SRF arena on paternity leave with Alain Berset

Analysis

Papzeit “arena” works smoothly, until Berset suddenly gets very angry

The waves rose in the voting “arena” on paternity leave. The voice of reason finally found itself in the audience.

At first, everything still seemed like peace, joy, pancakes. Moderator Sandro Brotz, pregnant with meaning, entered the studio with an antique stroller and Federal Councilor Alain Berset smiled and laughed on the test bench as if glad he didn’t have to talk about the number of infections and rates of infection. hospitalization.

But the Federal Council should keep laughing.

In a face-to-face conversation with Sandro Brotz, however, Berset first explained why two weeks of paternity leave is not a joke and neither is it “dirty.” Although it is doubtful that Romand Alain Berset understood Helvetism, he convincingly explained why Switzerland needs two weeks of paternity leave. This despite the fact that Berset defended the draft à contrecœur. Last year, the Federal Council opposed legally consecrated paternity leave.

“The birth of a child is a small revolution for all families,” said Berset, who has already seen three small revolutions. He took a few days off when his children were born, mainly through paid overtime. It is not fair that employees of generous companies are granted paternity leave and that the rest often look down the pipe.

Berset also confidently rebutted the assumption that paternity leave could cost far more than the 230 million announced a year. “It’s a very simple calculation,” said federal councilman Sandro Brotz, “if you multiply everything and calculate with the maximum amounts, you get 230 million.”

The strongest headwind to Berset’s vote came from SVP National Councilor and businesswoman Diana Gutjahr that night. At first, she fiercely presented all four arguments against Sandro Brotz, which the counter-field will repeat that night like a mantra without ever really engaging in an argument. These would be:

1. Free vacations for some, paid for all
2. There is no legal basis for paternity leave; if you want, you can give your employees that even today
3. With its social welfare institutions in need of a revamp, Switzerland simply cannot afford it.
4. Social works are created for vulnerable people, not for new parents

He cemented his opinion on the test bed. The raising of children is not only a matter of the mother, but the State should not interfere in family matters. More personal responsibility, less laws. “What should be modern about state-prescribed paternity leave?” He responded to Brotz’s statement that the SVP of Wales is more progressive than the SVP of Switzerland.

Former national advisor to the FDP and director of the Swiss trade association Hans-Ulrich Bigler also sounded the same horn. The opposition, made up of representatives of the FDP and, above all, of the SVP, presented itself that night as a kind Samaritan. Bigler, who said he was excited to sit in the sandbox with his children and build “Lego towers to the roof,” demanded that instead of giving new parents two weeks of vacation, the nursery network should be expanded or compatible with family and work should be expanded. to get better.

The Federal Councilor of the SP, Berset, laughed for the first time at these words. He accused Bigler of having voted against all the alternative measures he had called for in the National Council. It also did not accept the argument that the indebted welfare funds would have to be restructured first. “Because the parliament does not find suitable solutions for the majority, does the population have to pay the price?” Berset asked.

The Federal Council received that night the support of the CVP State Councilor, Andrea Gmür, who gave it a lot, but was unable to initiate a real discussion. She explained that paternity leave was absolutely affordable, “it would cost most people half a cup of coffee a month.” Furthermore, she complained that if the AHV reform had been accepted, there would not even be a need to talk about the social security system.

Adrian Wüthrich, president of the Travail Suisse union, supported Gmür and Berset in their fight against the protective wall of arguments of the opposing side, but he himself did not give major accents. He too tried in vain to silence the opposite side with the coffee cup comparison or to show that everyone would need skewers of equal length.

It seemed as if the two sides were making the same arguments without realizing that the other side was also making arguments.

Then came the appearance of Susanne Brunner. Zurich councilor SVP sat in the audience and acted as an argument booster for Gutjahr. He also complained that, thanks to Corona, Switzerland was in a never-before-seen economic crisis and could not afford paternity leave. Much more than that: Paternity leave is a “breaking of taboos and a fall into sin” that would finally let dying charities go to the dogs.

At this point, Alain Berset’s initial good humor seemed to be over. He imagined that if all the social reform proposals were in the wrong movie: “I have never received so much support for rapid reform of old-age benefits and reduced healthcare costs.” Brunner was “in the wrong direction” with his discussion with Berset. He has been committed to these issues for eight years and is always frustrated. However, none of these arguments has anything to do with paternity leave. Neither Corona nor AHV.

This statement by Berset finally managed to unleash an avalanche of outrage. Daniel Borner, director of Gastro Suisse and fourth member of the Contra-Lager group, attacked the Federal Council head on: “Mr. Berset, Federal Councilor, with all due respect, I find it an affront when you say that none of this has to do with the crisis from the crown or to make other social security expenses. “In the hospitality sector, 33,000 jobs have disappeared in recent months,” just ask these people if they would prefer paternity leave or a job.

Berset didn’t let that get on him and reminded Borner that the Federal Council, faster than one might wish, gave the green light for the restaurant industry to reopen. But none of this has to do with paternity leave. And thus he warned: “If the files are confused, you have to be careful.”

The voice of reason that night was Katja Schönenberger from the Pro Juventute Foundation. She was the only one who led the conversation to mothers and children. “Paternity leave is wrongly stated twice. It’s not about the parents or the holidays. It’s about the little ones. “During counseling sessions, you often find that mothers are under enormous stress after giving birth. Mothers really need care during this time.” And exactly at this point is it supposed? that you are solely responsible for a baby? “