Avocado
Well-known member
Workers in Argentina face the biggest blow to their employment rights since the military dictatorship of the 1970s
Explore, connect, thrive in
the expat community
Expat Life: Local Discoveries, Global Connections
Politics Workers in Argentina face the biggest blow to their employment rights since the military dictatorship of the 1970s
- Thread starter Avocado
- Start date
CraigG
New member
Sure thing! In Argentina, employee rights might not be as good as in most European Union countries. However, saying that this is a big problem for job creation and investments is not entirely accurate. It's not fair to blame basic labor rules in Argentina for holding back the economy. Comparing Argentina to Bangladesh might not be the best idea. Instead, we should look for ways to find a balance between protecting workers and boosting economic growth.
timon
New member
What specific rights and policies are we talking about here? There's a lot of talk and strong statements, but not much clear information.
Are we talking about the freedom for workers to choose whether or not to join a union, and not being forced to contribute their hard-earned money to it?
Or maybe it's about preventing health insurance costs from going up (or benefits going down) because employer contributions have to go through a middleman?
Could it be about having more consequences if workers don't do their job properly, or if they stop working altogether?
And what about allowing peaceful protests instead of violent blockades against companies that need to keep making money to pay their employees?
From my perspective, it seems like the biggest losers in these reforms are the unions and their leaders. They're losing their control over certain powers, like using violence, and their ability to dip into the pockets of every Argentine worker. That's probably why there's so much resistance, even though they've been silent for the past four years when many workers were dealing with low wages and living below the poverty line.
Are we talking about the freedom for workers to choose whether or not to join a union, and not being forced to contribute their hard-earned money to it?
Or maybe it's about preventing health insurance costs from going up (or benefits going down) because employer contributions have to go through a middleman?
Could it be about having more consequences if workers don't do their job properly, or if they stop working altogether?
And what about allowing peaceful protests instead of violent blockades against companies that need to keep making money to pay their employees?
From my perspective, it seems like the biggest losers in these reforms are the unions and their leaders. They're losing their control over certain powers, like using violence, and their ability to dip into the pockets of every Argentine worker. That's probably why there's so much resistance, even though they've been silent for the past four years when many workers were dealing with low wages and living below the poverty line.
All the Answers
Well-known member
I wonder if Milei can pull this off?!
I found it surprising that the punishments for companies keeping employees off the books ( "en negro" or in black) are going to be removed. According to the Buenos Aires Herald
What does Milei’s massive presidential decree actually say? - Buenos Aires Herald
The document contains over 300 articles annulling or modifying laws that protect Argentine workers from predatory business practices
buenosairesherald.com
"The new rules get rid of penalties for companies that don't officially register their employees, manipulate their hiring dates, or give inaccurate information about their salaries. It also does away with a part of the labor contracts law that makes a company pay double in compensation if they fire an unregistered employee."
barlow
New member
This is absolute horseshit! Clearly, you have no understanding of the business world in Argentina. My company had to completely withdraw from doing business in Argentina because of the outrageous costs associated with employee liabilities and the incessant, disruptive strikes. It's like they're deliberately sabotaging their own opportunities. It's beyond infuriating, and I wouldn't be surprised if the union bosses are still raking in benefits, while the rest of us suffer the consequences. Not very smart at all!
Avocado
Well-known member
Can you tell the difference between getting rid of too many employment rules and costs, like Milei's DNU wants to do, and just letting everything go without any regulation? You must have some regulation to protect the employees and people.
If everyone is working off the books and not paying taxes, we'll soon find out who's really hurting themselves in the long run. It will make more mess. Milei make a lot of mess for Argentina and it's people!
america
Member
For over 6 million Argentine workers who have been working off the books, often earning wages similar to those in Bangladesh, it seems like they're already in that situation.
