The real culprit behind the wage dispute in INDUTOP S.A.: the State's suffocating tax burden

The real manager of the ConfliThe company INDUTOP S.A., which manages the brands Daniel Cassin, Peace of Cake, Allie and Paddock, has informed its workers of a proposal for a wage reduction. If not accepted, the alternative would be the dismissal of part of the workforce. The Ministry of Labor and Social Security summoned for next Wednesday the Union of Workers of INDUTOP in Struggle (UTIL) and the company's representatives. The story that usually sets in quickly is the same as always: “the company wants to pay less to earn more”. However, the real numbers of the Uruguayan tax structure show a very different reality

.

In Uruguayan retail — the sector to which INDUTOP belongs — companies end up giving to the State about 54% of what they generate in taxes and contributions of all kinds. This includes IRAE, non-recoverable VAT in its entirety, employers' contributions to social security (which exceed 12.5%), contributions to the Labor Reconversion Fund, wage taxes, municipal taxes, contributions to the BPS for licenses, miscellaneous insurance and other minor taxes. The result is brutal: of every 100 pesos earned from sales, more than half go directly to the treasury before a single net salary is paid

.

Even worse: when the total labor cost for the company is calculated (gross wage + employer contributions + other costs associated with registered employment), in many cases the State ends up receiving more money for each worker than the employee himself in his pocket. In other words, the treasury charges more to “have” that person employed than what the employer can transfer to him as a liquid wage. This mathematics is neither an exaggeration nor an interpretation: it is the direct result of current tax and pension legislation

.

In this context, a company like INDUTOP faces an elementary survival dilemma:

- If it maintains current salaries, the operating margin becomes negative or extremely low, and capital

erodes to bankruptcy.

- If prices rise to compensate, they lose competitiveness and sales (in a market where consumption is stagnant or falling).

- The only way left to avoid disappearing is to adjust the labor cost downwards: either due to a wage reduction or a reduction in staff.

The decision to consider a rebate or dismissal is not the result of an alleged business “avarice”. It stems from the mathematical impossibility of continuing to operate with the costs imposed by the State. The businessman does not choose between “paying well” or “paying poorly”; he chooses between paying what he can or closing the place.

The role of the Ministry of Labor in this scenario is paradoxical. The same State that, through its fiscal and labor policies, has artificially raised the cost of hiring people to unsustainable levels, now presents itself as a “neutral mediator” between workers and companies. But it doesn't touch on the root cause: tax confiscation that leaves fewer resources for salaries

.

Instead of lowering the tax burden and employer contributions, patches are usually proposed: cross-subsidies (paid with more taxes), greater rigidities to dismissal (which make it even more expensive to hire in the future) or “agreements” that postpone the problem without solving it.

As long as the tax burden remains at these levels and the cost of a registered worker continues to exceed their productivity in many areas of commerce, we will see more cases such as that of INDUTOP: companies asking for rebates or firing, workers losing purchasing power or employment, and a State that “talks” without assuming responsibility for the model that it

designed itself.

The root of the conflict is not in the relationship between employer and employee. It is in a system where the State takes more money than what reaches the worker's pocket. As long as there is no drastic and structural reduction in taxes and social security, these scenes will be repeated over and over again. Not because of companies, but because of the State's own design.