MARK SERWOTKA REELECTED
It was announced today that members of PCS have overwhelmingly re-elected Mark Serwotka for a third term as general secretary of Britain’s largest civil service union.
First elected in 2000, Mark Serwotka was returned for another five year term with 63.4% of the vote. His challenger received 36.6% of the votes cast.
With PCS members facing job cuts, privatisation, pay freezes and cuts to their redundancy terms in the New Year, the re-election of Mark Serwotka is an endorsement of the union’s active campaigning and organising strategy. Mark’s re-election means that PCS remains united in its response to unilateral changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, which could lead to PCS members having their jobs cut on the cheap.
The union is currently pursuing legal action with other civil service unions against the government over the changes and has decided to hold a strike ballot amongst its members working for the civil service and its related bodies. PCS will ballot its members should ministers press ahead with the plans and fail to ensure officials honour previous ministerial promises to find a negotiated agreement.
Commenting, Janice Godrich, president of PCS, said: “I would like to publicly extend my congratulations to Mark and say how pleased I am at the result. Since becoming general secretary, Mark has worked with the National Executive Committee to bring stability and unity to the union.
“He has played a leading role in ensuring the union focuses on members’ issues and workplace union organisation. The result has seen PCS grow, becoming more effective and listened to by ministers, employers, the media and TUC.
“He has helped extend our influence on members’ issues of jobs, pay, pensions, conditions, public services and face the immense problems by our members in the private sector.”
PCS members had a clear choice about whether they wanted a union which would stand up for them and fight back against attacks on their jobs, pay and terms and conditions, or a union that would hold its hands up and say nothing could be done. Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said: “PCS members had a clear choice about whether they wanted a union which would stand up for them and fight back against attacks on their jobs, pay and terms and conditions, or a union that would hold its hands up and say nothing could be done.
“Through this overwhelming show of support, members have shown that they want a union that will campaign and organise against the damaging consensus amongst the main political parties, which champions public sector cuts, pay freezes and privatisation.
“There are massive challenges facing PCS and its members in the year ahead. PCS will remain united in rising to them and PCS members can be confident that their union continue to stand up for them and the public services they care passionately about.”
“He has helped extend our influence on members’ issues of jobs, pay, pensions, conditions, public services and face the immense problems by our members in the private sector.”
Nice one Janice. How much crap can you get in one sentance.
The only thing that has got better under their leadership is their own pay. The only way the PCS has been going is backwards.
Jobs (Casual and Fixed Term Appointments) have been and are being lost with no serious response from the union.
The union has not won a victory on pay for the vast majority its members while Mark has been GS.
They defened pensions but only by surrendering the rights of new starters and creating a two-tier workforce. Going from having 100% of the union on the good pension and redundancy scheme to having at least 10% on inferior conditions is not something to brag about.
“Through this overwhelming show of support” the overwhelming majority of members didn’t even bother to vote.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
What does “PCS” stand for?
Comment by Gregory A. Butler — 17 December, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Public and Commercial Services union.
Comment by Nick Parker — 17 December, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Thanks for explaining that!
The original post only said PCS - and, since I live in America, I have no idea what the PCS is!
Comment by Gregory A. Butler — 17 December, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Ian Croft, instead of being ultra-critical of the PCS, why don’t you put forward an alternative? New Labour and the Tories would have loved to have seen Rob Bryson elected. Thankfully, he wasn’t. I agree with your concern about turnout. It would be much better if we weren’t hampered by the anti-union laws and could organise ballots in the workplace. Turnout would increase dramatically.
Comment by Nick Parker — 17 December, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
#4
Sorry Gregory, I suppose I should have explained what the acronym stood for, but the union is actually a lot better known as PCS than as Public and Commercial Services union.
The trend is also towards names for unions that don’t have speciffic meaning, for example my union GMB, just stands for GMB. Historically it meant Gas, municipal and boilermakers, but now that has been excised from the rule book and the union is just GMB.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 December, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Good news. But the work starts here. Resistance by public sector workers to the cuts agenda is only going to have a chance if the whole sector acts in unison - with… Unison, as well as many others eg RMT, RCN, BMA. The role of PCS should be to be at the radical edge of a movement that boxes hard and clever, and lands punches that hurt a Cameron government.
In my (entirely non-expert) view, a civil service strike is only going to be effective if local government, health service and the railways are out on the same days as well.
Comment by Strategist — 17 December, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
lets get Jerry Hicks elected to join him!
Good news in a wicked world.
Comment by Derek Wall — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Great news - Mark will be very busy defending the union membership over the next 12 months (and more) whoever wins the next general election.
