescriptive but suggested possible solutions, she said.

Dave Bean, NEC, supporting the motion, said there would be one-year pilot from September for online travel and hotel bookings. “We must make sure that our low paid reps can attend meetings without incurring a financial burden.”

Remission was defeated and the motion was carried.

Union solidarity

President Janice Godrich reported to conference that a letter of congratulations had been sent to Unite on that day’s decision on the British Airways strike vote, and that the conference would be collecting for their strike fund.

Conference had also sent a letter of solidarity to CWU on the new Royal Mail privatisation plans. “We are showing cross-union campaigning resistance against the cuts,” said Janice.

Services and structures

The final afternoon session covered the union’s services and structures.

Motion A85 tackled the “yo-yo members”, said mover Ian Pope, HMRC South East Essex. “There are those who join PCS for our help, but leave after their problem is resolved – often without paying subs. And there’s the industrial action ‘yo-yo’s, who join when we call for industrial action, but resign after the strike is settled.”

Ivan Sinha, DWP, opposing the motion’s call for a cooling-off period for new members, complained that they would not have access to services. “That would make recruitment more difficult.”

Roger Alton, HMRC South Wales, asked for remission. “We all know what it’s like when members resign when their individual problems are resolved - but the motion is flawed.”

Sam Hall, NEC, supported the motion but with a statement. He said that the membership records “don’t demonstrate any union-wide problem. Branches can already reject applications for membership, or they can be referred to the full-time officer.” The NEC was “happy to publish advice to reps.”

Ian Pope agreed to remission of the motion, which was backed by conference.

Moving motion A86, Ashley Galliers, HMRC South Wales, congratulated the union on its positive work on equality issue, but said that under-representation in PCS should be tackled by positive action.

“The motion is asking the NEC to investigate if there is a problem, and to present solutions. We need to send out a strong message that PCS will not tolerate discrimination – or any detrimental changes to the legislation that has brought advances.”

Richard Jones, HMRC West Midlands, seconding, said that positive action “has had positive effects in union groups. The motion is looking for the opportunity for the NEC to identify where there is work to be done.”

But opposing the motion, Niaz Faiz said it would mean reserved seats, which conference had rejected at least twice before. “It’s a divisive issue,” he said.

Janice Godrich pointed out from the chair that branches were entitled to resubmit motions for discussion after two years.
Zita Holbourne, NEC, supporting the motion, said that “where reserved seats do exist in the union, they act as a safeguard to ensure representation for particular groups.

“This is a good time to review representation in the union, and to move forward where there is any under-representation.”
The motion was carried.

A motion on the salaries of the union’s officers led to a lively debate.

Chris Hickey, CLG HQ London, moving motion A87, said “in 2007 we agreed that pay of full-time officers should be more closely related to that of the members, but not so high that it was distant from their experiences. A pay scale that reaches up to £87,650 – within the top 2% of earners – is unacceptable. It raises issues about pay structures, use of members’ money and what type of union we should be.”

A delegate from SOCA, opposing, said the professionalism, experience and unstinting support of the union’s full-time officers had been invaluable to his members. “I’m surprised to see a resolution calling for a pay reduction for members of a sister union.”

Kevin Greenway, NEC, said the motion should be rejected as the union had agreed a pay and grading system with the GMB, representing PCS staff. “The NEC cannot support this motion – it’s a distraction, and would treat our own workforce in a way that we would not expect our members to be treated.”

The motion was defeated.

Grant McLure, DWP Fylde Central and Benefit Services, moving motion A88, said that because of the difficulties in responding to closure in multi-occupied sites “we need to coordinate campaigns better.”

Julie Bremner, Office of Government Finance, supporting, said she worked in a multi-occupied office, which exposed the strengths and weaknesses of branches. “The more united we are locally, the more they seek ways to divide us,” she said.

The wider context was that this development was “another way the government is looking to reduce costs.” The motion would mean the union would be more able to resist the cuts.

The motion was carried.

Mary Pope, DEFRA York, moving motion A90 on the swapping of PCS negotiating rights with sister unions, said that in the case of the formation of the Food and Environmental Research Agency, these rights had been gifted to Prospect, causing “disappointment, distress and anger”. PCS said that the decision was not up for discussion, said Mary. “The motion says that members have a right to be treated with more consideration.”

Rob Williams, NEC, supporting the motion, said “PCS is fully committed to ensuring that our members are fully consulted.”  The union already had policy covering this, he said. In the case of FERA “there was no direct transfer of negotiating rights to another union, but we advised members it was in their best interests to join Prospect.

“We need systems to ensure these issues are handled sensitively in the future.”

Motion A90 was carried.

Calling for an increase in lay members’ facility time to allow them to negotiate on pay, in motion A91, Tim McGone, Treasury Solicitors, said it was “a Titanic waste of resources in having over 200 bargaining units.” He called for a minimum of a 10% increase in facility time per branch.

But Mark Baker, NEC, called for remission or opposition to the motion. He recognised that lay reps did not receive the facility time needed for bargaining, “but 10%, regardless of need, would not succeed ... only a small minority of branches would benefit.” Under the new government, the union would “have a fight on our hands to defend existing levels of facility time.” 

The mover and conference agreed to remission of the motion.

However, delegates defeated remission of motion A92, calling for lay tutors to be treated as union learning reps for the purpose of facility time.

Emily Kelly, NEC, supported the motion but with a statement that “the roles of tutors and ULRs are not the same. The roles needed to be clarified.”

The motion was carried.

Richard de Lange, MoD Salisbury, moving motion A93, said that listing the number of nominations for NEC elections indicated factions rather than support of the general membership, and affected the gender and ethnic mix of the NEC. The practice meant that “HQ has to process a list with thousands of nominations for nominees when only one is required.”

Neil Lycent, NEC, said the motion made assertions that “we do not believe to be true”. The most nominated candidates for the NEC had been women and black candidates. “Democracy is about openness and transparency, not about secrecy,” he said. “Oppose the motion.”
Conference agreed and the motion was lost.

The union should do more to “embrace the electronic age”, said Martin Jenkins, DWP HQ Leeds, moving motion A94. He was aware that would mean rule change. The present methods of communication around NEC nominations and conference business were unwieldy and not user-friendly.

John Jameson, NEC, supported the motion with a statement that pointed out that the timetable would not be deliverable in time for the 2011 conference, and there could be legal challenge. The roll-out of the online project would take longer than the motion outlined.

The motion was carried.