On 24 November 2013, Swiss voters rejected the "1:12 – For Fair Wages" initiative launched by the Young Socialists. The text sought to write into the Constitution that, within a single company, the highest salary could not exceed twelve times the lowest.
The rejection was clear: 65.3 % no, and above all the opposition of every canton. No canton accepted the text, even though Ticino (51 % no) and Jura (52.2 %) came close. Turnout reached 53.6 %.
The campaign pitted a left defending "wage justice" against a broad coalition — the Federal Council, FDP, Centre, SVP and business circles — that saw the cap as an attack on economic freedom and social partnership. The initiative came just months after the acceptance of the Minder initiative "against rip-off salaries" (March 2013).
More than ten years on, AfterVote tests the campaign arguments against observed data: the evolution of the wage gap, the resilience of the economy and the effectiveness of voluntary mechanisms.
▲ Cantons that accepted No canton accepted the initiative. | ▼ Cantons that rejected All cantons. Strongest rejection: Zug (77 %), Schwyz (76.7 %), Nidwalden (74.8 %). Narrowest rejection: Ticino (51 %), Jura (52.2 %), Geneva (56.9 %), Fribourg (61.9 %). |
Actors and personalities
Yes camp • Young Socialists Switzerland (initiators, chaired by David Roth) • Social Democratic Party (official support, divided base) • The Greens • Swiss Federation of Trade Unions and Unia | No camp • Federal Council and parliamentary majority • FDP, Centre, SVP and BDP • economiesuisse and Swiss Employers’ Association • sgv (trade association) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Young Socialists) The wage gap keeps widening « The gap between the median and the highest salary rose from 1:6 in 1984 to 1:43 in 2011. » — Initiative committee / SGB ✓ Argument confirmed After the rejection, the trade union Unia’s annual "wage gap" studies show the gap kept widening in large groups. At Roche, the ratio between CEO pay and the lowest Swiss salary rose from about 1:236 (2013) to 1:307 (2022). UBS, Novartis and Nestlé regularly exceed 1:200. Source : Unia, wage-gap studies 2019-2023. Voluntary mechanisms are not enough « Social partnership and self-regulation failed to prevent runaway pay. » — Initiative committee ✓~ Partly confirmed The Minder initiative (March 2013) gave shareholders a binding vote on pay ("say on pay"). Transparency improved, but executive pay and internal gaps kept rising, partly confirming the diagnosis — even if some bonuses were occasionally trimmed under shareholder pressure. Source : NZZ; Tages-Anzeiger; Unia studies. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (Federal Council, business) The Swiss system regulates itself without an imposed cap « Wage policy rests on social partnership and collective agreements, not on rigid state rules. » — Federal Council ✗~ Partly refuted The praised regulatory mechanism did not narrow the gaps: they actually widened in listed large groups after 2013. "Say on pay" strengthened transparency without reversing the trend. Source : Unia wage gap; NZZ. Rejecting the cap protects jobs « A rigid wage straitjacket would drive companies to relocate and weaken employment. » — economiesuisse / Federal Council ✓ Argument confirmed Without a cap, Switzerland kept low unemployment (around 2–3 % per SECO) and multinationals kept their headquarters there. No wage-related exodus was observed — though, since the initiative failed, the opposite scenario cannot be tested. Source : SECO, unemployment statistics. |
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ~ | The wage gap kept widening Unia studies document rising internal pay ratios after 2013: Roche from about 1:236 to 1:307, UBS, Novartis and Nestlé above 1:200. The initiators’ diagnosis holds, but no cap was applied. Source : Unia. |
| ✓ | The economy stayed robust Unemployment remained low and big-company headquarters stayed in Switzerland. The feared wage-related exodus did not occur. Source : SECO. |
| ~ | Transparency improved, not equality The Minder initiative imposed binding pay votes and more transparency, without narrowing internal gaps. Source : NZZ; Tages-Anzeiger. |
Ten years on, the rejection of the 1:12 initiative looks like a choice of method rather than substance. Swiss voters did not deny that large wage gaps exist — they refused to address them with a rigid constitutional cap.
The data partly vindicate the initiators’ diagnosis: the gap between the highest and lowest salaries kept widening in listed large groups, despite the "say on pay" of the Minder initiative. Voluntary mechanisms improved transparency without reversing the trend.
The no camp, however, saw its main promise kept: the Swiss economy stayed robust, unemployment low and the multinationals’ headquarters remained. The doomsday scenarios — corporate exodus on one side, collapsing revenue on the other — did not need testing anyway, since the initiative failed.
An unresolved debate remains: should wage gaps be tackled, and with what tools? The question has resurfaced since, notably around the cantonal minimum wages adopted in Neuchâtel, Ticino, Geneva and Jura.