Survivor’s pension reform: divided opinions on gender equality and savings
Opinions on the reform of the Swiss survivor’s pension are divided. While some Swiss parties and organisations in the consultation process welcome a balanced amendment, others fear the impact on the poorest and women in particular.
The amendment to the old-age and survivors’ insurance (OASI) (known also as the AHV/AVS), is intended to correct unequal treatment of widowers and widows. The latter currently receive a lifelong pension, while widowers are only supported until their youngest child comes of age.
+Swiss pension vote: what’s at stake
The reform provides for benefits to be based on the period of child-rearing, regardless of the parents’ marital status. Lifelong widow’s pensions would be abolished. A two-year transitional benefit is planned for people without dependent children.
Widows and widowers with dependent children would receive a pension until the child reaches the age of 25. Supplementary benefits are provided for people over the age of 58 who would find themselves in precarious circumstances.
Pensions for individuals under the age of 55 would be abolished two years after the bill comes into force. The current pensions for individuals over 55 would be retained. The revision would also not affect recipients of supplementary benefits who are 50 or older. A reduction in the old-age and survivors’ insurance expenditure of CHF720 million ($799 million) is planned. The federal government, for its part, will save CHF160 million.
Living conditions have changed
Pro Senectute supports the abolition of the lifelong pension, as this system is no longer based on valid living conditions and no longer reflects today’s social realities. The new focus on the time spent bringing up children is therefore understandable.
The cantonal conference for social affairs also agrees with the amendment. Instead of granting the entitlement to a lifelong pension regardless of need, the proposal assesses the benefits after a death according to the circumstances. However, the cantonal conference for social affairs finds the exclusion of childless couples from the bridging pension incomprehensible.
Meanwhile, the umbrella family organisation, Pro Familia, rejects the reform, “which is being carried out on the backs of women”. The draft risks creating new precarious situations for women who might need to reduce their employment in order to look after their families, says Pro Familia.
Meanwhile, the Aurora association, which offers information for widowed individuals with underage children, is calling for current pensions to be paid to surviving parents as before. In the case of future pensions, surviving parents should also be granted a transitional pension of at least two years once their maintenance obligation has been fulfilled, says the Aurora association.
Some parties welcome the amendment
Among the political parties, the Radical-Liberal Party considers the reform to be balanced. The Radical-Liberal Party says the amendment eliminates the unequal treatment of men and women, provides for transitional benefits and takes hardship cases into account.
The Swiss People’s Party also welcomes the revision, noting that in view of the shortage of qualified labour and the steadily increasing participation of women in the workforce, the payment of a lifelong, gender-specific pension is no longer appropriate. The party also approves of the planned savings.
+Swiss to vote on raising retirement age to 66: a visionary idea or an unwelcome plan?
The Centre Party generally approves of the revision in principle. The planned measures would take account of today’s social realities and family models, the Centre Party says. The party believes it makes sense for the entitlement to benefits to be concentrated on “intensive” phases.
The left does not want savings
On the left, the Social Democratic Party welcomes the fact that legal equality between widows and widowers will be guaranteed and that the parents in caregiving roles to underage children will be entitled to benefits. However, the party rejects the planned savings, “which would be carried out on the backs of people who are already in a precarious situation”. The Greens also reject the path proposed by the Federal Council, as it would worsen benefits for certain groups of women. The party suspects that the proposal is not aimed at eliminating gender inequalities, but rather at reducing the federal government’s expenditure on the old-age and survivors’ insurance.
More
Should we work until 66 to secure long-term pension funding?
Get the most important news from Switzerland in your inbox – click here to subscribe
Adapted from German by DeepL/amva
This news story has been written and carefully fact-checked by an external editorial team. At SWI swissinfo.ch we select the most relevant news for an international audience and use automatic translation tools such as DeepL to translate it into English. Providing you with automatically translated news gives us the time to write more in-depth articles.
If you want to know more about how we work, have a look here, and if you have feedback on this news story please write to english@swissinfo.ch.
In compliance with the JTI standards
More: SWI swissinfo.ch certified by the Journalism Trust Initiative
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here. Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.