In the dispute over the reform of occupational pensions, which is in danger of collapsing, the SP is looking for a confrontation. She reanimates old suggestions. Only one is potentially capable of majority voting.
The SP co-president Mattea Meyer presented her party’s proposals immediately before a commission meeting.
Political communication in extremis: On Thursday at 9 a.m. in Bern, an SP delegation led by Co-President Mattea Meyer appeared in front of the media to publicly announce their proposals for a commission meeting that begins at 9:45 a.m. The topic was the reform of occupational pensions (BVG), one of the last major projects of the legislature. The maneuver of the SP is legally permissible. The deliberations in the commissions are confidential, but disclosing one’s own motions is not forbidden.
However, the procedure says something about the intentions. Anyone who thinks they can seriously influence a proposal rarely goes public with their proposals beforehand. In the case of the SP, this probability is small. The National Council has already discussed almost all of the proposals presented – and rejected them. The motivation for the appearance is more likely to be found in the elections. In the next few months, the SP wants to force the debate on pensions – one of its strongest topics, with which it can also score points against the Greens.
Who should pay for this?
One of the warmed-up proposals is an idea with which the left wants to improve mothers’ pensions in particular. The SP National Councilor Barbara Gysi advocates the introduction of education and care credits in the second pillar, analogous to the AHV. Anyone who takes care of children or relatives in need of care would receive pension-building contributions for this time.
In the words of the Federal Council, this would be “a new, completely foreign element” for occupational pensions. The big question would be who would have to pay: the childless? The employers? In addition, the matter would be technically complex, especially since the pension funds, in contrast to the AHV, are organized on a decentralized basis. The demand had no chance in the National Council, from the GLP to the SVP, the parliamentary groups voted unanimously no.
The question of principle
With another application, the SP asks the fundamental question: National Councilor and trade unionist Pierre-Yves Maillard demands that the reduction in the statutory conversion rate be waived. He decides on the amount of the pension, but only within the legal minimum; Most of the insured persons have extra-mandatory insurance, and lower rates already apply to them almost everywhere.
So far, the SP has not questioned the reduction. But because she doesn’t think the compensation is enough, she wants to turn the wheel back. In view of the rising interest rates, the reduction is “largely” unnecessary, according to Maillard.
But the SP would prefer the parliament to decide on the original bill. This had been drawn up by the trade unions and the employers’ association. It provides for surcharges for almost all new pensioners, which are financed à la AHV in a pay-as-you-go process from young to old. With such a comfortable compensation, the SP would again be willing to support the reduction in the conversion rate.
The last SP motion, on the other hand, could have a majority. It is about the question of which part of the salary should be insured in the BVG minimum. The bourgeois camp is also divided here. The larger the share, the greater the improvement in the pensions of people with low wages or part-time jobs. However, they have to pay for this themselves through higher wage deductions. The Council of States goes relatively far here – too far from the point of view of the SP. She only wants to insure 60 percent instead of 85 percent. Your proposal has a chance because similar ideas are circulating in the SVP.
The National Council will discuss the bill in March.