No downsizing of Swiss public service!

Current Concerns: I am very pleased to hear that the SGB addresses public service in connection with the possible treaty between Switzerland and the EU. To my knowledge, the Federal Council overlooks public service and claims that employees were only not satisfied with wage payment protection. Is that correct?
Reto Wyss: Yes, exactly. We always hinted at public service, but that has not been quite recognised yet. There have already been cantons that commissioned an expert opinion regarding public service in recent years. They revolved around feared interventions by the EU into cantonal competences, for example regarding building insurances and other cantonal monopoles, also they revolved around the cantonal banks etc.

How do you see the consequences of an agreement with the EU for our public service? The SGB at that time went to referendum against the liberalisation of the electricity market.1
The former head of DETEC, Simonetta Sommaruga, wanted to conclude an agreement on the electricity market, which is in the drawer and would have to be revised. But what was always clear was that the electricity agreement would only be concluded with a complete opening of the market, that was one condition on the part of the EU. The other condition was that it would be linked to an institutional framework agreement. When this failed two years ago, it was clear that there would be no electricity agreement, and thus the justification that we had to open up the electricity market because the EU wanted that also disappeared.

How would we benefit from such an electricity agreement? France and Germany would not give us electricity just because of said agreement if they don’t have enough for themselves.
Yes, in an acute shortage situation everyone would probably look for themselves. One could discuss the necessities and advantages of an electricity agreement for a long time. But it is now clear that the agreement would only exist with a framework treaty. We had a glimmer of hope that the EU would tackle a real reform of the electricity market in connection with the electricity shortage, but the corresponding proposals have not surprisingly disappeared in a drawer after a few months. This is the electricity sector.

Now on to rail traffic: The EU commission wants to penalise France massively because they did not yet privatise their traffic of goods. Which consequences do you see for Switzerland?
This is not only what the EU Commission wants, but also the neoliberal French government. So it’s the other way round: the government refers to the EU Commission and tells its own population: we’ll just have to privatise now. But France is a big country, the French could stand up on the barricades and say: Let’s go! We won’t let you tell us that we have to break up our freight transport. But the Macron government says: Unfortunately, we have to do it, because the EU wants it – but it also wants it itself.
  On Switzerland: we (the SGB) wanted to effectively show, in the context of the news about France, what could happen if we had to adopt the EU subsidy regime. This is a very broad, complicated construct with which the EU can potentially or tends to intervene in all areas of public service. That is why it is so dangerous for Switzerland. These questions arise with the current agreements if they are “dynamised” (made subject to EU law) and also with new agreements that may be concluded.
  On rail transport in Switzerland: As I said in the SonntagsZeitung, a new treaty with the EU would potentially call into question the future of SBB Cargo, but also the public financing of passenger transport would be jeopardised to some extent. Brussels could, for example, regard the favourable federal loans for SBB as inadmissible subsidies and take action against them. And at best, the support of regional rail transport with public funds would also be threatened. A treaty with the EU that allows this is not acceptable to the trade unions.

In contrast to France, it is ultimately the people who decide, and the majority certainly does not want the EU to interfere in the public service.
Exactly. That is the same basic consideration that we have with wage protection. We have been trying to make it clear to the Federal Council for years. Even if you don’t care what we as trade unions think, you can’t have certain things in a treaty if it’s absolutely clear that there won’t be a majority for them in a referendum.

You also mentioned the healthcare system. What are your thoughts on a healthcare agreement with the EU?
For example, we are thinking of the cooperation in the pandemic, where Switzerland was suddenly excluded, in the crisis intervention mechanism, in the corresponding data exchange and in the committees. As is well known, viruses do not stop at the border. In the most acute phase, however, the EU came relatively quickly and allowed Switzerland to participate provisionally, because they also realised that otherwise ultimately no one would be served. So it’s positive if Switzerland is involved.
  Now, however, cross-border cooperation is taking up a lot of space in the EU. There is a whole area of “cross-border health care”, where many questions arise. And as far as subsidies are concerned, it would have to be ensured that subsidies to Swiss hospitals are not objected to. And with regard to patient care, from a trade union point of view we do not want to abolish the territoriality principle. We don’t want the health insurance company to suddenly come and tell me as a patient: You have to have this expensive operation in Germany because the doctor and the nurses work much cheaper there, then we have to pay less. We wouldn’t want that kind of situation.

As the SGB wrote, our government already tries to downsize the financing of our health care supply. Even worse if our administration would work together with the EU to save funds in health care.
Yes, effective! Today, despite all liberalisation efforts, our health system is still strongly planned by the state. And if we have huge capacities in the hospitals and (with tax money and health insurance premiums) billions in expenditure per year, then we cannot say at the other end: And now we open everything up and see what happens.
  As I said, we are not saying that all this has to happen. But as long as these questions have not been answered and such fears have not been seriously clarified, it is legitimate to raise them. Even if it means: you are alarmist, you paint the devil on the wall.

When we read in the newspaper that the EU is threatening to impose fines in the billions if a state is not prepared to privatise, then the alarm really is sounded.
Yes, that’s basically the way it is with non-permitted subsidies: If something is not in conformity, it has to be paid back retroactively over a period of years. There are examples where it was done that way.

That is a strong point for Switzerland to be cautious about a new agreement.
Exactly. What is happening here is highly complex. What is in the EU Treaty, what does the Commission decide? There is also a tug-of-war between the institutions. For example, in the whole area of mandatory tendering, there has been a tug-of-war between the Commission and the EU Parliament for years. And because it is so complex, there are also many dangers.

Thank you very much, Mister Wyss, for this insightful interview.  •

¹ The Federal Council and Parliament introduced the opening of the electricity market anyway, but only partially, for companies, not for households. [Editor’s note]

* Reto Wyss is responsible for economics, health, public services and cantonal finances at the SBG.