he Salary increases and year-end bonuses for commercial employees are pendingNegotiations over a salary review scheduled for November 2025 have since become complicated.
In this sense, discussions between the Argentine Federation of Trade and Service Employees (FAECYS) and the business chambers CAC, CAME and Udeca have not reached an agreement and will resume this month or in January, with the aim of reaching an agreement on salaries for 2026.
Why have trade discussions stopped?
he The main reason is the lack of consensus About a new salary adjustment, bonus or exceptional amount to compensate for the impact of inflation:
The union was looking for an update that would restore purchasing power to workers affected by inflation.
but Business rooms They would have stressed that the current economic context does not allow them to assume new salary obligations.
Although he The June agreement created a review clause No understanding was reached to evaluate economic development and price development.
What remains current
Given the failure to reach agreement in the November review, The salary system is still in effect Agreed upon in the June 2025 agreement, which includes:
The last tranche of the 1% salary increase, bringing the total increase in the second half of 2025 to 6%, will be paid in monthly installments.
the Fixed, non-remunerative amount It is received until December 2025 and will be integrated into the basic salary from January 2026.
When will joint negotiations resume?
Currently, information indicates that The joint venture is still open Negotiations are expected to resume.
The June agreement stipulates that A fixed, non-compensatory amount of $40,000 is incorporated into the salary basic as of January 2026. Upcoming negotiations will likely focus on updating pay scales for 2026; That is, the new basics with the extra built-in.
While there is no specific and official date announced for a new meeting, The union and employers will resume dialogue before the end of the year or the beginning of 2026 to determine the new salary system Which will begin to rule.
What are the non-compensatory amounts in the trade agreement?
In the current context of economics, it is observed with Increase the frequency of joint agreements Incorporating non-reward payments with two clear goals: maximizing the worker’s direct income and minimizing the cost of the job to the employer, as Jorge Oscar Wyman, author of the JW study, points out:
These amounts are often paid within the framework of employment relationships It conflicts with work, pensions and tax regulations present.
Labeling a concept as “unrewarding” implies that in practice it is so Exempt from contributions and pension contributions. This generates an immediate financial impact: the employee does not suffer from deductions (receiving a larger net) and the employer gains savings by avoiding the burden of employer contributions.
However, as jurisprudence has held, “characterizing a payment as non-remunerative does not detract from the nature of the payment” nor does it per se exempt it from its legal consequences.
But there is a contradiction between the practice of parity (which uses non-wage as an instrument to adjust salary) and the labor law which requires contributions and contributions on all real wages.
What the Supreme Court says about non-reward payments
the The court was methodical In breaking down these numbers, Wyman identifies:
Perez v. Disco ruling (2009): When analyzing food vouchers (Tickets Canasta), the court ruled that if the benefit is food in nature and granted under an employment contract, it is a salary. He reiterated that the legislator cannot hide the legal nature of wages.
Gonzalez v. Polimat (2010) ruling: Here the Supreme Court invalidated the decrees of the executive authority that granted unremunerative allowances, affirming that the state does not have the authority to change the nature of salaries through the DNU.
Judgment “Diaz v. Cervecería y Malteria Quilmes” (2013): This is the most relevant precedent. The court ruled that even the independence of the collective will (the union plus the works chamber approved by the ministry) does not have the ability to transform what is by nature a salary into “non-remunerative.”
How unions and companies overcame these rulings
In response to the Court’s jurisprudence, the common practice evolved into a hybrid scheme. Currently, many collective agreements explicitly provide that non-remunerative amounts, Although it is exempt from social security contributions, it must be part of the basis of the calculation for the payment of bonus, vacation and end-of-service benefits.Wyman says and confirms:
This technology performs a dual function: it protects the worker’s intangible income in emergency situations Significantly reduces labor claims, Because it eliminates the main incentive to claim salary differentials.
but, This solution is incomplete: By recognizing the payroll nature of these bonus and compensation payment items, the defense against a potential claim by ARCA for omitted pension contributions is weakened.
ARCA maintains a “practical tolerance” position. As long as concepts are supported by approved common agreements, ARCA usually refrains from challenging them on a large scale to avoid systemic and social conflict.
This peace is fraught with dangers. In the event of a comprehensive inspection, or when an individual labor referee reclassifies the item in favor of the employee (according to the principle of Perez v. Disco), the Treasury automatically activates the claim for Social Security debt, with interest and penalties.. This means that approval does not protect the company from the economic reality of pensions.
What is the income tax situation?
The question is whether these amounts are unrewarding Deduction in income tax for the employerLike other salaries, Wyman says:
Income tax law Allows you to deduct all necessary expenses Obtaining, maintaining and maintaining a source of taxable profit.
Historically, ARCA attempted to challenge these deductions Claiming that, since they were not remunerative (and sometimes not mandatory by law), they were merely “freedoms.”
However, the jurisprudence of the National Tax Court, in rulings such as “Scania Argentina SA” and “Rougebelle”, has corrected this position. TFN understands that these payments, although they contain emergency pensions, are related to productivity and work environment, and are necessary and deductible expenses.. Pension irregularity does not taint the ability to tax deductibility; They are separate lanes.
A major precedent is Nigerian Judgment (2014) of the Supreme Court. There, although the employee is exempted from paying income tax on severance pay, it is implicitly certified that the expenses for the employer remain real and deductible.
In conclusion, despite the extensive use of lump sums in collective bargaining, the statutes and case law of the Supreme Court confirm that: Their essential nature is salary and, therefore, they must pay social fees Although it reduces costs immediately, it can have a negative knock-on effect on Wyman.