Comment by Clive — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:56 am
General, Municipal and Boilermakers, surely? At least according to this
Comment by chjh — 18 December, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
When I first joined it, I’m pretty sure it was formally called GMBATU (General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union) and GMB was just a short version of that.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 18 December, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
#6, 11 & 12- I’ll meet you on the platform. Don’t forget your flasks and marmite sandwiches
Comment by Armchair — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
#11
“General, Municipal and Boilermakers, surely?”
TRUE
my memory plays tricks on me sometimes.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
No, you’re talking about WAY OF the Dragon. Why did you call it Enter the Dragon when it’s called Way of the Dragon?
Q. What’s wrong with my computer?
A. It’s not your computer, it’s Wernham Hogg’s computer…
Comment by Armchair — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Its very important that Mark was re-elected - however the PCS Socialist Party leadership has failed in line with last Conference to ballot yet members on support for TU candidates in a General election probably because the same leadership were concerned that Mark and themselves would be portrayed as extremists by the right wing in the union in internal elections. Now the SP has no excuse but to call the ballot asap. Also it needs to challenge the employer politically and industrially - Management have already launched a massive offensive against PCS members in Departments and over the civil service compensation scheme - PCS needs to begin the fightback before an election
Comment by GT — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
I am glad Mark won
however his opponent got nearly 40% of the vote
Thats not an overwhelming victory
its cause for concern
And I dont think its because he wasnt “left wing” enough
PCS has lost a whole group of members during the various WW1 once more all over the top attitude to action - learn from RMT
Pick your fights
Comment by Sean — 18 December, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Around 70% in dwp. can’t speak for the other groups
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 18 December, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
I am very happy Mark won. He is someone I have been on the same platform with at political meetings and have always found him the single most principled General Secretary in the current UK TU movement.
That being said this is a very small part of the battle. The PCS like other public sector TUs will have some very tough times ahead and how we build over the next 6 months will be key.
Thanks
Comment by Tom — 18 December, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Sean, in fact PCS membership has stayed at much the same level by recruiting new members despite the thousands of job cuts in parts of the civil service. Some people may have left but in my experience the period before a strike is often a trigger for a relative surge in membership applications.
GT, although I have often been critical of the SP strategy in PCS, in fairness Mark Serwotka made it pretty clear at the last conference that supporting or standing TU candidates was a longer term goal and union policy would not be in place for the coming election. I think there will need to be a lot of ground work done before PCS members are balloted on this, and it hasn’t been done yet.
Comment by Nick Bird — 19 December, 2009 @ 12:45 am
“5.Ian Croft, instead of being ultra-critical of the PCS, why don’t you put forward an alternative?”
The 1st part of any real altnernative is to be honest. Cringe inducing propaganda from the Left Unity leadership and the Socialist Party needs to go.
Tne 2nd part of any real altnernative is facing up to facts. The union is weak, very weak, on the ground. They can repeat stuff about a Left led fighting union all they like we all know that come the big cuts in 2011 we are going to be walked over. Left Unity has no strategy to deal with this most pressing concern.
Am up for discussing it if you want Nick, drop me a mail at
iwobbleyou@googlemail.com
Comment by Ian Croft — 19 December, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Ian,
The union isn’t ‘very very weak’ on the ground. For example membership density is now at around 70% (75% in the biggest dept, DWP). This is the highest across the public sector. PCS has more activists and distributors than ever before. Membership is still over 300,000 despite 80,000 job going. Jobs have been protected - less than 30 compulsory redundancies - as a result of the national agreement that other unions would kill for.
Of course it isn’t perfect and can be improved. Organising needs to be ramped up and prioritisd particularly as we face up tp huge attacks over the coming period.
But, Mark Sertwotka is the most articulate and dynamic union leader in a generation - and his re-elction should be a cause for celebration, particularly after the nasty, personal red scare campaign run by his right wing opponent.
Comment by Eddie — 19 December, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
“21.Ian,
The union isn’t ‘very very weak’ on the ground. For example membership density is now at around 70% (75% in the biggest dept, DWP). This is the highest across the public sector.”
Your confusing strength on paper with actual strength. A union is only as strong as its members. You can have a membership density of 100% but if those members are not prepared to take serious industrial action then it is just a paper tiger. The PCS is weak in the once place no union can afford to be.
“PCS has more activists and distributors than ever before.”
Correct and Left Unity can rightly claim they have made an excellent advance in this area.
“Jobs have been protected - less than 30 compulsory redundancies - as a result of the national agreement that other unions would kill for.”
