Beginning of the end for "social partnership" in PCS? - Left victory in main civil service union
Beginning of the end for "social partnership" in PCS?
Left victory in main civil service union
Darren Williams
A rank and file socialist candidate, Mark Serwotka, has won the first-ever election for general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), beating Blairite full-time official, Hugh Lanning, by 40,740 votes to 33,942.
This a stunning victory, particularly in view of the odds against Serwotka, who stood as an independent socialist against the chosen candidate of the bureaucracy, the serving Assistant General Secretary.
The result exceeded the best expectations of even Serwotka's closest supporters, and vindicated his decision to stand in the face of opposition from the 'official' left, which had wanted to give Lanning a free run against another right wing candidate, incumbent general secretary Barry Reamsbottom.
The contest became a straight left-right political fight when Reamsbottom was forced to stand down after failing to obtain sufficient branch nominations to qualify for inclusion on the ballot-paper.
The result puts the 260,000-strong civil service union in an exciting new situation: with a general secretary-elect who is committed to leading a fight against privatisation and performance-related pay, and for the restoration of national collective bargaining.
The significance of Serwotka's victory can only be fully appreciated in the context of government policy and industrial relations in the civil service over more than two decades.
The Thatcher government inherited a highly centralised service with huge, monolithic departments whose top officials remained loyal to a conception of public service that had remained largely unchanged since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the nineteenth century brought the modern civil service into being.
These departments collectively employed a workforce numbering nearly three-quarters of a million, with common pay scales and conditions of service, organised in a number of unions which were based on grade but strong enough to overturn the Callaghan government's attempts to impose its incomes policy with a nation-wide strike in 1979.
Over the next 18 years, Tory governments mounted an offensive that left this picture transformed beyond recognition.
Each department was broken up into a number of autonomous agencies, run according to business criteria, with managers given ever-greater powers, and charged with making efficiencies by any means necessary.
By 1996, departments and agencies were given responsibility to set their own conditions of service and make their own pay arrangements - provided that these were based on performance-related pay (PRP).
A few agencies, including large chunks of the Ministry of Defence, were sold off to the private sector in their entirety, but almost all undertook the 'outsourcing' of specific functions to private contractors, whether by market testing, PFI or some other arrangement. 250,000 jobs were cut.
This whole process served a dual purpose: firstly, the 'slimming down' of the state, making government services pay for themselves as far as possible; and secondly, breaking a united workforce into smaller and smaller sections with increasingly differentiated pay and conditions, so that the capacity of workers to resist change was overcome.
The response of the unions to this offensive was to denounce each new initiative, but to do little about it in practice. During the 1980s, the largest union, CPSA, was run intermittently by the Militant-led Broad Left and there were a couple of national pay strikes.
After 1988, however, all the unions were run by right-wing 'new realist' leaders who argued that it was necessary to accept the new framework for industrial relations imposed by Thatcher's anti-union laws, and concentrate on lobbying politicians to moderate the worst excesses of government policy.
And while a series of mergers meant that, by 1998 one union - PCS - represented the majority of civil servants, there was no attempt to translate this unity into industrial strength. Instead, the bureaucrats rewrote the constitution so as to make themselves as unaccountable to members as possible.
Any hope that life would become easier under New Labour was swiftly dispelled.
Performance Related Pay (PRP) and the delegation of pay and conditions to departments and agencies stayed. The freeze on the public sector pay remained in place, as did the obligation to consider outsourcing in order to deliver efficiency savings.
The only difference was that now it was argued there was no ideological predisposition in favour of privatisation: only an open process to achieve 'best value'.
Despite the fact that this has still meant thousands of jobs being hived off to the private sector, the leadership of PCS has accepted the government's line uncritically.
Whereas they greeted the Tories' measures such as PFI by warning branches of the dangers and instructing them to organise campaigns (albeit with no support from the centre), they have now become tame propagandists for the New Labour line.
Branches are expected to co-operate enthusiastically with employers in introducing changes in the workplace, as these are now seen in the context of a new regime of 'social partnership' - supposedly the highest form of industrial relations, with a complete harmony of interests between employer and worker.
