Despite all our criticisms of the current DWP GEC leadership, we will do our upmost to deliver a YES vote in the DWP ballot that will start on the 19th January.

With regards to the ballot, we recognise that the DWP’s senior managers and behind them, the Government, are the only adversaries that matter. Failing to secure the much-needed “YES” vote would be a collective defeat, stripping us of our only real source of leverage. Winning the ballot creates genuine bargaining power. We are clear though that if the ballot results provide a mandate for industrial action then we have to move quickly to use it, too often we wait to exhaust talks with management and just exhaust the membership instead.

So, if we deliver the DWP strike mandate, we must be prepared to execute the strike action with speed and conviction. The DWP and the Government are calculating on our willingness to dither and return to protracted, stalling talks.

We cannot afford to fall into the trap of using the threat of action as an excuse to delay actual action. Our leverage is perishable; it is at its maximum the moment the result is declared. Immediate mobilisation is the only way to convert a successful ballot result into tangible wins for our members.

We win the ballot to secure the threat, but we take action to make the threat real.

Vote “YES” and support the DWP ballot.

This is a follow up to an earlier posting Left Unity’s Real Reasons for Retreat – Part 1: It’s About Control

Firstly we have to be honest and say that PCS in is a minority union.

Left Unity believe this low membership density makes effective collective action difficult and limits the union’s ability to deliver a strong strike. Furthermore, they are genuinely worried about mobilising the members we do have. The risk, in their view, is not the government’s reaction, but the potential exposure of the union’s organisational weakness.

They have internalised our weakness and factored it into their assessment of the situation that faces us. Instead of viewing the union’s current size as a challenge to be overcome through aggressive organising, they see it as a permanent limitation on our actions. Their focus therefore is not on fighting the employer but on managing PCS itself. We see this plainly in their priorities: they see surpluses, healthy bank balances as a measure of success, rather than counting the number of fully engaged and mobilized members.

This approach is not leadership—it’s management. Union managers look at numbers, internalise risks, and avoid bold moves likely to upset the status quo. Leaders inspire members to take action and build real confidence in collective power. LU’s inertia is a choice, built into every decision they make to keep PCS stable rather than growing, defensive rather than offensive. It’s evident in their repeated decision to avoid national ballots, citing apathy or weakness rather than challenging those conditions head-on.

Moreover, they have done nothing serious to change the union to a majority one, let alone a super majority one.

We contrast this with the successful organising strategies championed elsewhere in the labour movement, particularly those discussed by organisations like Labor Notes. These movements understand that power is not preserved; it is built. They employ a strategy of “supermajority organising,” which demands systematic, person-to-person engagement across every workplace, targeting both members and non-members, using escalating actions to build a credible strike threat.

Successful unions do not wait until they reach perfect density before taking risks; they use the fight itself to recruit and consolidate power. This militant approach is centred on cultivating rank-and-file leaders and accepting the calculated risks that are necessary to break employer resistance.

We in the Independent Left believe the only way to escape the trap of being a minority union is to stop fearing the 50% threshold and start organising with the aggression and member-led focus required to smash through it.

If you believe the same then join us: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/

At the end of October, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) submitted its written evidence to the NHS Pay Review Body (PRB). The wording in this document is critical for all of us in the UK Civil Service, especially as we look at pay year 2026

The key passage from the DHSC submission states:

“DHSC have developed financial and delivery plans which currently allow for a pay uplift of 2.5% without having to make trade-offs against headline government health commitments. Should the independent pay review bodies recommend an award above this level, we would need to consider whether and how this could be made affordable from within existing DHSC budgets.”

This is a clear signal that the government wants to limit pay uplifts to just 2.5%.

Whilst the NHS is different to the UK civil service, it is a sector where a major union, the BMA, is already in dispute over pay restoration/jobs and another, the RCN may also soon move into a pay dispute.

So, Ministers are under pressure there, which they are in not in the UK civil service – the major union, PCS, having decided to opt for peace and hope for the best. So you would expect the submission to reflect this. And it does say ‘An engaged workforce is central to delivering government’s objectives for the NHS’. Yet it is recommending a cap on pay uplifts of 2.5%.

Indeed the submission says:

‘SR25 set departmental budgets for day-to-day spending until 2028/29. The Government has been clear in the SR that pay awards need to be funded in full from within these budgets and there will be no access to the reserve’.

The same will be said to PCS by the Cabinet Office in the so-called national talks. If, at the moment, the government won’t budge on the SR settlement in the NHS then they won’t in the UK civil service. The Cabinet Office may acknowledge problems with the current pay systems in the service but without extra cash they can’t fix those problems.

The Cabinet Office and the ‘Magic’ 2.5%

This figure is not an isolated incident. Civil Service World reports that the Cabinet Office, in its own evidence to the Senior Civil Service (SCS) Review Body, echoed the same sentiment:

“The government has considered these factors whilst carefully evaluating the overall affordability position and recommends that the total increase in paybill for the SCS should be no higher than 2.5%,”

The message is unmistakable: 2.5% is the government’s ceiling for next year’s pay increases across the public sector.

Is a Special Deal Likely?

The Left Unity (LU) leadership in PCS has often expressed hope about the potential of the national talks with the Cabinet Office to deliver a significant win for our members.

But let’s look at the facts. Given that the government is trying to hard cap pay at 2.5% for the NHS, and is enforcing the same limit for the SCS, do we really think it is likely that PCS will get a special deal, a better deal than the NHS?

The plain answer, from where we in the Independent Left (IL) stand, is No.

We must be realistic. The government tends to apply a consistent approach across the entire Civil Service and wider public sector. Furthermore, the decision by the current PCS leadership not to have a pay campaign this year—effectively giving up our industrial leverage—has significantly weakened our negotiating hand. Without the credible threat of industrial action, what pressure can be brought to bear to break the government’s 2.5% barrier?

Is 2.5% acceptable? The plain answer again is NO.

If you want a better union, a union that fights, then join us: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/