That is a grossly misleading statement. Casuals and FTA have been, and are currently, losing their jobs. It easy to make a deal over compulsory redundancies when you have a 2nd tier workforce who are on temporary/fixed term contracts.
Comment by Ian Croft — 19 December, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Ian, DWP members have taken 21 days of industrial action in the last 5 years - hardly a sign of members not prepared to take action! There has been a huge amount of strike activity in other groups and national strike action has been supported on every occasion that members have been balloted.
I take the point about casuals and FTA staff but the union ran the groundbreaking campaign for recognition of casuals in DEFRA (which saved jobs) and has produced a specific recruitment leaflet for these staff. Agreed that more needs to be done but this is recognised.
The point surely is that the union has made massive strides forwad under the leadership of Mark Serwotka and it’s a pity you focus on negatives rather than take a rounded view. PCS is the best union in the UK by some distance and members have recognised this by voting for a left leadership time after time. When you think back to the politics of the CPSA and the ultra right leadership of Reamsbottom this is a significant achievement.
Comment by Eddie — 19 December, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
“23.Ian, DWP members have taken 21 days of industrial action in the last 5 years - hardly a sign of members not prepared to take action! There has been a huge amount of strike activity in other groups and national strike action has been supported on every occasion that members have been balloted.”
21 days sounds like a lot but it isn’t. 4 days a year. 1 day every 3 months on average and the backlog worked off by a day of overtime the following week. That is not serious strike action. Management shrugged off those strikes.
If we where strong we wouldn’t have casuals or FTA contracts, we wouldn’t have a two-tier workforce and we wouldn’t have lost ground on pay, conditions, pensions and the compensation scheme.
“PCS is the best union in the UK by some distance”
That is a sad fact and not something to take comfort in.
I will continue to take a negative view of the PCS, Serwotka and the Left Unity leadership until they get their act together. The fact is we are losing and as things stand will be crushed when the budget cuts kick in.
Comment by Ian Croft — 19 December, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Membership is not as Eddie claims - it is less in DWP largely because there has been an influx of new staff that have not been signed up as quick as PCS would like. Whether PCS strengthens its membership amongst new staff depends on whether it is willing to fight the huge attacks on all members (e.g it must challenge a 2 tier workforce in respect of redundancy payments). The Socialist party has done some good work around youth unemployment, but the organisation should ensure its comrades in the leadership of PCS doesnt let young workers down again as it did accepting a two tier pension for the Civil Service. Unfortunately Ian is right with regard to PCS failing to win pay struggles with the employer in recent years and this has been due in part to Serwotka and the LU leadership. Although Serwotka is much better than Bryson, he has not challenged the conservative bureaucratic approach of some leading SP members in PCS that initially didnt support him when he first ran for office.
Comment by GT — 19 December, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
Boab - we have been recruiting the new staff heavily in DWP, and whilSt the density dropped initally it is on the way back up and quickly. On pay, the fact is that we have been dealing with the legacy of the previous leaderships inaction on the issue which allowed national pay bargaining to be dismantled.
I know many activists are frustrated at the lack of a breakthrough and pay remains a massive issue, although a new wave of proposed mass job cuts in areas like HMRC, MoD, MOJ, Land Registry and elsewhere are equally pressing.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by ‘the bureeaucratic conservative approach’ of the SP. Give me an example of this and how it has held us back on pay or fighting for jobs? The ultra left frequently make this charge but cannot ever provide concrete examples.
Comment by Eddie — 19 December, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
“the bureaucratic conservative approach”
I’d guess it something to do with the fact the union ran in a very top-down way with power almost exclusivley held by the Full-Time officials and elected leaders in the NEC and GEC.
The result of which is the workers and even the lay union activists are treated as troops to be mobilised on the say so of the leadership rather than the leadership responding to the will of the members/activists.
Comment by Ian Croft — 19 December, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
“I’d guess it something to do with the fact the union ran in a very top-down way with power almost exclusivley held by the Full-Time officials and elected leaders in the NEC and GEC”
And yet PCS ADC is the most democratic in the movement with all Branches able to be represented and make policy. As for the FTOs I don’t recognise the description of them having power. We have conference policy on the election of FTO’s and I would expect this to be taken forward now that Mark is re-elected.
I can’t think of an example where the leadership has failed to respond to the will of members/activists either Ian. In fact the NEC is far closer to the membership and their demands that in any other union I can think of bar RMT possibly.
