The government of Argentina, led by Javier Milei, is set to make an attempt to eliminate the rights of the working class. Although some Western peoples, such as the American and Argentine, have taken the republican system of government to the maximum possible tension by choosing leaders with autocratic characteristics, the Republic itself remains as valid as ever. So-called 'labor modernization' law is nothing more than an attempt to restrict workers' rights. It should have been called a 'labor archaization' law, for it would roll back labor relations to the regulation prior to the recognition of social rights. The law is dead on arrival, and, if applied, it will enormously increase judicial conflictiveness, generating rulings favorable to the plaintiff workers, the analysis states. Political scientist Giuliano da Empoli analyzes the emergence of populist leaders like Trump, Milei, or Bukele. Therefore, any agreement to the detriment of the worker will always be NULL.
Principle of Progressivity and Non-Regressivity. The reform constitutes a 'profound regression' in already acquired rights. It will have no effect whatsoever on labor relations. It should have been called a 'labor archaization' law, for it would roll back labor relations to the regulation prior to the recognition of social rights. The law is dead on arrival, and, if applied, it will enormously increase judicial conflictiveness, generating rulings favorable to the plaintiff workers.
Systemic Inconsistency. A law is not a collection of separate articles, but a legal system. Argentine jurisprudence and the San José Pact of Costa Rica prohibit laws that reduce the level of social rights protection already achieved. This principle has three concrete sources: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has constitutional hierarchy. The so-called 'labor modernization' law is nothing more than an attempt to restrict workers' rights. When a part is reformed without caring for harmony with the rest, a 'systemic inconsistency' is produced. If the reform introduces articles that say 'the worker and employer can freely agree,' but Articles 7 and 12 of the LCT (which are not repealed) state that any agreement that lowers the standard of the law is null, a contradiction is created. Another case is that of fines.
Protective Principle. It is fundamental to understand that the Protective Principle has constitutional or supra-legal rank. The Court has said in the 'Aquino' case of 2004 that the worker is a 'subject of preferential protection.' Violation of Article 14 bis: The Constitution guarantees 'protection by the laws' for the worker and 'dignified and equitable conditions of labor.' Limitation of the Right to Strike: The reform seeks to limit this right in activities considered 'essential,' which clashes with the constitutional right to strike and the conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO). The reform attempts to declare many activities as 'essential services' to force a minimum guard duty of 75%.
In addition to its unenforceability due to its 'systemic inconsistency' with the rest of the rights system, and for failing the 'non-regressivity' principle, the reform refutes the government's claim that it will end 'the industry of lawsuits.' If you remove the fines but maintain the obligation to register (Art. 10), you destroy the spirit of the norm that seeks for employment to be permanent. If a law says A in one article and Not A in another, there is an inconsistency, and the protective principle, which the Court has said has constitutional origin, will always be applied. The Court has already ruled that the right to strike is a fundamental human right for organized workers; if the reform unreasonably limits it (under the protective principle, the standard of reasonability is the worker's interest), the Judicial Power could intervene by validating the strike.
Payment in Foreign Currency for Food or Housing: The authorization of payment in dollars violates the alimentary nature and stability of the salary. Regarding the criticized payment in food, housing and species in general, it must be said that the reform does not eliminate the 20% limit that the law ESTABLISHES TODAY, with which, beyond the show, IT MODIFIES NOTHING.
Principle of Progress: Article 14 bis of the Constitution speaks of the 'progress clause' and the duty of Congress to provide what is conducive to human development and social justice. The San José Pact of Costa Rica: In its Art. 26, it establishes that States undertake to adopt measures to achieve the effectiveness of social rights, which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights interprets as a prohibition of 'going backwards.'
Reduction of Indemnifications. Without prejudice to understanding its unconstitutionality by application of the principle of progressivity and the protective principle, in the 'Vizzotti' ruling of 2004, the Court established that an indemnification cannot be 'symbolic.' Art. 14 bis of the Constitution speaks of the 'progress clause' and the duty of Congress to provide what is conducive to human development and social justice. Therefore, if the new 'Labor Severance Fund' or changes in the calculation of indemnifications end up giving amounts much lower than the current ones, judges will apply 'Vizzotti' to declare its unconstitutionality. Finally, the attempt to modify the diffuse control of constitutionality of norms, establishing that if a Judge departs from the Court's doctrine, they commit malperformance of their functions, is clearly unconstitutional for it constitutes an encroachment on the judicial function, an intrusion that the legislative power is not empowered to make. Therefore, the law is dead on arrival. IT WILL NOT BE APPLIED.
