The debate about a labor reform returned to occupy the center of the political and social scene. The government of Javier Milei is promoting a preliminary project that, under the label of “modernization“, in fact it implies retracing rights that the working class won for decades. They have already tried it with el DNU 70/2023stopped by Justice, and with the labor chapter of the Bases Lawwhich even enables discriminatory dismissals.
Among the most questioned modifications that are now being discussed, also within the May Councilthey include the increase in the working day, the flexibility of collective agreements and new restrictions on the right to strike. All measures that aim to favor large economic groups and align with what the IMF asks for. Far from generating genuine employment, experience shows that these types of reforms tend to deepen precariousness and erode labor guarantees.
From the PTS, the Movement of Classist Groupss and La Izquierda Diario have been pointing out that the only way to stop this advance is with organization from below, articulating formal and informal workers, unemployed people, young people and the women’s and diversity movements. Also demanding that Union leadership moves from statements to concrete actions. Our position can be read here.
To enrich the discussion, The Daily Left publica a series of interviews with specialists in labor matterswith the aim of explaining the most controversial points of the project and strengthening the organization against the initiatives of Milei, the governors and those who accompany these changes.
This Friday, we published the first interview with Luis Campos, labor lawyer and CTA researcher. In this installment, we publish the interview with Matias Cremontepresident of the Latin American Association of Labor Lawyers and advisor to the Oil Federation and other unions.
—What would be for you the points that will most negatively affect the quality of life of workers, if the reform is approved?
—I believe that what is proposed, even taking the Base Law that is in force, is a profound reform. Although it is not as ambitious as DNU 70 was, especially because of the collective aspects, it is now going to be deepened.
The first thing we have to determine when talking about labor reform is its objectives, for what? To improve the lives of people who work, to generate better conditions and have more time to rest? I would be willing to debate it. But it has been proven that a labor reform has never generated that type of virtuous effect on the economy, on the contrary. When a law is regressive, which implies a loss of rights for people who worked, it never has a virtuous effect on the economy or employment, on the contrary.
I think that the most complex thing, the central thing about this new reform, is the attack on collective action. The obvious objective of weakening union action, both collective bargaining and strikes.
This affects the lives of workers and not just unions, because union action is the most effective tool that workers have to defend themselves. And well, I can’t stop talking about the bank of hours, the flexibility of the working day. The loss of sovereignty over work and rest time that the hours bank implies is also very serious.
—How will it affect the collective bargaining model and what harm can negotiation by companies bring to workers?
—It is lethal, because it would give preeminence to collective bargaining by company over collective bargaining by activity. Today the agreement of a branch by activity sets the salaries, the salary scales for the same activity throughout the country. Operates as a flat. In collective bargaining by company, which exists of course because there are already many agreements by company, they negotiate the specificities of each industry, of each company, which are not included in the activity agreement. Sometimes they improve salaries, establishing some additional items of their own.
Now that floor, which is collective bargaining by activity, would become a ceiling and those are the exact words of Labor Secretary Julio Cordero when a few days ago he explained his project in those terms.
And at the company level then it will be possible to drill those minimum floors that today would be the ones established today in the negotiation by activity and it will be possible to sign or negotiate lower salaries per company.
Logically, the meaning of collective bargaining by activity, the preminence of collective bargaining by activity, is the strength that workers have negotiating an agreement and that is reflected in the measures of action, right?
In the entire activity, the entire Federation or all the unions or the union can be only one against the Business Chamber or all the companies as a whole. In a unitary way, at the same moment, it has a much greater strength than the negotiation that may exist in each company. Because not all companies’ strength is the same. In some there may be a situation of greater weakness, there may be a greater degree of organizational awareness, in others there may not even be delegates, less affiliation.
And this must also be related to another part of the project, which implies that delegates can only be elected in companies that have more than 50 workers, and not more than 10 as is today. And there are many companies that have less than 50 workers, and of course then collective bargaining by company will also face, if the law is approved, the lack of delegates to organize the fight.
I would say that they attack the two strongest points of our union model, which is collective bargaining by activity and the existence of rank-and-file delegates. As this logically bothers businessmen, the bill, which is obviously tailored to them or directly by their lawyers, attempts to modify that strength.
