SP national councilor on the defeat of parental leave

Politicians like to speak of a respectable success after a defeat. But that should be difficult for you, since your parental leave initiative was rejected by around 65 percent, right?

Yes, I can admit it openly: I am disappointed. I assumed that support for parental leave would be greater in the progressive canton of Zurich. The fact is, however, that we did not go much further than our share of the voters by approving our initiative. This shows that we still have a lot of work to do on this issue.

How do you explain the clear rejection?

We will certainly have to analyze this in more detail later. Perhaps the demand for 18 weeks of parental leave was too much for a first attempt. For some, the financial argument emphasized by opponents may also have played a role. Although we were able to clearly show that parental leave could have been easily financed.

I also assume that not everyone who voted no now is against parental leave in this form. Some of those entitled to vote probably had a problem with the fact that parental leave was only introduced in the canton of Zurich, which would have resulted in a national patchwork quilt.

So was it wrong to launch the initiative in the canton?

No, it’s true that the cantons sometimes push ahead when things aren’t going fast enough in Bern. And it’s not the first time either. In addition, implementation at cantonal level would have been legally possible, as we were able to show with an expert opinion. It was clear to me: if Zurich doesn’t help parental leave to break through, then who will?

Conversely, does that mean that the matter is now off the table at national level? If Zurich doesn’t want parental leave, who else would want it?

In the canton of Zurich, we will certainly not be making the same proposal again in the next few years. But at the national level, parental leave remains an issue. It’s only a matter of time before young men and women demand it. Young men today have completely different role models and want to live them. I see that with my son and his friends too. When it comes to parental leave, we are at the bottom in a European comparison, and we have to make progress in terms of equality.

Just because a first attempt failed does not mean that the matter is off the table for us. We won’t be discouraged that easily. So I have to disappoint all those who were happy about the rejection because they think that the topic can now be kept silent. Social concerns often need several attempts before a breakthrough is achieved. Just think of women’s suffrage. We are used to needing staying power.

But it’s still a defeat. Shouldn’t you have done even more to reach a compromise? In the cantonal council, there was a counter-proposal from the center for 14 weeks of parental leave.

I think we did everything we could for a compromise. We also made it clear in the pre-advisory cantonal council commission that we would withdraw our initiative if the counter-proposal were to come about. Unfortunately, the majority of Parliament has decided against the proposal for 14 weeks of parental leave. So we have to acknowledge that the time is not yet ripe to expand parental leave.

The counter-proposal failed due to the somewhat surprising resistance of the GLP. How do you see their role?

The GLP was particularly critical of the fact that the canton would have pushed ahead alone when it came to parental leave, and has therefore rejected the initiative and the counter-proposal. After all, the party base then decided to vote for the initiative, which shows that the issue does enjoy a certain amount of support from the base.

Your SP colleague Min Li Marti seems to be quite disappointed with the behavior of the Green Liberals. On voting Sunday, she wrote on Twitter that things would probably have turned out differently with a counter-proposal and that the GLP had made it very difficult for any national project with its behavior. Would you agree with that?

Support from the GLP would certainly have been useful to us, and I would have liked it too. And yes, the way the party acted didn’t help the cause in general either.

There are other ways to promote the compatibility of work and family. Which path will the SP now pursue?

At national level, we have launched a day-care center initiative. It is important that there are enough daycare places everywhere and that they are also affordable. Parents should not have to spend more than 10 percent of their income on childcare. It is also important that the working conditions for the carers are decent.

In addition, I have always campaigned for the introduction of day schools. They clearly increase the compatibility of work and family. And they are an enrichment for the teachers. This is how they experience their students outside of the classroom.

The civil side also calls for more flexible working hours. Do you lend a hand to such solutions?

Basically, I’m not against more flexibility. But of course we have to take a close look at what the solutions look like. Flexibility must not be introduced at the expense of employees. The differences between leisure and work are already becoming increasingly blurred.