On 26 September 2004, the Swiss people finally accepted the introduction of a federal maternity insurance. The result — 55.4 % Yes — closed one of the longest sagas in Swiss social policy: a constitutional mandate adopted in 1945 had remained a dead letter for nearly sixty years.
The proposal put to the vote was a revision of the Loss of Earnings Compensation Act (LECA/EOG). It provided fourteen weeks of leave paid at 80 % of (capped) salary, financed through the existing loss-of-earnings scheme rather than a new insurance. This modest, pragmatic design was the fruit of a compromise between women's and business circles.
The road had been strewn with defeats: the projects of 1984, 1987 and above all that of 1999 (rejected by over 60 %) had all collapsed, often deemed too ambitious or too costly. Switzerland remained, with rare exceptions, the last Western country without paid maternity leave at national level.
The stakes were twofold: for the Yes camp, ending an anomaly and protecting young working mothers; for the No camp, avoiding a new social charge considered superfluous and a creeping state takeover of the family.
▲ Cantons that accepted The revision was accepted by a majority of cantons, in particular all the French-speaking cantons (Vaud, Geneva, Neuchâtel, Fribourg, Jura, Valais) and Ticino, as well as the large urban German-speaking cantons (Zurich, Basel-City, Bern). | ▼ Cantons that rejected The No prevailed in several conservative cantons of central and eastern Switzerland (notably the original cantons and Appenzell). As this was a federal law, only the popular majority was required: the rejection by these cantons was not enough to block the project. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Federal Council and parliamentary majority (LECA revision proposal) • Social Democrats, Greens, Christian Democrats, moderate FDP broad cross-party support • Trade unions and women's organisations (Travail.Suisse, SGB, alliance F) • Part of the business community rallied to the loss-of-earnings compromise | ▼ No camp • Swiss People's Party (SVP) main opposition • Liberal-conservative and fiscal wing against a new charge • Some employer organisations fearing extra costs for SMEs • Federal Democratic Union (FDU) opposition on principle |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Finally implement a 1945 constitutional mandate « It is time to give effect to an obligation enshrined in the Constitution for nearly sixty years and to make up an unacceptable delay. » — Yes camp (SP, unions, women's organisations), 2004 ✓ Argument confirmed The maternity allowance came into force on 1 July 2005, ending decades of deadlock. Since then all employed women meeting the social-security conditions receive fourteen weeks at 80 % of salary. Source : FSIO / Swissinfo — « Maternity insurance becomes reality » A controlled financing, with no new tax « By going through the existing loss-of-earnings scheme, the system stays cheap and imposes no disproportionate new burden. » — Yes camp, compromise circles, 2004 ✓ Argument confirmed Financing through the loss-of-earnings fund proved sustainable. In 2024 the fund reached nearly 2 billion francs and remained in surplus, with maternity leave accounting for about half of spending. Source : CHSS — « 20 years of the maternity allowance » Keep mothers in employment more effectively « Paid leave will allow young mothers to keep their link with their employer and their income. » — Yes camp, unions, 2004 ✓~ Partly confirmed Economic studies show a moderate positive effect: better job continuity with the pre-birth employer and higher earnings for some women. But these effects remain limited and dissipate within five years. Source : « Mothers at Work » study (Labour Economics / IZA), 2023 | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) An unbearable financial burden for the economy « This new benefit will raise costs for companies, especially SMEs, and weigh on competitiveness. » — No camp (SVP, employer circles), 2004 ✗ Argument refuted No significant extra burden materialised. Financed by a modest loss-of-earnings contribution, the allowance created no deficit; the fund even kept growing to nearly 2 billion in 2024. Source : CHSS / FSIO — loss-of-earnings finances A first step toward a costly extension of leave « Accepting this leave means opening the door to ever longer and more expensive parental leave. » — No camp, 2004 ✗~ Partly refuted Later extensions remained modest: a two-week paternity leave, accepted in 2020 and also financed through the loss-of-earnings fund. No generous parental leave was introduced and Switzerland remains at the bottom of the OECD ranking. Source : OECD / vote of 27 September 2020 (paternity leave) |
Affiches de campagne (4)
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 1 Refuted |
| ✓ | A constitutional mandate finally implemented after sixty years Coming into force on 1 July 2005, the maternity allowance gave effect to an obligation enshrined as early as 1945. All employed women meeting the conditions receive fourteen weeks at 80 % of salary. Source : FSIO — maternity allowance |
| ✓ | A sound and durable loss-of-earnings financing The choice to finance through the existing fund rather than a new insurance proved robust: the fund stayed well in surplus, refuting fears of a financial slide. Source : CHSS — loss-of-earnings finances |
| ~ | A benefit that stayed modest, Switzerland at the bottom of the OECD With only fourteen weeks and no real parental leave, Switzerland still sits at the bottom of the OECD ranking. The 2020 paternity leave filled only part of the gaps. Source : OECD / REISO — assessment of the maternity allowance |
The vote of 26 September 2004 closed a sixty-year parenthesis. By accepting a deliberately modest scheme, the people achieved what more ambitious projects never had: equipping Switzerland with nationally paid maternity leave.
Twenty years of hindsight validate the core of the Yes camp's case. Financing through the loss-of-earnings fund, presented as the keystone of the compromise, kept its promises: the fund stayed in surplus, without the « unbearable burden » announced by opponents.
The No camp's fears largely deflated. Neither massive economic overcosts nor a slide toward excessive leave: later extensions, such as the 2020 paternity leave, remained limited and financed the same way.
The main caveat stems paradoxically from the very success of Swiss caution: the benefit remains one of the meagrest in the OECD. What some present as responsible management, others read as a persistent lag in family policy.