Comment by Eddie — 19 December, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
But no one has answered if things are so great in PCS why the right winger got 40%
Why
My friends in Inland Revenue say they have lost loads of members
and what can the workers in DWP show for 21 days of strike action/lost pay
still no increase in pay and still job loses etc
Lets see how PCS stand up to the Tories ??? after all the SP still state the Tories are no worse than Labour
But are you saying a right winger getting 40% in present climate is a sign of a great victory ???
Just trying to keep it real comrades
and yes I would have voted for Mark
Comment by Sean — 19 December, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
“And yet PCS ADC is the most democratic in the movement with all Branches able to be represented and make policy”
Getting to mandate the union once a year does not put effective power in the hands of members. In theory members only have veto power. They can support a policy or a candidate but once the election is over they have no control of them until the next election.
In reality only around 10% of the them vote in NEC/GEC elections, around 21% voted in the GS election and a tiny amount of members attend the branch meetings to discuss motions.
Comment by Ian Croft — 19 December, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
Ian, you seem to have little appreciation of the historical context in relation to PCS. This is a union whose predecessors had some of the most right wing union leaderships in the whole movement. Given the extremely varied nature of the civil service, it is unsurprising that there is a politically conservative layer within it, so actually yes, Serwotka’s decisive victory with 63% is a good result. Yes there are lots of problems and I am part of PCS Independent Left which has challenged the Left Unity leadership in a number of areas. The right wing has few activists and control of few branches (as can be seen by the number of nominations for its candidates) but it appeals to a passive conservative layer in the union. It is a victory for the left to have overcome that in recent years.
Comment by Nick Bird — 20 December, 2009 @ 1:10 am
Sorry that was more of a reply to Sean than Ian. It’s late…
Comment by Nick Bird — 20 December, 2009 @ 1:22 am
I think people are reading too much into the support Bryson received.
Serwotka has failed to achieve most of his campaign promises and Bryson’s address contained a few well aimed attacks pointing this out.
If you are a extreme nerd like myself you’ll know Bryson was on the ultra left of the SWP at one point, making his red-baiting just stupid, that he was working with the old Moderates who used to be in bed with the managers and that his talk of partnership was rightwing code for surrender.
However the election campaign consisted of 1 statement from each candidate and that was it. It not like voters could make an informed decision. Going from the statements alone there was plenty of reason for a worker to vote for Bryson. It was no unreasonable for a worker to think that if Serwotka’s “combative” strategy has failed why not try Bryson’s “partnership”?
Comment by Ian Croft — 20 December, 2009 @ 11:44 am
“It was no unreasonable for a worker to think that if Serwotka’s “combative” strategy has failed why not try Bryson’s “partnership”?”
That’s the point really. Members had a choice - stand up and fight by voting for Mark or surrender by voting Bryson. As Nick Bird correctly points out there is a naturally conservative layer in the civil service and it is a significant one. This explains both the Bryson vote and also the history of the CPSA. The reality of this layer makes the achievements of Mark and the leadership all the more impressive. PCS members have made a clear choice in the election.
On pay, the reality is that the national pay campaign has not delivered the breakthrough. Low pay is endemic across departments and it remains a massive issue for members who are sick of being skint. But I would ask Sean/Ian/Nick what the priorities are now. Is it to fight on pay, is it to defend jobs or is it the CSCS? I would argue we have to fight on all 3 but the tactics of how this is done need to be thought through carefully.I hear criticsm of Mark and LU but don’t here alternative strategies that members would sign up to in numbers and with enthusiasm (please don’t pretend that the strategy of the independent left commands mass support amongst the membership).
In HMRC membership is going down. This is because of 200 office closures and mass cuts. The HMRC Group have however had successes in fighing the privatisation of the security guards and in preventing Compulsory Redundancies.
No activist would pretend the union is perfect, which one is?, but under the leadership of Mark and Left Unity the union has taken gigantic strides. It is a shame that people want to focus on real and imagined failings rather than recognise the tangible achievements that have been made and the opportunities opening up as a result of Mark’s re-election.
Comment by Eddie — 20 December, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
“That’s the point really. Members had a choice - stand up and fight by voting for Mark or surrender by voting Bryson.”
and yet they, in overwhelming numbers, went for the third option of not even bothering to vote.
“(please don’t pretend that the strategy of the independent left commands mass support amongst the membership).”
No-one has mass support amongst the membership. Left Unity certainly doesn’t.
“I hear criticsm of Mark and LU but don’t here alternative strategies that members would sign up to in numbers and with enthusiasm”
Left Unity doesn’t have a strategy that members sign up to in numbers and with enthusiasm.
Comment by Ian Croft — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:39 pm