Otherwise, reforms end up deepening the problems they claim to want to solve.
Buenos Aires, January 10 (NA) – For more than 40 years, Argentina has been debating the need to modify its labor regime. Ultimately, there is a clear disconnect between the diagnosis that is formulated and the normative solutions that are proposed.
The Fine Print
An example is the creation of the Labor Assistance Fund, financed with a 3% contribution from the salary, which replaces a reduction in the social security system by the same amount. If the objective is to reduce the cost of registered employment, it is difficult to justify the creation of a new fund that does not imply a real and immediate reduction in labor costs. Registration costs are, in fact, the real tax on active work, and their reduction is a necessary condition to combat informality.
Another problematic aspect is the regulation of digital platform workers, who are considered totally independent, without the recognition of protective rights beyond an accident insurance policy. This solution ignores the mandate of Article 14 bis of the National Constitution and omits intermediate alternatives that already exist in other legal systems.
Labor modernization is necessary, but it will only be possible if it arises from political and social consensus. Unlike at other times, today there seems to be an unusual coincidence: representatives of workers, the business sector, political leaders from different parties, and the specialized press agree that a reform is necessary. The reasons cited also repeat when talking with SME entrepreneurs or unionized workers: high levels of unregistered employment, difficulties in generating employment, high litigation, lack of predictability for employers, and outdated regulations in the face of technological advancement.
However, the Modernization Labor Law project submitted to Congress on December 11, 2025, is not effective in achieving those objectives. Beyond some specific correct points, the text does not substantially attack the problems it claims to want to solve. On the contrary, it seems aimed at restricting the rights of workers and trade union organizations, without it being clear how those limitations would contribute to reducing informality, generating employment, or decreasing litigation.
