Vote Pension fund reform rejected by the people according to projections
The years of reform work on the second pillar have failed. According to the second projection by the research institute gfs.bern on behalf of the SRG, the electorate rejected the bill with 68% of votes against. This means that everything remains the same for the time being.
The no vote at the ballot box is not entirely surprising. The BVG reform faced headwinds throughout the entire referendum campaign. The last referendum polls predicted a No vote of 51% (SRG) and 59% (Tamedia/"20 Minuten").
The predicted massive "no" vote of almost 70 percent is nevertheless a surprise. The margin of error of the second projection is plus/minus two percentage points.
Since the introduction of the second pillar in 1985, the Federal Law on Occupational Retirement, Survivors' and Disability Pension Plans (BVG) has only been comprehensively reformed once, namely in the noughties. Since then, several attempts at reform have failed. Now work is starting again on field one.
Status quo with the minimum conversion rate
The BVG reform was intended to financially stabilize the second pillar of old-age provision in light of the growing number of pensioners, increasing life expectancy and falling returns. The minimum conversion rate for calculating pensions in the mandatory part of the insurance would have fallen from 6.8% to 6%.
This will now not happen. The other points of the reform will not be implemented either: People with low incomes in old age should have been better protected, but they and their employers would also have had to pay more into the second pillar.
According to the federal government, the pension fund reform would have mainly affected those in employment who are insured according to the BVG minimum or only a little more. Who would have been affected by the reform would have depended on their personal situation - for example, their professional career and the pension fund regulations.
Major success for the left
The No vote is a success for the left. Once again, it was able to convince the majority of the population on a social policy issue. The campaign led by the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (SGB) focused on the fact that more people had suffered than benefited from the reform.
Opponents complained that the proposal would require more to be paid into the second pillar, but that the pension would still be lower for many. In addition, the pension funds had achieved high returns over the past ten years and were "swimming in money".
The left was supported in the referendum campaign by eight business associations. They argued that the bill would lead to false incentives to save and more bureaucracy and should therefore be rejected.
Broad alliance fails to convince majority
The business umbrella organizations Economiesuisse and the Employers' Association, on the other hand, described the BVG reform as overdue and campaigned for a Yes vote. The Yes committee included social politicians from the SVP, FDP, Center Party, GLP and EVP.
The main argument put forward by those in favor of the reform was that significantly more people would receive a higher pension than a lower one. This would reduce the risk of poverty in old age.
Parliament had learned its lessons from the past, said Center President Gerhard Pfister at the launch of the Yes campaign. On the one hand, it had refrained from mixing up the various pillars of old-age provision. On the other hand, the reform is not a pure restructuring bill.
Search for majorities continues
The majority of the electorate obviously saw things differently. Pension funds in particular, which mainly insure mandatory minimum benefits, remain under pressure due to demographics and the interest rate situation.
The focus is now on the question of what a pension fund reform that could be approved by a majority in parliament and by the people could look like. At the beginning of the failed reform process, the social partners were at the same table. However, the compromise they negotiated had no chance in parliament.
SDA
