Opponents call the pension initiative unsocial and unfair
Published: Tuesday, Jan 16th 2024, 11:41
Zurück zu Live Feed
On March 3, Switzerland will vote on the pension initiative, which first calls for a retirement age of 66 and then a retirement age linked to life expectancy. According to the non-partisan "no" committee, the initiative is not suitable for reforming the pension system and calls the proposal antisocial and unfair.
The SVP, SP, Center Party, Greens, GLP and trade unions are represented in the "No" committee. The FDP supports the popular initiative "For a secure and sustainable pension scheme (pension initiative)" launched by the Young Liberals.
For different measures
On Tuesday, committee members presented their arguments for voting against the initiative to the media in Bern. A unilateral increase in the retirement age does not seem opportune at the moment, said Erich Ettlin (OW), member of the Council of States from the center, recalling the OASI reform that was only narrowly approved in 2022 with the increase in the women's retirement age to 65.
Parliament has already commissioned the Federal Council to draw up a draft for a further AHV reform for the period from 2030 to 2040, Ettlin explained. "The Federal Council should develop a balanced solution consisting of various measures."
Geneva SVP National Councillor Thomas Bläsi conceded that the initiative was addressing a real problem. However, after the AHV reform, a further increase in the retirement age would be tantamount to a double penalty for women. The timing of the initiative was badly chosen and it would be very difficult to achieve a majority.
Bläsi also finds it disturbing that the initiative would link the retirement age to an indexation anchored in the constitution and not to a vote of the electorate. The SVP is in favor of a clearly defined retirement age, which could then be adjusted upwards or downwards depending on demographic developments.
Neither efficient nor fair
National Councillor Melanie Mettler (GLP/BE) added that a higher reference pension age alone was not enough to ensure balanced financing of pensions. After all, it was mainly the wealthy who took early retirement. The initiative would therefore mainly affect those who could not afford early retirement. This is neither efficient nor fair.
The committee is made up of members of the middle classes and trade unions. The pension initiative fails to recognize the realities of the labour market, said Pierre-Yves Maillard, SP member of the Council of States (VD) and President of the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (SGB). People over 55 are often the first to be made redundant and finding a job is difficult for them.
The top trade unionist also fears that a higher pension reference age would jeopardize early retirement models for strenuous professions. If the linking of the retirement age is in the constitution, parliament alone can no longer decide on exceptions and deviations.
Healthy retirement years
In the Committee's view, life expectancy alone should not determine the retirement age. The number of healthy years in retirement must also play a role. Differences in income have an impact on health, said National Councillor Léonore Porchet (Greens/VD), Co-President of the employees' umbrella organization Travail Suisse. People with a low income have poorer health than people with a high salary.
Travail Suisse President Adrian Wüthrich warned that it would be difficult to plan for retirement if the retirement age was only known five years in advance. This is because the average life expectancy of 65-year-olds fluctuates. Pandemics or a flu epidemic show this.
He warned that the initiative would mean giving up a key achievement of the welfare state. Namely, that people would no longer have to work until they die, but could spend their old age in security and dignity.
www.renteninitiative-nein.ch
©Keystone/SDA
German 
English 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic