PCS silencers debate in Supreme Court ruling after taking legal advice.

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

www.thenational.scot/news/25182360.civil-servants-union-pcs-silenced-debate-trans-rights/

Archive link

archive.ph/WpGsq

Gender critical motions have been silenced for so long, but it's not a good thing to head into a new era of "no debate".

There were 25 motions and three hours disruption because this is the first time anyone has said no to this dominant minority within PCS.

They have been emboldened by years of being allowed to push their agenda without constraint or consequence.

It sounds like someone with some power within PCS has finally found a backbone and is standing up to them.

I hope that those who have wielded this power and corrupted the rightful activities of the union will flounce and let those fighting for better terms and conditions for workers do their jobs.

It may simply be related to the long stretch under the Tories, but pay and conditions within my part of the civil service are poor and the direct cause of terrible retention of staff at lower levels. This is a time when we really needed the unions to be fighting for us and not for the spurious desires of men wanting to use women’s toilets.

@PriOn1 "They have been emboldened by years of being allowed to push their agenda without constraint or consequence.
It sounds like someone with some power within PCS has finally found a backbone and is standing up to them."

Have they been emboldened by years of misrepresenting the law? If so I imagine that the shock of being pitched against actual legal advice must be quite a shock.

Removing motions in this way was completely undemocratic, that's a big part of why people are protesting. Allow it to be debated by the floor, that's what conference is for. Martin and Fran can't just run an NEC fiefdom doing whatever the fuck they want - the majority of delegates there wanted A57 debated and removing it at the last minute was deliberate and disingenuous.

Btw, for posters who weren't in attendance - the applause in support of trans colleagues was thunderous, and the acceptance of standing orders was only forced because it went to a card vote and several of the higher density branches with more votes support the Left Unity leadership of the NEC.

I'm proud that most of conference saw this utter crap for what it was. As a union, we are allowed to challenge legal rulings and have done so several times. And it's our duty to stand up against attempts to silence certain voices in the union. The delegate who spoke against a trans motion cried bullying when people objected to what she was saying, meanwhile she'd been incredibly disrespectful - laughing and talking loudly when trans colleagues had been speaking on motions.

You can challenge the law, but surely there's a difference between criticising it and actually inciting members to ignore/break it?

Plus, unions are allowed to challenge legal rulings where the system allows.

It doesn't allow an uninvolved organisation to challenge the Supreme Court.

Why waste precious conference time with a minority group demanding impossibilities? Ones which, incidentally, disadvantage half of the fee-paying membership (albeit not the half union bosses have ever traditionally given a fuck about while there are men to prioritise).

You're male, I assume?

Removing the motion was not Martin or Fran’s decision, it was the decision of the SOC. it was not undemocratic, the union members voted for the individuals on the SOC, the SOC took legal advice as you would hope and expect them to if they were unsure if the motion would cause harm to the union by breaking a law. Why would anyone want to place the union in a position where the organisation is taken to court for breaching legislation? That would incur legal fees and ultimately may lead to an increase in subs to cover costs. Why would the union risk that when we have members who themselves have to claim UC just to get by? We’d lose density, members would leave in droves, this would harm our negotiating power. Who in their right mind would want to weaken their own union? …

If IL and BLN are smarting because they lost control of the NEC perhaps that is because they are not delivering what the majority of PCS members want, but are pandering to the few with louder voices.

If you don’t feel you’re being heard don’t raise your voice, improve your argument.

Shouty, whiney people don’t make great orators.

Perhaps some internal retrospection is needed by those who wanted A57 heard?

I’m not sure where you feel there was a majority vote for the inclusion in the hall? The delegates in the hall voted 3 times. Each time the answer was no. No, they didn’t want to hear it as it may result in legal action against the union.

Martin was very patient and allowed the full democratic process to play out for everyone to feel heard.

Just because you have large, ‘thunderous’, clappy hands and booming deep voices that drown out others does not mean you are in the majority, it means you are attempting to stifle democratic process. The card vote was called for by those wanting to force A57 onto the agenda. If you thought you were going to fail because other branches had greater influence why demand it? Sounds like a crap strategy and piss poor planning, unless… it was just attention seeking, and another ploy to delay the start of conference. 🤔

Oh, and people in glass houses should not throw stones. Many BLN and IL members verbally abused and berated women members during conference.

And yes, the other delegates did see the actions of the supporters of A57 for the ‘utter crap’ little show it was. Thank god some of us have the ability of critical thinking.

Keep it up lads, the sun is shining brightly 🌞🌞🌞

PCS membership is approximately 70% women.

For clarity BLN is the Broad Left Network, who formed an alliance with IL (Independent Left) and still can’t muster enough people to vote them onto the NEC.

Very happy to stand corrected, thank you.

I've been on the brink of becoming an ex-PCS member for some time, because I'm so utterly sick of their woeful attitude to women and the horrible, aggressive attitude of the rainbow faction.

Sounds like quite a lot of the membership feel the same and are ready to say so. You've given me hope that PCS might get back to representing all its members.

@MarthaFarquar Majority of delegates, prior to the card vote, voted no to accepting standing orders in their current state, i .e. with A57 not included. They weren't voting against that motion, they wanted it included.

If you think the President and GenSec have no influence on the SOC you're more deluded than I thought.

Okay, blokey. No need.to be rude.

@wingeezer
I witnessed something different to you. You are obviously viewing things through a different lens.

Thank you for your concern about my mental health, I can reassure you I am fine and fully compos mentis.

Edited as bloody autocorrect ‘cor-wronged’ to Mentos, though mint flavoured sweets are good too.

Okey-dokey, wokey blokey, in an echo chamber a whisper can sound like a shout, so I'm taking 'thunderous' applause with a large pinch of salt. 🙄
What trade are the genderwangers campaigning on behalf of? Nothing that's been described sounds like it has anything to do with the one and only purpose of trade unions.
Plenty of Unions have had no problem with kicking out women with gender critical beliefs, it's time they started kicking out members who have dragged the Unions so far away from the purpose they were formed for.

I'm so glad that we have wingeezer present to explain that black is white, hate is love, war is peas etc.

Twas ever thus.