On 5 June 2016, the popular initiative "In favour of public service" was swept away by 67.6% no and the rejection of all 26 cantons. Launched by four consumer magazines (K-Tipp, Bon à Savoir, Saldo and Spendere Meglio), it had won the backing of no governing party.
The text sought to write into the Constitution that the Confederation and its companies (Swiss Post, SBB, Swisscom) pursue no profit motive in basic services, forgo cross-subsidisation and fiscal aims. It also capped their employees' salaries at the level of the federal administration.
The Federal Council and Parliament — the latter without a single yes vote — recommended rejection, arguing the initiative would paradoxically weaken the very public service it claimed to defend.
▲ Cantons that accepted No canton — the initiative was rejected by all 26 cantons. | ▼ Cantons that rejected Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Glarus, Zug, Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Schaffhausen, Appenzell A.Rh., Appenzell I.Rh., St. Gallen, Graubünden, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, Geneva, Jura. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • "Pro Public Service" committee (initiative committee) • K-Tipp, Bon à Savoir, Saldo, Spendere Meglio (consumer magazines) • No governing party (almost no support) | ▼ No camp • Federal Council • Parliament (196-0 in the National Council, 43-0 in the Council of States) • SVP, FDP, CVP, SP, Greens, GLP (all major parties) • Unions, Swiss Post, SBB, Swisscom (unions and the targeted companies) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR The former state firms put profit before the basic-service mission « They are dismantling public service in the name of profit. » — "Pro Public Service" committee, 2016 ✓~ Partly confirmed Less than two years after the vote, the PostBus scandal (2018) revealed that the Swiss Post subsidiary had unlawfully generated and concealed profits in subsidised regional transport — around 200 million francs repaid to the Confederation, cantons and municipalities. Precisely the "profit before service" drift the sponsors denounced. The case remained contained, however, and was heavily sanctioned. Source: FOT, PostBus affair, 2018. Executive pay is excessive « The bosses of these companies earn fortunes while services are pared back. » — sponsors, 2016 campaign ✓~ Partly confirmed Executive salaries — in 2015, 1.83 million for the Swisscom head, 1.05 million at SBB, 0.98 million at Swiss Post — stayed well above the federal administration level after the vote, and the issue returned periodically to Parliament. The original diagnosis was not disproved, even if no cap as strict as the one proposed was introduced. Source: 2015 remuneration reports; later parliamentary debates. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST Banning profits would deprive the firms of the means to invest « Without profits, no more investment in rail, fibre or the postal network. » — Federal Council and Parliament, 2016 ✓ Argument confirmed The former state firms kept investing heavily thanks to their results: fibre and mobile rollout by Swisscom, rolling-stock purchases and the Léman 2030 programme at SBB. A constitutional ban on profits would have complicated this financing, as the no camp argued. Source: SBB/Swisscom annual reports; Confederation. Swiss public service works well; the initiative is superfluous and risky « Switzerland has one of the best public services in the world; this initiative has no reason to exist. » — Federal Council, 2016 ✗~ Partly refuted The PostBus scandal and the continued shrinking of the post-office network after 2016 showed all was not well: the governance of the former state firms was damaged and hundreds of own branches were closed or turned into agencies. The "all is well" argument was partly refuted — without thereby validating the initiative's remedies. Source: FOT 2018; Swiss Post / PostCom reports. |
Factual record
1 Confirmed | 2 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ! | The PostBus scandal confirmed a real risk In 2018 the Federal Office of Transport established that PostBus, a Swiss Post subsidiary, had unlawfully shifted and concealed profits made in subsidised regional transport (2007-2015). Around 200 million were repaid and the entire management dismissed — an illustration of the drift the sponsors had denounced. Source: FOT, final word on PostBus affair, 2018. |
| ✓ | Profits and investment funded modernisation Free to use their results, the former state firms pursued major investments (fibre at Swisscom, rolling stock and Léman 2030 at SBB), confirming the no camp's central argument on the role of profits. Source: Annual reports; Confederation. |
| ~ | The postal network, by contrast, did shrink After 2016 Swiss Post kept closing or converting many offices into agencies and access points, sharply reducing its own-branch network — the decline in local service feared by the sponsors partly came to pass. Source: Swiss Post; PostCom annual reports. |
"Pro Public Service" will be remembered as one of the worst-launched initiatives of recent history: rejected by two thirds of voters and every canton, with no party support and unanimously dismissed by Parliament. The ballot's verdict was unequivocal.
On substance, though, its promoters were not entirely wrong. The PostBus scandal, which broke less than two years later, showed that a basic-service company could indeed seek — and hide — profits where the law forbade them. The sponsors' distrust of commercial logic in subsidised services was not unfounded.
But on the remedy the no camp had the essentials on its side: profits financed heavy investments a constitutional ban would have undermined, and public service broadly held up. The initiative confused a one-off governance problem with a systemic flaw.
An ambivalent legacy remains: the post-office network kept shrinking and executive pay stayed high — lending retrospective shape to concerns the ballot had nonetheless crushed.