This line has been codified at the national level by the signing of a Partnership Agreement between the unions and the Cabinet Office. Among other things, this denies the unions the right to oppose government policies sanctified by electoral mandate - even if these threaten the interests of their members!
Mark Serwotka represents a complete break with this legacy.
While others on the left have compromised with the bureaucracy and eschewed strike action in favour of more 'respectable' methods, he has remained true to his working-class background and his socialist beliefs.
An activist from the time he joined the civil service as a teenager, 21 years ago, Mark has led strikes in every branch to which he has belonged. His integrity and commitment have earned the grudging respect even of political opponents.
These are qualities he will need when he assumes the general secretaryship after a year-long handover period. Although the main socialist grouping, Left Unity, performed creditably in the last NEC elections, they have only five seats on the 46-member body, while the two right-wing factions - the Moderates and Membership First - have nineteen seats each (two independents and a Stalinist making up the difference).
The antagonism between the two right-wing factions has enabled Left Unity to hold the balance of power, forming ad hoc majorities on specific issues with one of the other groups (usually Membership First).
Once the Moderates get over their jubilation at Lanning's defeat, however, there is a danger that the two factions will bury their differences, recognising that they have a common interest in holding back Serwotka and working against a resurgence of the left.
It is therefore vital that the left demonstrates the single-mindedness necessary to win a majority in the 2002 NEC elections. The campaign must begin now.
There are a number of lessons to be learnt from Serwotka's victory.
Firstly, many activists - most notably in the Socialist Party (SP) - have cause for embarrassment over their refusal to support a socialist candidate against the right wing from the outset. Given the SP's enthusiasm for standing candidates in state elections, their timidity here is ironic, to say the least. It is almost certain that this reflects their partial incorporation into bureaucratic machine-politics.
The presence of a handful of their members at HQ as full-time officials is likely to have strengthened the SP's inclination to work for the victory of the comparatively reasonable and inclusive Lanning, over the vindictive Reamsbottom.
By prioritising issues of organisational style over more fundamental questions of political leadership, however, the SP abstained from an opportunity to make the arguments for a change of direction with the membership.
Even had there been no chance of a socialist winning the election, it would still have been worth running, to use the election as an opportunity to address members.
Secondly, it is notable that the turnout in this election was 30% - a small but significant increase on the usual figure. This, coupled with the size of Serwotka's victory, suggests that the membership recognised the importance of this election, and the implications of the political differences between the candidates.
This may, in part, be a reflection of a slightly more militant mood within the working class generally - something that has been indicated by a few recent developments.
But undoubtedly, an important factor was Serwotka's own profile within his department (DSS) and agency (Benefits Agency) and within the civil service generally.
He is respected precisely because he has a record of fighting on the issues that matter to members, not simply posturing at election times. If the left is to repeat his success, it must lead a consistent fight on the very issues that Mark raised in his campaign: 'partnership', pay, privatisation, democratisation of the union, etc.
Finally, it is not enough simply to condemn the SP and others who have failed to provide a strong lead on this and other issues.
There has been a tendency among those with better politics - notably the Socialist Caucus - to give up on Left Unity, instead of fighting for a better line within it. For all its faults, Left Unity is democratically organised, and with over 600 members, is far the biggest organised faction in the union. It will continue to be the core of the organised left.
Serwotka himself sums up these issues eloquently in his victory message: "Now is the time to fully unite the Left in PCS. I stood in this election because I was disappointed that Left Unity decided not to run a candidate.
"Left Unity is an important grouping in our Union, it should be the natural home for all socialists, and activists who wish to fight back. I call on all those who supported me in this campaign to join Left Unity, particularly the new generation of activists in PCS.
"By making itself more open and accessible to a new generation of activists, and to those who have previously refused to join, Left Unity can become an organising centre to ensure that the policies I fought for in this election can be delivered. It can also ensure that not only do we fight for these policies now, but that we can also go on and win the NEC elections in 2002.
"In order that the Left can urgently begin to discuss these issues I call on Left Unity to arrange a special conference, open to all, to ensure we maximise the new opportunities opened up by my victory."