On 15 May 2011, Vaud voters approved by 61.13 % Yes the law on cantonal supplementary benefits for families (Family SB) and the bridge pension (LPCFam), challenged by referendum. On the same day it narrowly rejected the minimum wage, the canton adopted a social instrument new to Switzerland.
Family SB target families that work but whose income, with children aged 0 to 16, stays at the poverty line: the idea is to top up wages rather than fall onto social assistance. The bridge pension supports people nearing pension age (62 for women, 63 for men) who have exhausted unemployment benefits.
Funding rests on a modest parity contribution (0.06 % from the employee, 0.06 % from the employer). It was precisely this new contribution, and the scheme's cost, that the referendum's authors targeted.
The stakes: a targeted cantonal tool against poverty among working families and older unemployed, or sticking with existing social assistance? The people opted clearly for the new safety net.
▲ Overall result LPCFam law accepted by 61.13 % Yes, despite the referendum. Broad support for a targeted social tool: Family SB for low-income families and a bridge pension for older unemployed. | ▼ Scope of the scheme In force from 1 October 2011. Target: families with children aged 0 to 16 at the poverty line, and people near retirement who have exhausted unemployment. Parity funding (0.06 % + 0.06 % on wages). |
Actors and figures
▲ Yes camp • Vaud cantonal government (sponsor of the bill) • Socialists and Greens • Social and charitable bodies • Unions | ▼ No camp • Referendum authors (against the new contribution) • Centre-right circles (wage charges) • Critics of the cost to SMEs • Defenders of the social-assistance status quo |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Help working families off social assistance « top up earned income rather than replace it with assistance » Verdict : ✓ Goal achieved The official evaluation confirms the aims: a drop in recourse to the integration income (RI), greater financial autonomy, less family poverty. In 2019, 7.1 % of the reference population received Family SB, and the child social-assistance rate — already below average — fell further after introduction. Source : Canton of Vaud, LPCFam evaluation; SKOS A net for older unemployed before the pension Verdict : ✓ Effectively delivered The bridge pension filled a gap between the end of unemployment benefits and the state pension. In 2019, 468 people received it, 375 of them from the integration income: that many situations lifted off social assistance and stabilised until retirement. Source : Canton of Vaud, Family SB and bridge pension — statistics | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) One wage charge too many « a new contribution that will weigh on jobs » Verdict : ✗~ Fear not borne out The parity contribution (0.06 % + 0.06 %) stayed very modest and the scheme proved sustainable — so much so that it inspired other cantons (Geneva from 2012). The unbearable burden foretold did not materialise. Source : Vaud AVS compensation fund; Canton of Vaud A costly duplicate of social assistance Verdict : ✗~ Opposite effect observed Far from duplicating social assistance, Family SB and the bridge pension reduced recourse to it: they act upstream of the RI. Vaud, like Geneva, has a below-average child social-assistance rate, falling after introduction. Substitution, not duplication. Source : SKOS; Canton of Vaud |
Factual record
Broadly accepted in 2011, the model kept its promises: it cut recourse to social assistance rather than swelling it, and its cost stayed under control. The referendum-backers' fears largely faded.
61.13% Yes — broad adoption despite the referendum | 7.1% of the reference population on Family SB (2019) | 468 bridge-pension recipients (2019) | ↓ RI recourse to social assistance falling |
In 2011 Vaud voters made a clear choice: 61.13 % Yes for a social scheme its opponents called costly and redundant. The same day they rejected the minimum wage — a sign they distinguished targeted help from general labour-market regulation.
Ten years on, the official evaluation validates the essentials of the Yes camp's promises: less recourse to social assistance, more autonomy for working families, a real net for older unemployed before the pension.
The referendum-backers' fears, by contrast, did not come true. The contribution stayed light, the cost sustainable, and the scheme cut the social-assistance bill rather than swelling it, by acting upstream.
As proof of its soundness, the Vaud model spread: other French-speaking cantons took a comparable path. A quiet cantonal vote thus laid a durable building block of Swiss social policy.