Parliament’s strange handling of the people’s rights | The people’s rights are regarded as Switzerland’s political trump card. However, with its decisions on AHV, minimum wages and civilian service, parliament has shown little respect for them.
by BezugssystemCH1903
2 comments
Article Translation:
>In Switzerland, the people have the final political say. This is often emphasised to distinguish the country from others, for example to denounce the alleged loss of sovereignty through new EU treaties and the dynamic adoption of EU law. Given the shrill tones from the right, one gets the impression that direct democracy is in mortal danger.
>Argumentatively, this is outrageous, and it overlooks the fact that since the 2023 elections, the Federal Assembly has itself stood out for its borderline handling of proposals that stem directly or indirectly from popular votes. In spring 2024, this concerned biodiversity, second homes, and the protection of minors from tobacco advertising.
>A corresponding popular initiative was accepted in early 2022, but due to pressure from the tobacco lobby, it was to be implemented only in a heavily diluted form. Now, a corresponding legislative proposal has been finalised in the summer session. It still includes questionable exceptions, but for the initiative’s proponents it is considered “just about sufficient.”
>With a bit of goodwill, one could argue that Parliament just barely managed to avoid disregarding the will of the people. At the same time, during the summer session ending on Friday, there were further decisions by the National Council and Council of States that, from the perspective of popular rights, can be seen as rather unusual.
>__AHV__
>A centre-left majority in the Council of States decided to fund the 13th AHV pension payment through an increase in VAT and salary deductions. So far, so normal, as this is also a case of implementing a popular decision—even if right-wing conservatives and economic circles would prefer to reverse it.
>However, the majority also decided on a plan to abolish the so-called marriage penalty. This refers to the fact that married pensioners may receive a maximum of only 150 percent of the AHV maximum pension, whereas cohabiting couples can receive two full pensions. The Centre party wants to eliminate this “marriage penalty” via a popular initiative.
>The Federal Council recommends rejecting it without a counterproposal, and Parliament has not yet debated it, let alone brought it to a vote. To already decide on an indirect counterproposal seems rather reckless. Federal Councillor Elisabeth Baume-Schneider (SP) unsuccessfully urged a gradual approach.
>The right-wing side of the council complained that the proposal would come at the expense of the younger generation. In any case, there are also marriage privileges in the AHV system. These include, for example, the widow’s pension, and wives can “credit” their husband’s income during a maternity break. In the National Council, the proposal may face difficulties, as the GLP is likely to lean towards a rejection.
>__Minimum Wages__
>A national popular initiative to introduce a minimum wage clearly failed eleven years ago. At the cantonal level, however, various initiatives were accepted, especially in western Switzerland. This is a thorn in the side of conservatives and business groups. They do not want to override these popular decisions, but they do want to “steer” them differently.
>Specifically, collective labour agreements (CLAs) that stipulate lower wages should take precedence over cantonal minimum wages. Out of consideration for federalism, the Federal Council had already opposed the original proposal by Centre party Council of States member Erich Ettlin from Obwalden and reluctantly had to draft a legislative proposal.
>Economics Minister Guy Parmelin (SVP) again recommended rejection of the proposal in the National Council—without success. The conservative majority sang the praises of social partnership. Yet in the area of occupational pensions (BVG), they had no ear for the social partners’ reform proposal, and there are also objections to the compromise on wage protection.
>The FDP did not mention in its press release that the cantonal minimum wages are based on popular votes. For now, only Geneva and Neuchâtel are affected, but identical initiatives are pending in other cantons. Nevertheless, it is foreseeable that the Council of States, as the chamber representing the cantons, will also approve the proposal.
>__Civilian Service__
>In the past, those refusing military service were automatically imprisoned. Two initiatives to introduce a civilian alternative service failed in popular votes. With the end of the Cold War, a shift occurred. In 1992, an overwhelming majority supported civilian service—even the conservative small cantons in central and eastern Switzerland voted in favour.
>In 2009, another step was taken: the abolition of the in many respects questionable conscience test, based on a motion by Heiner Studer, a National Councillor from Aargau (EVP). Now, however, the conservative majority in the National Council wants to reintroduce it. This was justified with the alleged personnel needs of the army.
>One might naively argue that the situation from 1992 is simply being restored, but many conservatives would prefer to abolish civilian service altogether. They decided on further restrictions, such as a minimum duration of 150 days. And on Wednesday, the Council of States voted in favour of merging civilian service with civil protection.
>It aligned itself with an earlier decision by the National Council. Specifically, the Federal Council is now tasked with “introducing the so-called security service obligation as quickly as possible.” Defence Minister Martin Pfister (Centre) did not want to rush things and warned of the additional costs involved, but he was overruled.
>One could also mention the Council of States’ move to loosen the war materials legislation. This law had only been tightened in 2021, which led the Group for a Switzerland Without an Army (GSoA) to withdraw its so-called corrective initiative. Perhaps current geopolitical turbulence could be seen as a “mitigating factor.”
>Nevertheless, the Council of States’ proposal goes too far. And fundamentally, it must be noted that Parliament is showing a nonchalant attitude toward the rights of the people. Conservatives are annoyed that left-leaning ideas are now succeeding in popular votes—ideas that once had no chance. But this certainly does not help to strengthen trust in politics.
Just look at homelessness in Germany. Social safety nets actually work far better in Switzerland than just about anywhere else.
Switzerland should have a minimum wage, but wages in Switzerland are actually better protected than in most countries because welfare competes with low wages (people aren’t going to work for less than what they can get from welfare). Unions help as well.
Comments are closed.