If you take away the reasons for both the employee and the employer to engage in off-the-books arrangements ("en-negro"), it loses its appeal for both parties. Surprisingly, it's often the employees themselves pushing for off-the-books work. They'd rather get a portion of the money that the employer would otherwise pay to unions and state pension funds on their behalf. Some even prefer getting half of their payment officially ("en-blanco") and the other half in cash at the end of the month to boost their take-home pay. Once employers go down the off-the-books route, it's practically impossible for them to switch back unless they're very wealthy and can afford the challenges it brings.
What surprises me is that unions have never really addressed the issue of off-the-books employment or the legitimate rights of these workers. Instead of making efforts to formalize and standardize employment conditions, they seem to hinder any such attempts. And now, all of a sudden, they appear to care? It's likely because they see money to be made, and dealing with employees of smaller businesses or those considered "poor" seems more trouble than it's worth. Meanwhile, when it comes to "rich" companies, inspections may focus on trivial matters, like advising the employer to replace the toaster oven in the break room with a microwave, while ignoring more critical issues.
If you take away the reasons for both the employee and the employer to engage in off-the-books arrangements ("en-negro"), it loses its appeal for both parties. Surprisingly, it's often the employees themselves pushing for off-the-books work. They'd rather get a portion of the money that the employer would otherwise pay to unions and state pension funds on their behalf. Some even prefer getting half of their payment officially ("en-blanco") and the other half in cash at the end of the month to boost their take-home pay. Once employers go down the off-the-books route, it's practically impossible for them to switch back unless they're very wealthy and can afford the challenges it brings.
What surprises me is that unions have never really addressed the issue of off-the-books employment or the legitimate rights of these workers. Instead of making efforts to formalize and standardize employment conditions, they seem to hinder any such attempts. And now, all of a sudden, they appear to care? It's likely because they see money to be made, and dealing with employees of smaller businesses or those considered "poor" seems more trouble than it's worth. Meanwhile, when it comes to "rich" companies, inspections may focus on trivial matters, like advising the employer to replace the toaster oven in the break room with a microwave, while ignoring more critical issues.
CraigG
New member
My apologies for the misunderstanding. I'm with you on the importance of enforcing existing rules, especially when it comes to tackling off-the-books work. Leaving it up to people to decide whether to pay taxes or not can create big problems, and companies should face consequences if they don't follow the rules. Just think about how much money is lost from the budget when 6 million people aren't paying their fair share! Working off the books is like a cancer for society, and it should be dealt with seriously.
And I hear you on the unions. In Argentina, they often seem more like a mafia, fighting for their own interests rather than genuinely helping the workers. It's frustrating when they don't seem to be on anyone's side but their own.
And I hear you on the unions. In Argentina, they often seem more like a mafia, fighting for their own interests rather than genuinely helping the workers. It's frustrating when they don't seem to be on anyone's side but their own.
barlow
New member
No problem, I understand. Blaming Milei or these specific reforms for the current or future state of labor conditions in Argentina, or comparing it to a Bangladesh-like situation, doesn't seem fair or logical at all.
I completely agree that having 6 million more taxpayers in Argentina would be a good thing for everyone!
The issue here is about being practical. Rules in Argentina don't work when people find it more beneficial to ignore them, as we're seeing now. Punishing only companies is a problem when employees are also part of the issue, covering up off-the-books work and making it hard to crack down on in practice. It's a tricky situation, especially for employers like me who've had potential employees reject job offers just because they're offered legally ("en-blanco").
This lopsided approach could harm the economy more if we burn the employers of over 6 million informal workers, pushing many small businesses into bankruptcy and hurting their employees, especially when the formal economy isn't exactly booming and can't suddenly absorb 6 million workers. While off-the-books employment is like a cancer, it's also a Pandora's box.
So, the only way to tackle this is to give employees and employers fewer reasons to engage in off-the-books work and make it easier for them to change their labor practices. Otherwise, we're just stuck in the same cycle.
raymond7
New member
I don't see any issue with being part of a union. I was a member the Steelworkers Union before.