—The reform also includes several changes on union rights. Sanctions for serious insults, unfair actions, union protection… Can you summarize for us what are the main attacks on the right to strike and organize?
—The Base Law already included the possibility of dismissal with just cause for participating in a union action measure and also enabled the possibility of discriminatory dismissals. Because by limiting reinstatement, what it simply does is rate it: a slightly higher compensation, at the discretion of each judge, but in no case does it clarify the nullity of the dismissal and the consequent reinstatement of the discriminated person.
The largest number of sentences so far have to do with dismissals for union activism. That was the objective of incorporating that article into the Base Law.
Regarding the right to strike, the government showed its cards since it took office. In DNU 70, it had expanded what are considered essential services to almost all economic activities, with the serious restriction on the exercise of the right to strike because it imposed minimum guards of 75% in some cases and 50% in the rest, to reduce the effectiveness of union action. That was declared unconstitutional, so this year 2025, the charge returned with a decree 342 with the same thing, which was also declared unconstitutional and now in this new reform with this reform project that they are going to present, they obviously return to that issue.
—The government’s argument to support this reform is that “labor modernization” is necessary. What is your opinion about it?
—Labor modernization was also called the chapter of the Base Law that reformed labor legislation and in DNU 7023 as well. Well, it has nothing modernization, in any case it is more similar to a return to the 19th century than to legislation designed for the 21st century. Let’s take, for example, working time: the most current and oldest labor law in Argentina is the working day law from 1929 and the Sunday rest law from 1906. They are about 100 years old and yet there is no proposal, to modernize that law, to reduce the working day with the perspective of thinking about rest time. It is not proposed that technological advances that increase productivity and therefore produce more in less time can result in a benefit for the working and living conditions of workers.
Argentina has one of the longest working hours, 48 hours a week. Almost no country still maintains that day, established in 1919. Well, that is an example of what modernizing labor legislation could mean. The reform goes in the opposite direction. It has clear objectives such as increasing business profitability. Because everything that is subtracted from salary, direct or indirect, or the increase in working hours, implies a very clear benefit in terms of business profitability. And on the other hand, the law tends to generate greater submission of workers, giving more power to employers in the employment relationship.
—How would it affect those who work informally today? How would it benefit them? What would you say to a precarious worker who takes the argument that this would benefit them?
—Working informally is a circumstance that depends on the employer’s decision to register or not register an employment relationship. Everyone who works for someone does so in a subordinate manner in exchange for a salary and has all the labor rights established by the Labor Contract Law, the National Constitution and any other protective social norm. If the employer does not register this employment relationship and also does not comply with all legislation, it is committing an illegality and in many cases, even a crime.
So, it is the government, it is the State, that has the duty to enforce current legislation. It should force companies to have an inspection and control policy to force companies to register labor relations. Do not naturalize, tolerate or in some cases even encourage non-registration of labor as the policy of this government has been demonstrating.
For example, the Bases Law eliminated sanctions for employers who do not register an employment relationship with the supposed objective of attacking informal employment and generating greater registration. Well, the effect was logically the opposite.
It is the only crime for which this government proposes eliminating the penalty to combat it. But of course, in this case the victims are workers and the perpetrators are businessmen.
—How do you think we should confront this government policy?
—I believe that this government’s policy must be confronted, of course, with all the tools that the working class has at hand. From the most traditional ones to those that can be built in the exercise of resistance.
Undoubtedly the right to strike, which is protected by the National Constitution, is the most important tool. But mobilization, social protest, are also many rights guaranteed by the National Constitution, by international treaties and that the working class will undoubtedly have to use.
Above all because we do not know what may happen in the National Congress when the bill sent by the Executive Branch is debated.
And the rule of law provides, of course, a form of sanction of laws through the National Congress, but also all those rights that I mentioned before. And through them the interested parties themselves, in this case the working class, their organizations, can demonstrate and demand that the representatives of the people and the provinces who are in the National Congress not pass a law that will harm them.
They all have the right and I think they should exercise it.
Source: www.laizquierdadiario.com
