Nautilus protects health insurance for the families of Swiss inland waterways crew

Holger Schatz and Rob Coston explain how Nautilus's lobbying and legal pressure protected an important entitlement for the families of workers on the Rhine river

Nautilus International has prevented Sympany, the largest insurer of inland waterways crew working on the river Rhine, from unfairly raising its rates for their family members.

Under an agreement going back to 1949, employees on Swiss vessels as well as their families are able to take out special critical illness cover at a competitive price – an important incentive for people to join the industry.

Many of those employed on Swiss vessels live outside the country, in Eastern European nations where medical costs are significantly cheaper than in Switzerland. This means that Sympany is receiving the same income, but without spending as much on care – so it is unquestionably benefiting economically from the arrangement when insured crew are considered as a group.

However, in 2017 Sympany tried to exclude the 'more expensive' Swiss residents in whole or in part from the insurance scheme. Sympany wanted them to pay for their insurance at the more expensive per capita rates in Switzerland, as if they were working in the country – without any regard for the fact that their wages are often based on the pay packets of other Rhine-bordering countries

This was prevented thanks to interventions by Nautilus and employers, as well as the involvement of the Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office and Federal Office of Public Health.

The importance of this intervention goes far beyond the individual case. Had Sympany succeeded, attempts to make careers on the Rhine appealing to young people in Switzerland would have suffered a severe setback

In 2023, Nautilus was made aware of a new case in which Sympany terminated the insurance of the family member of a Rhine river worker when she went to renew it, forcing her onto a regular, expensive Swiss rate. Sympany referred to a directive issued by the Federal Office of Public Health in 2017, which prohibits the co-insurance of family members.

If allowed to stand, this would mean that the favourable rate for critical illness cover would never be available to the family members of new hires within the industry. In the letter to the family member, Sympany further threatened that it would terminate existing contracts for family members on receipt of a 'notice' from the Federal Office of Public Health.

A lawyer for Nautilus International took on the case of the excluded family member. He pointed out to Sympany that the 1949 agreement expressly provides for the co-insurance of family members, and that an exclusion would therefore be contrary to the legal opinion of the other contracting states, in which family members who are not employed are also insured – often without even paying their own premium.

Nautilus also forwarded the case to the Swiss authorities and the Central Administration of Social Security for Rhine Boatmen in Strasbourg.

Thanks to these efforts, the person concerned is now insured again and the extra premiums that they paid have been refunded. Furthermore, Nautilus remained in contact with the authorities while continuing to negotiate with Sympany – as a result Sympany agreed to stop any further 'downgrading' attempts in the future.

The importance of this intervention goes far beyond the individual case. Had Sympany succeeded, attempts to make careers on the Rhine appealing to young people in Switzerland would have suffered a severe setback, and Swiss employees and companies would no longer be on a level playing field with European competitors regarding non-wage labour costs.