Sandra Laham: “Decree 549 is a death trap for the employee’s pocket”

By Sandra Laham (employment law attorney)

In the Argentine labor landscape, a transformation is emerging that threatens to reconfigure the balance between worker rights and business needs. As an expert in labor law, I have observed with growing concern the recent legislative modifications and proposals that, in my opinion, represent a significant setback in employee protection. There are two key elements of this transformation: the new let’s go for the assessment of work disabilities and the Labor Modernization Law which is currently being debated in Congress.

The new scale (Decree 549/2025): A blow to worker protection

The implementation of Decree 549/2025which establishes a new scale for the assessment of work disabilities, has generated great controversy in the legal and labor field. From our perspective, this new scale is not a simple technical adjustment, but a substantial modification that drastically reduces compensation that workers receive for work accidents and occupational diseases.

One of the most worrying aspects of the new scale is the significant reduction in disability rates assigned to various pathologies. For example, herniated discs, one of the most common ailments in the workplace, have seen their compensation ceilings cut by an alarming percentage. Previously, in serious cases, up to 40% disability could be reached; Now, that percentage has been reduced to 20%. This decrease has a direct impact on the amount of compensation that the worker receives, making it difficult for them to recover and reintegrate into the workforce.

This new system avoids the full compensation of the worker as an individualignoring that the consequences differ from one person to another. It is alarming to note that, in cases of fractures, functional limitations have been removed from the analysis. This is extremely serious because it implies that the patient is not adequately reviewed; The assessment of bodily damage should be carried out by a doctor who evaluates the physical reality of the affected person, and not be based on an automated table.

Likewise, in serious injuries to noble organs, where a disability of between 30% and 35% was previously recognized, the new scale reduces it to a mere 15%. This depreciation in physical damage is painful for the workerwho sees compensation diminished for the loss of its organic integrity.

Another criticizable aspect of the new scale is the limitation of recognition of psychological pathologies only to “catastrophic events”. This restriction excludes from the protection system those workers who suffer from chronic work stress, workplace harassment or burnout syndrome, pathologies that are increasingly common in today’s work environment. Denying the impact of these psychosocial factors on workers’ mental health is a way of minimizing their suffering and absolving companies of their responsibility in creating healthy work environments.

On the other hand, the regulations mention the existence of a advisory bodywhich does not conform to operational or scientific reality. The members of said body lack the necessary scientific knowledge and the scale does not have supporting literature to validate its criteria. A true advisory body should be made up of representatives of the Superintendence of Occupational Risks, ART personnel and, fundamentally, medical doctors with proven experience in the assessment of bodily injuries and disabilities, such as It is established by Law 24,557 since 1996.

Finally, the retroactive application of the new scale for accidents that occurred before its entry into force is a measure that we consider unconstitutional. This retroactivity violates the principle of progressivity, which establishes that labor rights cannot be diminished. Fortunately, some courts have already begun to declare the unconstitutionality of this retroactive application, such as the recent rulings in the province of Chubut.

The Labor Modernization Law: Flexibility at the cost of precariousness

Parallel to the implementation of the new scale, the Argentine Congress is debating the Labor Modernization Law which, according to its promoters, seeks to generate employment and increase the competitiveness of companies. However, from our perspective, this law contains measures that make the labor market excessively flexiblewhich could translate into greater precariousness for workers.

The most worrying points of the law are:

1. Compensation and Termination Fund: The aim is to replace severance pay with construction-style severance funds, eliminating items such as bonuses and bonuses from the calculation, which lowers the cost of dismissal.
2. 12 hour day: The “hour bank” system would allow the daily workday to be extended up to 12 hours without paying traditional overtime, prioritizing the operational needs of the company over the right to rest and family life.
3. Extended trial period: The intention to extend trial periods to 6 or 8 months only encourages a constant rotation of workers without any stability.

On the other hand, due to criticism of the original project, which reduced salaries by up to 50% in cases of conditions unrelated to work, the Government will modify the labor reform project to make it clear that workers with serious or degenerative diseases maintain 100% of their salary during the leave.

A Call to the Defense of Labor Law

Given this panorama, it is essential that labor law professionals redouble our efforts to defend workers’ rights. It is necessary challenge the arbitrariness of the rulings of the Medical Commissions that are based on the new scale and maintain unconstitutionality of any rule that seeks to roll back acquired rights.

Justice cannot be a simple mathematical formula designed to favor the financial balances of companies. It is essential that courts take into account the reality of human suffering and ensure that workers receive fair compensation for their injuries and illnesses.

Likewise, it is necessary defend the fundamental principles of labor law in the debate on the Labor Modernization Law. It is essential that stability in employment, reasonable working hours and the right to rest be protected. Labor flexibility cannot be synonymous with precariousness and exploitation.

In short, we are convinced that the defense of labor law is a fundamental task to guarantee a more just and equal society. As legal professionals, we have the responsibility to protect the rights of workers and to fight against any attempt to erode their achievements. The Constant vigilance and strategic legal action They are essential to maintain a fair balance between capital and labor.

Dra. Sandra Laham
Website: drasandralaham.online