Berset abandons the women

class=”sc-3778e872-0 gWjAEa”>

The decision in favor of the AHV reform was narrow, but clearly against the majority of women. You will have to continue working until your 65th birthday. For a transitional generation of nine years, the decline is made easier with a pension supplement of up to CHF 160 per month.

A candy with a bitter aftertaste, as it turns out. SP Minister of Social Affairs Alain Berset (50) wants to exclude the pension surcharge from wage and price developments. That is what the new AHV regulations provide for, which will be negotiated until Friday. That means: even with a huge increase in inflation – last year it was 2.8 percent – ​​the pension allowance always remains the same. life sentence

Pension supplements are losing value

“It is a slap in the face to the affected women,” says Travailsuisse director Edith Siegenthaler (39) to Blick. “Depending on how inflation develops, the pension premiums lose a lot of value and purchasing power decreases.”

The trade union umbrella has calculated the size of the loss in value. With a lifespan of 22 years after retirement and an average inflation rate of 2 percent, the supplement loses more than a third of its value at the end of life, and with an inflation rate of 3 percent, it loses almost half. “Once again, savings are being made on women’s shoulders.”

After the Federal Council and Parliament had already denied retirees a full AHV allowance for living expenses, the story moved on to women. “This of all times in the generation that was otherwise disadvantaged – for example, because they received lower wages just because they are women.”

No problem in the voting campaign

One thing is clear: the ordinary AHV pensions are usually adjusted every two years in line with wage and price developments – and are therefore subject to so-called mixed indexation.

Berset officials justify that the pension surcharge should be different, saying that the surcharge is “paid outside the pension system”, as the consultation documents state. “The pension surcharge, once determined, is therefore paid out unchanged for the entire period of entitlement to retirement pension.” When asked, the Federal Social Insurance Service explained that otherwise Parliament would have had to expand the mixed index with the pension allowance. “This was not done on purpose.”

However, it was never discussed in the Council debate or in the referendum campaign that the contribution to the cost of living for the pension surcharge would become superfluous. The background document “What the reform means for women”, which the federal government published in the run-up to the vote, makes no mention of this. Another background document emphasizes that the pension surcharge takes place outside the pension system, so that it does not fall below the ceiling for married people.

Clause designed against women

This is where the Greens’ criticism comes into play. “When designing the compensation measures, the legislator has explicitly ensured that the allowances are not capped,” they write in the consultation. Now the Federal Council is using “the same clause unnecessarily to the detriment of affected women of the transitional generation”.

The senior organization Pro Senectute also advocates the use of the mixed index, as many of the affected women “often could only make a small contribution to the second pillar due to social conditions during their active contribution period”. It is therefore crucial to counteract the devaluation of benefits with regular adjustments.

Travailsuisse Mrs. Siegenthaler finds the official reasoning incomprehensible. “The Federal Council is failing women,” she says. “Berset urgently needs to correct the template.”

Source:Blick