Categories
Fund News

Postpone the payment of pensions from the 7th to the 25th of the month?  Do you agree?

Dear GAC-EPA members,

As you will have read in the letter that you received from the Fund at the beginning of June, the Pension Fund wishes to change the date on which pensions are paid from the 7th to the 25th of the month from the beginning of 2026.

To better understand the rationale for this change, we asked the Pension Fund for an explanation.

The main reason for the proposed change is that sometimes bereaved families have to arrange a reimbursement of a pension that has been unduly paid; this often happens when a death occurs at the end of the month – for example: a beneficiary dies on 25 July, the July pension has been paid, however, the August pension is also very likely to be paid if the Fund has not been informed prior to instructing the payment; in this case, the Fund will have to ask the relatives to arrange a reimbursement of the August pension, which is a delicate process for the Pension Fund’s Benefits Service and difficult for the bereaved family. By paying the pension at the end of the month, this problem should arise much less frequently; the rule is that for any death during the month (from the 1st to the last day of the month), the pension is due in full for that month.

Avoiding certain bereaved families having to pay back a large sum of money in the middle of the night is a laudable intention; however, the GAC-EPA Committee is concerned about the consequences of this change for the most vulnerable beneficiaries.

The position of the GAC-EPA Committee, which we have presented to the Pension Fund Governing Board and its Benefits Service Team, is clear: we ask the Fund to abandon this change!

Do you agree with us?

Give us your opinion by adding a comment on our article; Go to the bottom of the page, fill in the ‘Leave a Reply’ box.

66 replies on “Postpone the payment of pensions from the 7th to the 25th of the month?  Do you agree?”

I fully understand the Fund’s reasoning and the wish to avoid difficult reimbursement cases for bereaved families. However, there are several strong arguments for keeping the current practice of paying pensions at the beginning of the month:

Nature of the payment: a pension is not a salary paid for work already performed, but a due entitlement for the month ahead. The established practice across Switzerland (and also in countries such as Italy and the Netherlands) is therefore to pay pensions at the beginning of the month, not at the end.

Alignment with AVS: the Swiss AVS, which is the benchmark for pension practices, always pays pensions on the first working day of the month. It seems logical and consistent that our Fund should follow the same approach.

Financial impact on beneficiaries: many retirees rely on their pension as their main (or only) income. Having it at the beginning of the month allows them to pay rent, insurance premiums, and other charges when they are due. Switching to the 25th would create an additional burden for those who would suddenly need to advance nearly a full month of expenses without income.

Practical difficulty of change: many beneficiaries are not very IT-literate and have put in place permanent standing orders and direct debits with their banks. Changing the payment date risks causing a wave of failed rent and bill payments, with serious financial and administrative consequences for more than 3,000 people. Correcting such issues would be difficult for many beneficiaries.

For all these reasons, I believe the Fund should carefully reconsider whether the benefit of avoiding a small number of delicate reimbursement cases truly outweighs the widespread impact and risks for the majority of beneficiaries.

I do not agree with the change of date for the payment of pensions from 7th to 25th of the month. The reason invoked by the Pension Fund is in my view not credible and this would only mean problems for the pensioners.

I can only agree 100% with the previous comment and its considerations.

The explanation provided by the Pension Fund appears specious and hardly credible. By claiming to want to avoid what can only be very few cases, it is attempting to impose a 20-day delay in the payment of pensions to all pensioners, in contrast, as correctly observed, to the practices in use in Switzerland and in most countries.

One is led to believe that, beyond the official excuse, the reasons are purely financial, effectively postponing pension payments indefinitely by almost a month.

My personal opinion is that the GAC should firmly oppose this inappropriate decision.

I made a back of the enveloppe calculation.
If we look at the Annual Report 2024, the total annual pensions paid: ≈ 320 million CHF.
This is 320 million ÷ 12 ≈ 26.7 million CHF per month.
The proposed shift of payment date from the 7th to the 25th introduces a one-time gap of about 18 days.
This corresponds to 26.7MCHF×(18/30) ≈ 16MCHF of pension money that remains in the Fund’s cash position.
A structural transfer of 16MCHF of liquidity from pensioners to the Fund.
While 16 M CHF may seem small compared with total assets (≈ 4.7 billion CHF), it’s not negligible in human or financial terms.
The effect is real and quantifiable, it’s a permanent transfer of cash-flow advantage to the Fund, not a one-off accounting artifact. Even if the Fund’s motivation is not financial, the impact is financial — on beneficiaries’ liquidity, budgeting, and trust.

Hi Maarten, I agree with your analysis. I wonder what comes next. Pity GAAG was not consulted beforehand. In my opinion, not good for maintaining trust. So I am against the change unless there is a solid promise of no further mic-mac.

I can understand the worries expressed on behalf of the most vulnerable pensioners of CERN/ESO. I believe, however, that most pensioners have no problems in having the pension payment date moved to the same date as that of the salaries, if this is more convenient for the Finance department. I wonder if the change is more than cosmetic from the financial point of view?

Par expérience, le changement des échéances (impots, assurance, EDF, etc) ne peut se faire ni rapidement ni facilement. C’est toujours une source de complication donc je suis contre le changement de la date de versement proposée par le fond de pensions.

I agree with the Reinhout’s 2 comments above.
The system works fine for me now with the current payment date of the 7th of each month.
Practical consideration for me: Don’t change if It works.

I am against the proposal of changing pension payment date from the 7th to 25th of each month.

