We don't want a bonus. We want it in our salary.
Agricultural workers across Peru reject the Dec 31 agrarian labor law, specifically opposing a non-remunerative bonus that doesn't count toward benefits like severance pay. Union leaders demand an emergency decree to modify wage articles, while the government proposes regulatory discussions that don't address the bonus classification dispute.
- New agrarian labor law signed December 31, 2020
- 30% bonus (approximately 9 soles daily) classified as non-remunerative
- Workers blocked Pan-American Highway South; planned peaceful marches in Ica and northern regions
- Previous blockades had resulted in deaths, prompting shift to non-violent protest
Peruvian agricultural workers reject a new agrarian labor law's 30% bonus structure, demanding it be classified as remunerative wages instead. They plan roadblocks and marches while the government insists on regulatory dialogue rather than decree changes.
On the first day of 2021, agricultural workers across Peru were preparing to block the Pan-American Highway South. Their grievance was specific and mathematical: the government had just signed a new agrarian labor law on December 31st, and buried inside it was a bonus structure that felt, to them, like a sleight of hand.
The law promised a wage increase. What it delivered was a 30 percent bump to the minimum vital wage—about nine soles a day—but classified it as a bonus rather than salary. The distinction mattered enormously. A bonus does not count toward severance pay, does not accumulate into benefits, does not compound into the security that workers had fought for. It was money that arrived and disappeared, leaving no trace in the ledger of what they were owed.
Union leaders had gathered in Trujillo to chart their next move. They had learned a hard lesson: roadblocks worked, but they killed people. Previous blockades had cost lives. So this time, they would march instead, they would occupy plazas, they would make noise without blood. But they would not accept the government's offer of dialogue about "regulations." Regulations, they understood, would not change the fundamental problem. The law was already written. What they needed was an emergency decree—something swift, something that rewrote the wage article itself.
Pedro Campos, secretary general of the union at Ortifrutal, was blunt about it: "We don't want a bonus. We want it included in our salary." Felipe Arteaga, a leader from San José in La Libertad, put it differently but meant the same thing: modify the law through an emergency decree, change the article on remuneration, make it stick.
In Ica, Julio Carbajal announced that workers would block the highway from midnight until 10 a.m., then gather for a peaceful march to the main plaza. He said the government had finally agreed to a dialogue table—but not until Wednesday. And even then, he knew, the conversation would be about how to implement the law, not whether to fix it.
The government's position was defensive. Prime Minister Violeta Bermúdez explained that without the new law, workers would have remained under the general regime, earning 31 to 39 soles a day. The agrarian law, imperfect as it was, represented progress. She acknowledged the law had disappointed people. She said the government would "perfect" it through regulation. But perfecting a regulation is not the same as rewriting a law, and everyone in the room knew it.
There was another complication. The employers—represented by the Association of Agricultural Producer Guilds—also opposed the new law, though for different reasons: they disliked both the bonus structure and the tax implications. Getting the government to change the law meant convincing not just ministers but also the agricultural industry that a remunerative bonus was worth the cost. That consensus did not exist. The law was already signed. It was about to be regulated. But as one minister had said, nothing was written in stone. The question was whether the workers' pressure, and the employers' resistance, could crack it open before the regulations hardened into practice.
Notable Quotes
We don't want a bonus. We want it included in our salary.— Pedro Campos, union secretary general at Ortifrutal
The law is imperfect, but things that are imperfect must be perfected through regulation.— Prime Minister Violeta Bermúdez
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter whether the bonus is classified as salary or not? Isn't nine soles nine soles?
Because it doesn't count toward severance pay, toward benefits, toward the things that protect you when you're old or injured or laid off. It's money that vanishes. Salary builds.
So the government gave them a raise that doesn't actually accumulate?
Technically yes. They framed it as progress—workers would earn more than the general minimum. But the workers saw it as a trap dressed up as generosity.
Why did the government structure it this way?
Probably to keep labor costs lower for employers. A bonus doesn't trigger the same obligations that salary does. But that's exactly why workers rejected it.
The government said they'd "perfect" the law through regulation. Can regulation actually fix this?
No. Regulation implements a law; it doesn't rewrite it. The workers understood that. They needed a decree, something with the force to change the actual text.
What made them shift away from roadblocks?
People had died in previous blockades. They wanted to be heard without that cost. But they also knew peaceful marches have less leverage. It was a difficult choice.
Could the employers actually block a change?
They could make it harder. If the government tried to make the bonus remunerative, employers would argue it raised their costs too much. That's leverage too.