23 April 2004
Marx once joked that: 'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.'
It was Groucho, not Karl. But, if true, it could be argued that the current pay dispute engulfing Whitehall is high politics indeed.
The Public and Commercial Services union, which represents more than 300,000 civil service staff, this week told Public Finance that it will proceed with a landmark High Court challenge to a controversial new pay package imposed on employees at the Department for Work and Pensions. A very public spat awaits this summer.
In true [Groucho] Marx fashion, one Whitehall insider claims the dispute is 'heavily laden with troubles' on both sides.
'This& could be viewed as a case of the DWP attempting to impose a questionable solution to a dispute that both sides should never have allowed to get this far, and which many of the [union] staff involved do not support.'
On the employers' side, DWP permanent secretary Sir Richard Mottram has lost patience with the PCS, but he may be walking a troubled path.
Mottram claims that, having tried for more than a year to negotiate a settlement for the 2002/03 pay round, he was left with no alternative but to impose an improved offer from May. Under the deal, which forms part of the performance development system (PDS), 86,000 DWP staff will receive pay rises in excess of 5%, the department says.
But the Left-leaning union, led by general secretary Mark Serwotka, says it guarantees rises of just 2.6%. Moreover, Serwotka claims it does not dispel fears over the increased use of performance-related pay across Whitehall.
The union opposes PRP because, according to leaked department memos, it is 'a contributory factor in reducing the unions' grip on pay decision-making'. The PCS claims that with the department facing a tough 5% efficiency target, unveiled by Chancellor Gordon Brown in this year's Budget, pay has been identified as a likely casualty.
Legally, PCS lawyers also claim the new framework breaks the DWP's own pay guidelines because it involves the use of a quota system. Indeed, the department's appraisal regulations prohibit restricting the opportunity to 'achieve whatever rating is appropriate to [staff] performance'.
Keith Wiley, pay negotiator for the union's DWP members, claims that under the department's existing PRP structure, around 30% of staff receive 'Box A' bonuses the highest for their efforts, while 60% receive Box B or Box C and less than 10% receive the lowest, Box D.
Under the quota system, just 10% will receive Box A deals, while 80% will receive Box B or C and 10% will get the lowest deal regardless of their performance. 'That is not a fair system by any means,' Wiley says.
The DWP has refused to comment on the impact of its deal. A spokeswoman said, however, that they were 'entirely satisfied' that it was legal.
It appears that senior managers are happy to tackle the PCS in court. The union has developed a reputation for 'looking for trouble' and sources close to the dispute claim that a shot across Serwotka's bow has been coming.
But would a public slap-down be the best remedy? This will be the first time a pay deal has been challenged in the High Court, but the PCS is aware of a precedent for opposing remuneration systems within Whitehall.
The former Department for Education and Employment, under the guidance of its permanent secretary Michael Bichard, once overhauled its pay structure, opting for a system similar to the PDS.
But the DfEE's regime included an appeals procedure that sowed the seeds of its own destruction. Staff challenges were rife, the system became a nightmare to administer and ultimately it was scrapped. Ministers be warned.
However, Whitehall's employers learned an important lesson. The DWP's PDS contains no appeals procedure.
'The DWP is not acting as a responsible employer,' Serwotka claims. Following a 48-hour walkout at department agencies over Easter, Serwotka wrote to Work and Pensions Secretary Andrew Smith, reiterating his members' 'intense anger'. The threat of further strikes and a protracted dispute remains.
However, PCS members have not universally supported the union's actions. Internal divisions have long split the organisation. Some oppose the strike action outright. Others are unhappy that the union waited until thousands of low-paid staff had lost four days' pay before launching the legal challenge.
The chance remains that PCS opposition could implode. All remedies carry potential side-effects.
Have you heard the joke about the troubled pay system, dragged from a cupboard filled with the skeletons of Whitehall's past failures and applied, in the eyes of some, incorrectly? Groucho Marx tells it well&
PFapr2004
