Voting battles are never for the faint-hearted. But the fight for the AHV reform plumbs new depths.
The daily deception in the AHV vote battle.
Anyone who wants to win referendum battles in Switzerland must deposit their conscience at the entrance. Misleading citizens is standard practice – mostly on both sides. But the voting campaign for the AHV reform with the planned increase in the retirement age for women from 64 to 65 is exploring new depths. This mainly affects one side. While the proponents seem rather bloodless, the opponents, driven by the trade unions, are increasing smoke and butter by smoke and butter.
“AHV reform on the hump of women”? – This saying is the core of the No campaign. It is particularly effective, but pure hypocrisy. Unions are at least as vehemently opposed to raising the retirement age to 65/66 for both sexes. They would also oppose raising the retirement age for men only. The alleged discrimination against women? – Women are privileged when it comes to pensions, and the fact that they still do more housework than men is an absurd argument for giving women privileges when it comes to retirement age. Lower wages for women? – Again, this has nothing to do with the retirement age, and it is also a lie. If equal pay were important to the trade unions, they would have been willing to make a sacrifice in the annual pay rounds, for example along the lines of “3 percent more for women, 0 percent for men”.
It goes on in time. The labor market would not tolerate an increase in the retirement age? – This is nonsense. Unemployment is no higher among 55-64 year olds than among younger people, the social assistance rate is below average, the employment of older people has not fallen in the last decade but has risen significantly, and the labor market has accommodated the previous increase in the retirement age for women from 62 to 62 64 well digested. The Federal Council’s alleged pessimism about AHV finances? – This too is pure hypocrisy. The left itself is constantly demanding additional financing for the AHV, and it vehemently opposes an AHV debt brake, which would only come into effect once financial problems have arisen. The retirement age of 67 has already been decided? – A blatant lie.
The next fog petard followed this week. The social commission of the Council of States, which is brooding over the reform of the second pillar of old-age provision (pension funds), delivered the through ball. The commission again failed to decide on a reform variant. This means that the business will only be discussed further after the AHV ballot. The trade union confederation reacted with the usual outrage and the usual conclusion: now it really needs a no to the AHV proposal.
The councils of states deserve criticism. Some of the conservatives dealt with half-baked proposals, and the promise of more clarity before the AHV vote remained unfulfilled. But this is a sidetrack here: the AHV bill deserves support regardless of the reform of the second pillar.
The reform of the second pillar, which has been postponed again, includes, among other things, an expansion of insurance to lower wages, which is intended to help women in particular. But this is almost a zero-sum game for those affected: They would have higher pensions later, but would have to pay correspondingly higher contributions. Employers’ contributions are ultimately also largely borne by the employees – via a reduction in wage increases and lower employment. And don’t be under any illusions: Even if there were now a parliamentary resolution on the second pillar, a press release from the unions with routine indignation along the lines of “in view of this scandalous decision, the AHV proposal should be rejected all the more strongly” would be as certain as Amen in the church .