Sure, any group, even unions, can go wrong and become self-serving. But this whole demonization of unions by the extreme right doesn't fit into today's workplace. If an employee wants to let a group, like a union, handle certain things for them, like negotiating salaries, why not let them? It's their choice.
I have complete confidence in the President Javier Milei to handle this situation. It's his role as the elected President, and that's precisely why people voted for him. The preceding government, unfortunately, contributed to pushing away investments and exacerbating job losses.
Sure, any group, even unions, can go wrong and become self-serving. But this whole demonization of unions by the extreme right doesn't fit into today's workplace. If an employee wants to let a group, like a union, handle certain things for them, like negotiating salaries, why not let them? It's their choice.
I have complete confidence in the President Javier Milei to handle this situation. It's his role as the elected President, and that's precisely why people voted for him. The preceding government, unfortunately, contributed to pushing away investments and exacerbating job losses.
Jeb Spencer
Well-known member
In general, there is nothing wrong with Unions, and in certain countries, they work very well. While they have some positive impact in Argentina also, I find some of them too powerful, and damaging, and some too weak to do anything. What you get is huge disparity in working rights between different employees. A lot of them are also too hostile, without morality and mostly taking care of their ass.
Of course, each union should fight for its members first, but the general well-being of all workers should be the main agenda of unions everywhere.
That I've never been a member of one is more due to circumstances than my doing.
Of course, each union should fight for its members first, but the general well-being of all workers should be the main agenda of unions everywhere.
That I've never been a member of one is more due to circumstances than my doing.
James Bond
Well-known member
I totally agree with you.
If a worker wants to hand over some duties to an organization, it's their choice. Just like you said, it's all about "choosing."
And of course, if someone prefers to work without giving some responsibilities to a union boss, why not?
Opposing that freedom seems like something only a corrupt, thuggish group would do.
Most people on the right share the same view as you: It's up to the employee to decide whether or not to join a union.
It's those union bosses forcing workers to join against their will who are taking the extreme stance you've described.
If a worker wants to hand over some duties to an organization, it's their choice. Just like you said, it's all about "choosing."
And of course, if someone prefers to work without giving some responsibilities to a union boss, why not?
Opposing that freedom seems like something only a corrupt, thuggish group would do.
Most people on the right share the same view as you: It's up to the employee to decide whether or not to join a union.
It's those union bosses forcing workers to join against their will who are taking the extreme stance you've described.
CraigG
New member
So, should employers carry a bigger burden? Well, because it's way easier to keep them in check. Of course, this is after the government does what you've mentioned - making the right moves. In most countries, the consequences are so serious that no employer would risk having someone off the books, and no employee could even consider that option. It's not just about inspections; everyone's scared of a troublesome employee looking for an easy lawsuit. That's how you make this system work.
Meanwhile, in Argentina, there should be some kind of amnesty program, like the one for hiding dollars in mattresses. Governments are mostly to blame for these violations, but one day Argentina has to change, and who better than Milei to do it? I'm not afraid that these 6 million jobs will vanish overnight; people won't suddenly start doing everything themselves.
Here's the thing - I know some very wealthy folks who prefer everything off the books, and then there are some humble households that make sure to do everything by the book. The latter just can't afford not to.
Meanwhile, in Argentina, there should be some kind of amnesty program, like the one for hiding dollars in mattresses. Governments are mostly to blame for these violations, but one day Argentina has to change, and who better than Milei to do it? I'm not afraid that these 6 million jobs will vanish overnight; people won't suddenly start doing everything themselves.
Here's the thing - I know some very wealthy folks who prefer everything off the books, and then there are some humble households that make sure to do everything by the book. The latter just can't afford not to.
Man on the Moon
Active member
Having all the employment rights doesn't mean much if there are no jobs left because they've been regulated out of existence. It's like having the only job option being sitting at home doing nothing. Many people nowadays seem a bit delusional, not realizing that if you keep pushing people with your nonsense, they'll eventually get fed up and find alternatives elsewhere. This applies to various things, not just the job market in Argentina.
Similar threads
Engage explore adapt in your expat community.
