For decades, labor law in Argentina was sanctified as if it were a definitive and untouchable conquest. Under the discourse of protection, a regulatory framework was built that, far from strengthening the worker, ended up weakening what he claimed to defend. The result is clear: high levels of informality, low creation of private employment and a system where conflict is more profitable than cooperation
.
The idea that more regulation equals more protection is one of the most persistent errors in public debate. In practice, the exact opposite is true. Each additional rigidity makes hiring more expensive, increases uncertainty and makes employment a high-risk decision. This is not a theoretical discussion: when hiring involves the possibility of facing unpredictable lawsuits or disproportionate compensation, the logical result is retraction. Less formal employment, more disguised precariousness
.
In the face of any attempt at modernization, the same arguments as always reappear. It is noted that flexibility means taking away rights, that reducing litigation is favoring companies, that without state protection the worker is defenseless. These are slogans that appeal to fear, not to evidence. Because if the current model has demonstrated anything, it is its inability to include those outside the system. Millions of people work without any protection, not because of a lack of rules, but because of their excess.
The underlying problem is not the absence of rights, but their design. When rules are built ignoring incentives, they end up generating effects contrary to those sought. A system that penalizes hiring does not protect the worker: it excludes them. And that exclusion is not neutral. It especially affects young people, those who are looking for their first job and those with lower levels of qualification. It is they who pay the cost of a scheme designed for an already inserted minority
.
In addition, the current regime has given rise to a parasitic structure that feeds on conflict. Increasing litigation, mandatory intermediation, hidden costs that make every employment relationship more expensive. Employment ceased to be a productive link and, in many cases, became a field of judicial dispute. In this context, it is not surprising that the employer acts defensively and that investment is retracting
.
The labor reform aims, precisely, to reverse this logic. It is not a question of eliminating rights, but of returning rationality to the system. To transform employment into what it should be: a voluntary agreement between parties, based on the creation of value and not on the constant threat of conflict. Reducing litigation does not benefit a particular sector: it expands opportunities for everyone. Because when the cost of hiring falls and uncertainty decreases, spaces open up that didn't exist before
.
What is at stake is not a legal technicality, but the model of society. One based on mistrust, where every link is mediated by coercion and the risk of sanction, or one where cooperation, predictability and the possibility of progress predominate. True protection doesn't come from rigidity, but from an abundance of opportunities. And that abundance is only possible when work ceases to be a legal problem and returns to being an economic decision.
Therefore, resistance to reform does not respond to genuine concern for the worker, but to the defense of vested interests. It questions what threatens a business built on fear, litigation and dependence. What is uncomfortable is not the loss of rights, but the loss of control
.
Breaking with this scheme involves challenging decades of inertia and installed discourses. But it also opens the door to something much more valuable: a dynamic, inclusive and wealth-creating labor market. True labor justice is not about distributing scarcity, but about allowing more people to access decent employment. And for that, the first step is to leave behind a system that, under the excuse of protecting, ended up excluding
.
