Pension fund reform rejected by the people according to trend calculation
Published: Sunday, Sep 22nd 2024, 12:10
Back to Live Feed
Years of reform work on the second pillar have failed. According to trend calculations by the gfs.bern research institute on behalf of the SRG, the electorate rejected the proposal. This means that everything will remain the same for the time being.
The "no" vote at the ballot box is not entirely surprising. The BVG reform faced headwinds throughout the entire referendum campaign. The last referendum polls put the No vote at 51% (SRG) and 59% (Tamedia/"20 Minuten").
Since the introduction of the second pillar in 1985, the Federal Law on Occupational Retirement, Survivors' and Disability Pension Plans (BVG) has only been comprehensively reformed once, namely in the noughties. Since then, several attempts at reform have failed. Now work is starting again on field one.
Status quo for the minimum conversion rate
The BVG reform was intended to financially stabilize the second pillar of old-age provision in light of the growing number of pensioners, increasing life expectancy and falling returns. The minimum conversion rate for calculating pensions in the mandatory part of the insurance would have fallen from 6.8% to 6%.
This will not happen now. The other points of the reform will not be implemented either: People with low incomes in old age should have been better protected, but they and their employers would also have had to pay more into the second pillar.
According to the federal government, the pension fund reform would have primarily affected employees who are insured according to the BVG minimum or only a little more. Who would have been affected by the reform would have depended on their personal situation - for example, their professional career and the pension fund regulations.
Great success for the left
The No vote is a success for the left. Once again, it was able to convince the majority of the population on a social policy issue. The campaign led by the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (SGB) focused on the fact that more people would have suffered than benefited from the reform.
Opponents complained that the proposal would require more to be paid into the second pillar, but the pension would still be lower for many. In addition, the pension funds had achieved high returns over the past ten years and were "swimming in money".
The left was supported in the referendum campaign by eight business associations. They argued that the bill would lead to false incentives for savings and more bureaucracy and should therefore be rejected.
Broad alliance fails to convince majority
The umbrella organizations Economiesuisse and the Employers' Association, on the other hand, described the BVG reform as overdue and campaigned for a Yes vote. The Yes committee included social politicians from the SVP, FDP, Center Party, GLP and EVP.
The main argument put forward by those in favor of the reform was that, overall, significantly more people would receive a higher pension than a lower one. This would reduce the risk of poverty in old age.
Parliament has learned its lessons from the past, said Center President Gerhard Pfister at the launch of the Yes campaign. On the one hand, the various pillars of the pension system have not been mixed up. On the other hand, the reform is not purely a restructuring bill.
Search for majorities continues
The majority of voters apparently saw this differently. Pension funds in particular, which mainly insure mandatory minimum benefits, remain under pressure due to demographics and the interest rate situation.
The focus is now on the question of what a pension fund reform that could be approved by a majority in parliament and by the people could look like. At the beginning of the failed reform process, the social partners were at the same table. However, the compromise they negotiated had no chance in parliament.
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic