The National Executive Committee (NEC) met on 8 and 9 September to consider feedback from Groups and Branches and determine the next steps in the national campaign. On 18 September, PCS announced that trade dispute letters had been issued and a statutory ballot would open on 20 October.

Notably, news of the forthcoming statutory ballot was announced by Hector Wesley, PCS HMRC Group President and NEC member, during his speech at the TUC before the National Disputes Committee (NDC) had met and before most PCS members and representatives heard anything about it.

The decision to move directly to a statutory ballot raises serious questions about whether the campaign has been properly prepared and whether sufficient work has been done to bring members, Branches and Groups with us.

A Campaign Rushed from the Start 

Since the new NEC took office, we have witnessed a rushed and increasingly chaotic attempt to build a campaign around conference policy, without first completing the democratic and organisational work necessary.

The initial delay to the campaign was not caused by those urging caution. It followed the failure of the newly elected NEC majority to comply with the union's own Standing Orders, leading to valuable time being lost while questions about the NEC's constitution and ability to function were resolved.

This was followed by a series of difficult NEC meetings where decisions were often unclear and where the overall direction appeared to be to press ahead regardless of significant concerns raised by Groups and Branches.

Refusal to Listen 

More than 80 Groups and employer areas, including some of the union's largest groups such as DWP, Home Office and MoJ, expressed concerns about rushing into a national dispute. These concerns were raised through a senior lay representatives' forum, Group and Branch meetings with NEC members present and in written submissions.

Those concerns were not about avoiding industrial action. They centred on whether PCS had done enough to build the levels of support, understanding and confidence required to achieve the statutory 50% turnout threshold and, beyond that, sustain and win a national dispute.

Concerns on this scale should have been treated as an essential part of building the campaign. They should have been listened to and addressed. Instead, they have often been portrayed as obstacles to be ignored. Despite the feedback, the NEC Majority have decided that Groups and Branches covered by the Civil Service Pay Remit will be included in the national campaign.

Let's also be clear about what may happen if the ballot fails to meet the required threshold. There is a real risk that responsibility will be placed on Fran Heathcote, General Secretary despite her delivering what has been asked. Legitimate concerns should not become convenient scapegoats should the course of action fail.

Consultation is Not the Enemy of Action

PCS Democrats and the Democracy Alliance have consistently argued that a consultative ballot should have formed part of the process of building this campaign.

That is not an argument against industrial action. It is an argument for ensuring that before asking members to accept the significant financial and personal risks associated with industrial action, we have properly engaged with them, listened to their views, explained the dispute and established whether they are prepared to take that step.

The latest BLN statement dismisses the idea of a consultative ballot as "endless consultation". That misses the point entirely.

A consultative ballot would not have prevented a statutory ballot. It would have identified where support was strong, where further organising was required, what members understood about the dispute and where the campaign needed to improve. Most importantly, it would have provided evidence rather than assumption.

The Foundations are Not in Place

Members and representatives are being asked to prepare for a national dispute while fundamental questions about participation and scope remain unclear.

That is not the fault of the Groups and employer areas that expressed concern. It is the consequence of attempting to construct a national dispute at speed without first putting the necessary organisational foundations in place.

Every Group and employer area should deserve to be given clear answers to four basic questions:

• Is it included in the statutory ballot?
• Why has that decision been made?
• What is expected of it during the campaign?
• If its expressed position has been overridden, why has that happened?

Members deserve that level of transparency. Representatives deserve it too.

There are also important questions about funding any future industrial action. Last year, the Democracy Alliance sought to open a serious discussion about establishing a dedicated strike fund. Those proposals received little support. This year, there has been limited information about how strike pay would be funded beyond references to future consultation on potential options.

Activity Is Not the Same as Progress

The latest BLN update presents the move to a 20 October ballot as a matter largely determined by the ballot provider. However, the timetable for issuing ballot papers is only part of the story.

The more significant question is why, after months in which this campaign was presented as an urgent priority, PCS is approaching a statutory ballot while substantial parts of the union remain unclear about their position and key organisational questions remain unresolved.

The union has spent months grappling with internal disputes over procedures, Standing Orders, communications and campaign mechanics. The result is we now face a statutory ballot without the level of preparation that should have preceded it.

That is not evidence of urgency. It is evidence of the consequences of rushing a national campaign without adequate groundwork. There is a real danger that activity is being mistaken for progress.

Producing campaign materials, issuing updates and repeatedly urging members to vote are all important. But none of those things can substitute for the hard work of building the organisation, confidence and engagement needed to win.

Groups Raising Concerns Should Not Be Blamed

Groups have every right to consider whether their members are ready, whether the dispute is understood locally, whether the turnout threshold can realistically be achieved and whether members believe industrial action can deliver results.

These are not excuses for inaction. They are exactly the questions responsible trade union leaders should be asking.

PCS Democrats have consistently argued this campaign should not be driven by a desire simply to demonstrate the NEC has acted, or to show that conference policy has been implemented. It should be driven by what is most likely to deliver a successful outcome for members.

If the statutory ballot fails to meet the required threshold, it would be entirely wrong for responsibility to be shifted onto those Groups and Branches that warned from the beginning more preparation was needed.

What Needs to Happen Now

The priority now must be clarity, transparency and engagement.

The NEC majority should provide every Group and employer area with clear information about participation and expectations. Groups and Branches must be properly supported to engage their members.

Members deserve honest information about the dispute, the ballot and what a vote for industrial action could mean in practice. Just as importantly, concerns raised across the union must be listened to rather than dismissed as opposition.

The Democracy Alliance does not oppose campaigning. We oppose campaigning without proper preparation.

We do not oppose industrial action as a last resort. We want to ensure that when members are asked to take industrial action and lose pay, PCS has done everything possible to maximise the chances of success - including negotiating, and we know many areas are yet to enter into negotiations on pay this year.

We do not oppose conference policy. We believe conference policy should be implemented faithfully, democratically and effectively. Nor do we believe that the concerns raised by more than 80 Groups and employer areas should simply be disregarded because they do not fit the narrative promoted by the NEC majority.

The real test of leadership is not whether a campaign can be announced. The test is whether a campaign can be built that members understand, support and are prepared to fight for, and whether that campaign ultimately delivers results.

That is the standard by which this campaign should be judged, and the debate should not be about rewriting the history of how we arrived at this point. Our task now is to ensure the campaign going forward is properly organised, democratic, transparent and focused on delivering meaningful gains for PCS members.