Social insurance Parliament wants compensation for loss of earnings for a larger group of people
Equal maximum daily rates for military service and maternity, longer compensation for hospitalization after a birth, paternity leave even in the event of a stillbirth: Parliament wants to adjust the benefits of the income compensation scheme. Open questions remain.
09.12.2025, 13:56
SDA
The Income Compensation Ordinance (EO) was originally introduced to compensate for the loss of earnings of those serving in the army. Since then, the scope of benefits has been extended in several stages. Today, the EO also compensates for loss of income in connection with parenthood. In particular, it covers leave following a birth or adoption as well as care leave for parents of children with serious health problems.
Parliament has initiated a further expansion of EO benefits by passing several motions. Mothers, fathers, the mother's wife and parents of children with serious health problems or adoptive parents should in future be entitled to the additional benefits of the EO - i.e. child allowances, company allowances and allowances for care costs.
Furthermore, the business allowance, which covers part of the fixed costs of self-employed persons during their period of employment, is to be extended to all EO recipients who are self-employed. The allowance for childcare costs should also be extended to all EO beneficiaries.
Critical voices from the SVP and FDP
Parliament agrees with this in principle. After the Council of States, the National Council also approved the bill in the overall vote on Tuesday - by 115 votes to 82. The SVP and part of the FDP parliamentary group were against it.
Their spokesperson Diana Gutjahr (SVP/TG) warned against a creeping development towards an ever-increasing social insurance scheme. "The EO is not fully comprehensive insurance for all situations in life." The complex bill leads to ambiguities and is a "basis for more legal fodder". It no longer corresponds to the original purpose of the EO.
The FDP also raised a warning finger. The proposal presented by the Federal Council was sensible and the extension approved by the Council of States, with estimated additional costs of around CHF 75 million per year, was also acceptable, said parliamentary group spokesperson Kris Vietze (TG). However, the extension of the bill proposed by the National Council committee was excessive. "We're not even being moderate when it comes to excess," she criticized.
No upper limit in hospitals
However, a center-left majority followed the proposals of the preliminary committee. Specifically, the large chamber decided to extend maternity compensation by the actual length of the mother's or newborn's hospital stay - without an upper limit of 56 days, as proposed by the Federal Council and the Council of States.
One consequence of this adjustment would be a potentially unlimited duration of protection against dismissal during maternity leave. The National Council therefore added a provision allowing protection against dismissal to be extended by a maximum of 12 weeks to a total of 26 weeks. This would cover 94% of longer hospital stays for newborns.
An EO entitlement should now exist in all cases in which the child or mother is hospitalized for at least four days. In such a case, there no longer needs to be a drastic change in the state of health or a poor prognosis. Furthermore, in the event of the death of a newborn child, the father or wife of the mother should also be entitled to benefits in future.
No increase in contributions
With these adjustments, the majority would like to better support families in difficult but rare situations, as committee spokesperson Barbara Gysi (SP/SG) said. Those in favor of the bill stated that the proposed measures were possible without increasing EO contributions. The reserves of around CHF 200 million would also not be affected.
"This is about harmonization and not an exorbitant expansion," said Lorenz Hess (centre/BE). There could be no question of a self-service store. Patrick Hässig (GLP/ZH) stated that the adjustments were all desirable. "This is important progress that makes the EO fairer and more family-friendly."
The bill now goes back to the Council of States.
