The tensions between unions and governments are historic: After the return to democracy, Raúl Alfonsín suffered 13 general strikes; To Carlos Menemin 10 years of management, they carried out eight; same figure as Fernando De la Ruawho was only in power for two years. These numbers are used to measure how much unions condition power.
For this reason, a large part of the public believes that unions are poorly represented. And in this blurred picture there is also a controversial fact: the money that they withdraw month after month from the assets of workers in the activity, regardless of whether they are affiliated or not.
In this sense, the numbers are convincing and allow us to assess the economic extent of union power in Argentina. The country’s 10 largest unions collect about $685 million annually through mandatory discounts on formal salarieswhich is equivalent to more than a billion pesos per year.
This is the number the study found “Trade Union Power in Argentina: Structure, Financing and Limits of Worker Freedom” from Zentrix ConsultingThis equates to an average collection of $327,000 per worker per year.
To measure this amount, a comparison is sufficient: the minimum, living and mobile wage in December 2025 is $334,800, just $7,800 more than what an average worker is forced to pay into their union for a year. In other words, almost an entire month of the minimum wage is mandatorily allocated to union funding.
Union collection: a discount system without consent?
The study of Zentrix Consulting analyzes the flow of resources coming from workers covered by the country’s main collective agreements:
- Trade.
- Truckers.
- Construction.
- Health.
- Metallurgists.
- Feed.
- Transport.
- Banking.
- Gastronomic.
- Light and strength.
On the whole, These sectors employ almost three million formal workers.
What is special about the Argentine regulation is that these discounts apply to all workers in the industry, regardless of whether they are union members or not. These are compulsory contributions that were established in agreements adopted decades ago and are still in force.making the system a structural premium on formal registered employment.
The aim of the study is to quantify how much it necessarily costs each worker to financially support a union, regardless of their willingness to join a union or to recognize themselves as represented. With this approach, significant differences between agreements are observed.
Contributions: Differences depending on the union
A worker included in SMATA (transportation) pays $719,680 annually, more than double the current minimum wage. A driver under the Truckers agreement must provide $509,340 per year A Commerce employee donates $345,480 annually.
These figures do not reflect the differences in salaries, but reveal the lack of uniform criteria: for the same tax base – the formal salary – the mandatory discounts vary drastically depending on the union. The result is a parafiscal system in which the amount paid by each worker depends solely on industry agreement and union decisions, rather than on uniform rules or control mechanisms.
A model of high financial concentration
The report also breaks down the financial weight of each union. Commerce leads the collection with more than $304.6 million annually. followed by Truck Drivers with $79.5 million, Construction with $65.7 million, SMATA with $56.1 million, Metallurgical with $48.3 million, Gastronomic with $45.1 million, Health with $32.6 million, Food with $24.9 million, La Bancaria with $16.9 million and Luz y Fuerza with $11.3 million.
All these figures arise exclusively from mandatory discounts provided for in collective agreements and generally applicable to all employees reached, regardless of whether they are affiliated or not. The published figures are a conservative lower limit: the study only quantifies the mandatory contributions set out in collective agreements, without including income from social work, services or other parallel union financing circuits.
Crossing these numbers with the evolution of individual union leadership reveals a consistent pattern: where the collection is larger, the change virtually disappears.
In trade, Armando Cavalieri He has led FAECyS since 1986 and has been in office for almost four decades. In truckers, Hugo Moyano more than thirty years of union control. In the bank, Sergio Palazzo He has held a managerial position for more than fifteen years. At UOM Abel Furlan continues a tradition of long-standing leadership qualities in metallurgy: the previous secretary, Antonio Calóserved 18 years and his predecessor, Lorenzo Miguel32 years old. In the catering industry (UTHGRA), Luis Barrionuevo He has been at the helm of the union for more than three decades.
Together, the ten unions analyzed manage annual resources equivalent to 0.11% of GDP, under centralized internal structures, with minimal electoral competition and little control over the management of these resources.
Mandatory contributions: in contradiction to the global context
Argentina practically maintains a union model has no equivalent in the developed worldHighlights Zentrix. The combination of a single trade union with operational personality, collective agreements with erga omnes scope (which apply to everyone) and compulsory contributions which also apply to non-affiliated workers, constitutes an institutional system of exception.
In practice, the employee cannot choose alternative representation or avoid discounts even if he does not join the union. This architecture – built on Law 23,551 and reinforced by decades of conventional practices – guarantees large unions a guaranteed flow of funding and a dominant position that is difficult to challenge from within and almost impossible to compete with from outside.
The international contrast underlines this uniqueness. In continental Europe Negotiation participation is in many cases over 70%, but union dues are voluntary and dependent on effective membership.with consent-based check-off systems. In the United States, the Supreme Court in 2018 banned “agency fees” that forced non-members to fund representation. In Brazil, the 2017 labor reform eliminated the mandatory union tax and converted any reduction into an optional contribution.
Compared to these models, the Argentine case is at the most rigid end: high coverage, low internal competition and general forced financing.
Crisis of social legitimacy
Data from the Public Opinion Monitor (MOP). Zentrix November 2025 show a predominantly negative assessment: 64% of the population say they have a negative image of unions, while only 15.2% have a positive image.
The gap between formal representation and citizen perception is large. The majority of society associates unions with closed structures, little transparency and leadership that remains in power for decades, reinforcing a societal interpretation of low internal control and high levels of corporatism.
The same poll shows that 67.5% of Argentines support converting mandatory union contributions into voluntary contributions, while more than 82% are not against abolishing the obligation. The prevailing view is that the current system operates as a compulsory rebate without controls or clear justification and is applied like a labor tax.
In this context, growing social sectors are demanding a system based on individual consent and greater transparency as a minimum requirement for legitimizing union funding. The Argentine model faces a question that combines economic, institutional and individual freedom aspects.
About The Author