From Reinoud Martens first comment:
( Financial impact on beneficiaries: many retirees rely on their pension as their main (or only) income. ….to…additional burden for those who would suddenly need to advance nearly a full month of expenses without income. )
Which I find a compelling enough reason, plus, what about the bereaved families ( with complications ) that wait more then one month to inform the fund, these cases will not disappear as probably other pension funds will be able to admit.

Bien que je puisse comprendre que cela soit intéressant pour la caisse de pension, mes divers remboursements mensuels ne bougent pas eu.
Quelle sera la prochaine étape ? Un différé des pensions de 2 mois?
J’ai lu aussi les différents arguments dans les messages précédents et cela me conforte dans le fait de penser que la date de versement des pensions ne doit pas être modifié.

One of the best arguments against the shift is the current alignment to the Swiss AVS (and most other countries). Furthermore a pension is paid forward for the current month, not like a salary for rendered services.
Therefore keep it the way it is.

I am against the proposal of changing pension payment date from the 7th to 25th of each month. A pension is paid forward for the current month, not like a salary for rendered services.

Le changement de date pour le versement de la pension aura comme conséquence le report de la date de paiement de plusieurs ordres permanents à la banque, ce qui peut engendrer un découvert sur le compte en banque. Pour résoudre le problème d’un petit nombre on risque donc de compliquer la siuation de toute la communauté. Par conséquent je suis pour ne pas changer la date de versement de ka pension actuelle.

I object the proposed shift of payment date since I believe that effectively this would mean the loss of (slightly more than) half a month of my pension. Contrary to the shift of date for a salary, I would never have a chance to catch up after I have left the fund.

I am against the change of date of pension payments. It’s a bit like the pension fund skips to pay pensioners for one month (although it’s 3 weeks). They have the money accumulated, so I don’t think it’s fair.

I don’t think that the change would have much practical effect for me. In any case, I pay most of my bills at the end of the month already. However, I find the argument for the change utterly ridiculous. And it has possibly negative consequences for a large number of people without guaranteeing to fix a problem which must be relatively infrequent in any case. Thus, I would hope no change is made.

I agree with the position of GAC that the payment date of CERN pensions should be left unchanged. Payment of the pension on the 25th of the month would come too late to cover some of my largest regular outgoings, including income-tax payments, and I would have to withdraw money from my savings to cover them (with a corresponding loss in interest on my savings).

My opinion is that the date of payment of the pension should not change. The argument given concerning bereaved families seems entirely specious and the disruption to the long-standing financial arrangements of many pensioners difficult, if not impossible, to justify.

I am against the change: the reasons are well exposed in the firs replay and the change will not eliminate the problem. I think it could be discussed if we receive in December 2025 a value that corresponds to 1.6 (18/30) of the nominal entitlement.

Hi, Of course I am totally against this proposed change to our pension fund. I see it as a violation of our rights as CERN pensioners and we are not unprotected! In fact I am almost certain that going in front of the International Tribunal it would be decided in out favour!

To me the obvious true reason for this proposed change has nothing to do the convenient reasons put forward, i.e. an alignment with salary payments or the rare issue of confusion in case a pensioner dies at the beginning of a month. Instead the real reason is obviously that the pension fund wants an interest free loan that all pensioners will be asked to grant. It always so surprising how we are treated as mindless fools. In fact we are not!

Tous nos paiements bancaires ont été calés depuis longtemps avec les nombreux services officiels auxquels nous sommes affiliés de manière
obligatoire. Pourquoi créer un tumulte administratif à renégocier pour
bon nombre de gens âgés confrontés bien souvent à d’autres problèmes
personnels tels qu’une santé préoccupante.
Je suis opposé à tout changement de date du versement de Pension.

It is clear that this change could complicate the lives of many people for the reasons that several people have given above. The motivation adduced seems less than compelling and surely only arises rather rarely. I therefore join my colleagues in opposing this change.

The payment date should remain as it is. Apart from the considerable inconvenience to pensioners of a change, the justification given by the CPF is tenuous at best as the problem of repayment of overpaid pensions will still exist even if reduced it a bit. The possible benefits of a date change are greatly outweighed by the problems it would incur.

I do not agree at all to the proposed change of payment day.
The reasons brought forward are not convincing.
One should seriously consider that the age and health situation of pensioneers is such that the change would impose a major disruption to many.

I am (of course) opposed to such change of the pension payment date. In my view, this would not eliminate at all the problem the PF tries to address. On the personal level, it would require me a.o. to change some standing orders with AMFIE, which usually is pretty cumbersome (and requires close monitoring). Such changes may easily be an insurmountable obstacle for the most vulnerable pensioners. This looks like an attempt to address a problem, by creating another (bigger) one …

I strongly oppose the postponing of our pension payments. It would cause unnecessary additional stress in relation to standing orders for rental payments, taxes – any delay in such payments would cause serious financial penalties.

I’m opposed to the proposed change of payment date, especially for the ones which are already getting their pension payments. CERN could possibly discuss a new payment date for the “future” pensioners.

I am strongly opposed to the proposed change of date of payment of the pensions. I generally concur with the arguments already given. The resulting inconvenience far exceeds the questionable benefits.

Je suis contre ce changement.
À l’extrême rigueur, il serait acceptable à la condition que le dernier paiement du 7 soit de 173,33% . Sinon, c’est un vol de 73,33% de notre retraite.

Je suis totalement opposé à la proposition de modifier les dates de versement de nos retraites. Les commentaires de Reinoud sont très pertinents et bien expliqués.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE changing “pay day” from 7th to 25th of the month.
Unless the Pension Fund propose corrective measures (se Paul LE SAUX above) we lose 18 days of pension payment. That’s non-negligible.

Leave a Reply to John Jowett Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *