The Socialist Party have published this piece in the wake of growing demand from claimants for PCS to look into a policy of non-cooperation with benefit sanctions.

There are a number of issues with the article. The patronising “look, you people can do protest too” attitude to claimants in the opening paragraphs for one. Plus that it conflates the argument for non-cooperation with sanctions and the issue of the Bedroom Tax - when in the latter non-cooperation isn’t an issue as much since part of the campaign is that people can refuse to pay the shortfalls in their rent and resist eviction, whereas you cannot refuse to be given less money by the government.

However, in terms of the argument over non-cooperation, I’d like to deal with three broad objections to the idea that have been repeated in this article from debate elsewhere.

1 - The anti-strike laws

The main objection to a non-cooperation strategy is that it would be unlawful and could get staff sacked. This is a serious point and not to be taken lightly.

However, the motion being put to PCS conference specifically instructs the union to investigate methods of doing this lawfully. For example, incorporating it into an existing trade dispute, or making sanctions into a dispute in their own right since they are putting workers at greater risk and attacks have tripled in the past year. It also instructs PCS to do so whilst making sure members have every possible legal and industrial protection.

Also, it is worth noting that the SP say “teachers have to participate in SATs tests which are hugely unpopular and detrimental to children. However, for a teacher to refuse to participate in the testing regime could lead to a charge of gross misconduct.” Except that they did just that in 2010.

The laws are an obstacle, but not an insurmountable one.

2 - Substitutionism

Bizarrely, one of the other major objections to non-cooperation is that it would be a small group of workers substituting themselves for the rest of the class:

PCS and Unison members might argue that, why should they alone bear the brunt of defeating this government on the bedroom tax and other benefits.

This is utter nonsense.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that the rest of the class can’t carry out this one specific aspect of the opposition to austerity/welfare reform.

Secondly, nobody is suggesting that this one act is done instead of everything else. The substitutionism argument is a strawman on an epic scale.

As an alternative, the SP pose:

Mass action against the bedroom tax should be part of action against all cuts. Trade unions should work with anti-bedroom tax campaigns locally and nationally to build an anti-evictions army to physically oppose, resist and prevent attempted bedroom tax evictions through all peaceful means necessary.

They can also campaign for the writing off of any debt incurred due to the bedroom tax and campaign to recover the shortfall for local authorities and housing associations from the Tory-led government at Westminster.

Disabled activists could help stop this bedroom tax for all by adding their pressure to the call for the TUC to organise the biggest joint action for generations - a coordinated public/private sector strike against austerity.

There are many direct attacks on workers by the Con-Dems and bosses - on pay, pensions, jobs, etc - that coordinated action can be taken against. All workers, all trade unions should act together to stop this Con-Dem juggernaut.

Except that nobody’s saying that anyone has to stop doing all of that. In fact, I specifically listed in a recent blog how non-cooperation (official or otherwise) would need to be backed up by direct action solidarity from claimants.

No substitutionism here. Move along.

3 - “Just doing their jobs”

The SP also attempt to throw a “workers in uniform” spanner in the works here:

The job of some PCS workers entails administering many disagreeable procedures to all kinds of people like welfare claimants, migrant workers, even those convicted of crimes.

Which of course provokes the point that unlike, say, screws (at both regular prisons and immigration prisons) and the filth, the role of DWP staff isn’t an inherently oppressive one. DWP staff administer welfare - something we’ve won from the state through struggle. That the government is trying to regiment the unemployed isn’t something without which the very job would evaporate.

Workers in the DWP’s predecessors knew this. Hence why Margaret Thatcher’s attempts to implement race checks on claimants were met with wildcat strikes and rank-and-file action. (Tellingly, the union leadership of CPSA was squeamish about refusing to police claimants then, too and sabotaged the struggle.)

Once again the government is drawing a dividing line between workers and claimants. The question is whether workers step over that line as claimants are demanding, or tow it under the false flag of a wholly ironic “unity.”

The Civil Service Rank & File Network are lobbying for the former position at PCS conference. Disabled People Against Cuts, Boycott Workfare, Black Triangle and Brighton Benefits Campaign are supporting them.

Demand action on benefit sanctions - PCS conference rally

The Brighton Centre, 12.30-14.30, Tuesday 21 May

Bring flags and banners

RSVP on Facebook here