The opponents argue that the planned AHV reform is unfair to women, and warns that the retirement age will be increased for everyone. Federal Councilor Alain Berset explains why a yes to the reform is needed on September 25 and how women’s old-age provision should be improved.
SRF News: Mr. Berset, do you play jass?
Alain Berset: From time to time, yes – but not for a long time. Why?
Do you play your strongest trump when it doesn’t do you any good?
Usually not, no. Where are you trying to land with this question?
Why should women give up their most important trump card, namely the lower retirement age, if they don’t get anything in return?
The AHV is the most important of our social insurances, the center, the pillar. It is therefore crucial that it is well financed and remains solid over the years. A solid AHV is in the interest of everyone, including women.
At the moment, however, according to the survey, women would only just agree, while the men are very convinced. Many women think to themselves: why should we make the greatest sacrifices when, overall, our retirement provision is a third smaller than that of men?
It is true that there are many problems to be settled. But that’s no reason to start nowhere. No: We have to take this step now. For women, there are problems in old-age provision, especially in the second pillar. But we are now talking about the first, the AHV. This step must allow you to take one in the second pillar. We know there is a problem there.
It was not possible to complete the pension fund reform, so it is not known whether it will really bring big improvements for women. So you just have to believe and hope?
A few years ago, the Federal Council and Parliament presented a reform that was a package – first and second pillar together. She was rejected. So now we have to come up with two different packages.
Women should work until the age of 65. Do you think employers are eager for more 64-year-olds who want and need to work? Many are afraid of not getting a job.
64, 65: This is a reference age. Great flexibility is required from 63 to 70, with the reform there should be this possibility – also part-time work after retirement.
We will not settle the general discussion of whether you can still find a job at 60 or later with the AHV.
We will not settle the general discussion of whether you can still find a job at 60 or later with the AHV. We settled that with the bridging pension. The Federal Council and Parliament decided on this because it can indeed be a problem not finding a job in your late 50s. This is a big risk, also financially. I’m glad we got that sorted.
In recent decades, warnings have often been given that the AHV could collapse. Why should we believe it this time?
Everybody knows that the question of financing arises as more and more people retire – and for a longer and longer period of time. A man who retires at 65 now has the prospect of receiving 20 years of pension. A woman at 64 has a perspective of 24 years. It’s getting longer and there are more and more people, you have to take that into account when financing. Most of the improvement in funding is said to come from supplementary funding. Everyone will pay for it, which is also important for stability.
Her party colleague, union president Pierre-Yves Maillard, accuses her department of misleading numbers. The Federal Council has also misestimated the AHV reserves by 25 billion. Why should one believe that without reform things will get worse? At the moment the AHV is doing well again.
Yes, the demographics are there, and no one disputes that. With the last reform in 2017, it was exactly the same discussion. Because this reform was rejected, more money for the AHV was absolutely necessary. Hence the change in 2019 (Editor’s note: an additional two billion francs annually for the AHV with the tax AHV template). But everyone also knew that the AHV needed to be reformed in order to modernize it – with part-time work, the question of retirement age, flexibility and additional financing.
Even with this reform, the AHV should only be stabilized for a few years. And then: higher retirement age for everyone?
This has been discussed for a long time. I can still remember the 1990s well, with the white papers. They said we would work until we were 70 or 75, and we’re not at that point at all. But there are also people who say you never need to do anything, that’s not true either.
What does that mean?
With the AHV reform, the Federal Council and Parliament have proposed a small step with good compensation for the transitional generation. The central question in the last reform was not whether the retirement age should be discussed at all. Instead, the focus was on how high the compensation was. Here we have a good solution with nine years of compensation.
This also buys financial stability.
You shouldn’t always say that something is a first step for something else – you would never change a law like that again! The focus is: In the end, the population decides. There’s always a referendum, and that’s very good. This vote is about the question: Do you want this reform with additional funding, good compensation for the women, one year more than their reference age, but with good flexibility between 63 and 70? Yes or no. This also buys financial stability.
You don’t want to say how things will continue after that?
That’s not the question, and I don’t know.
You are now 50. What will be the retirement age when you retire?
I believe at 65 as the reference age for both sexes.
Nathalie Christen conducted the interview.