Participation levels unprecedented under this government
The CGT union mobilized unprecedented participation levels in a general strike opposing Milei's labor reform, which flexibilizes contracts, extends work hours to 12 daily, and limits strike power in essential services. The reform represents decades-old changes to 1970s-era labor laws, aiming to reduce labor costs, formalize the 40% informal workforce, and stimulate investment while the government negotiated 30 amendments for political support.
- General strike began at midnight Thursday as Chamber of Deputies began debate
- Reform would extend work days from 8 to 12 hours and restrict strikes in essential sectors
- Roughly 40% of Argentine workers operate in the informal economy
- Government negotiated 30 amendments to secure political support
- Senate debate eight days prior resulted in violent clashes and approximately 30 arrests
Argentina's largest union called a 24-hour general strike as Congress debates sweeping labor reforms that would weaken worker protections, flexibilize contracts, and restrict strike rights in essential sectors.
Buenos Aires woke up empty on Thursday morning. The trains sat idle. The streets that normally pulse with commuters and vendors fell silent. Argentina's largest union, the General Confederation of Labor, had called a nationwide strike at midnight—a full day of work stoppage timed precisely to the moment the Chamber of Deputies began debating President Javier Milei's sweeping labor reform. The union reported participation levels it described as unprecedented under this government.
The reform itself represents one of the most significant overhauls of Argentine labor law in decades, touching nearly every aspect of how work is governed in the country. The rules being challenged date mostly to the 1970s. What Milei's government is proposing would fundamentally reshape the relationship between employers and workers: contracts would become more flexible, vacation time could be broken into smaller chunks and negotiated outside traditional periods, work days could stretch from eight hours to twelve, and the grounds for firing someone would broaden while severance payments would shrink. In sectors deemed essential—health, transport, security—strikes would be severely restricted, with unions required to maintain between fifty and seventy-five percent of normal service levels even during walkouts. The government framed these changes as necessary to reduce labor costs, encourage formal employment in a market where roughly forty percent of workers operate informally, and attract investment.
To secure the votes needed to pass the measure, Milei's administration negotiated approximately thirty amendments to the original text. One notable concession came late: the removal of a provision that would have allowed employers to pay workers in foreign currency or digital wallets like Mercado Pago. The Senate had already approved the reform the previous week. Now the Chamber faced its turn, with the government targeting a full vote by February twenty-fifth and final passage by March first, when Milei would formally open the legislative session.
But the strike was only the beginning. Protests were expected to follow, though the union stopped short of officially endorsing them. Eight days earlier, when the Senate had debated the same bill, thousands had gathered outside Congress. Those demonstrations turned violent. Police deployed force. Roughly thirty people were arrested. The government, anticipating similar scenes, took the unusual step of issuing security guidance to the press. The Ministry of Security instructed journalists to avoid positioning themselves between potential violence and police lines, and designated a restricted zone on side streets near the Parliament building. "In the face of acts of violence, our forces will act," the ministry stated.
The reform touches nearly every dimension of work life. Probationary periods could extend to six months, or eight to twelve in certain cases, with reduced compensation if a worker is let go. Collective bargaining would shift, allowing direct agreements between companies and local unions rather than requiring adherence to national conventions. Severance calculations would be reduced and could be paid in installments over six to twelve months depending on company size. Medical leave and workplace accident coverage, currently handled through a dedicated insurance system, would face new limits for injuries occurring outside work. Platform workers—those driving for ride-share services or delivering food—would be formally classified as independent contractors with specific protections rather than employees. The reform explicitly exempts public sector workers, though strike restrictions in essential services would apply to them as well.
The government's economic argument rested on data showing Argentina had roughly thirteen point six million employed people and about one million unemployed as of the third quarter of 2025, yielding an unemployment rate of six point six percent. The informal sector remained stubbornly large. Milei's team believed that by reducing the cost and complexity of hiring, employers would formalize more workers and create jobs. The union saw it differently: a dismantling of protections built over generations, a transfer of risk from employers to workers, and a weakening of labor's ability to resist.
As the Chamber prepared to debate, the capital remained at a standstill. Train stations sat empty. The visual evidence of the strike's reach was stark—drone footage showed the Retiro station abandoned, platforms and platforms with no one moving through them. The Constitución station, another major hub, was similarly vacant. The question now was whether the strike would hold, whether the promised protests would materialize, and whether the government's timeline for passage would survive the pressure building in the streets.
Citas Notables
In the face of acts of violence, our forces will act— Argentina's Ministry of Security
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the union call the strike at midnight instead of during business hours?
The timing was deliberate—it coincided with the exact moment the Chamber began debate. It's a statement of intent, a way of saying this reform is so fundamental that we're stopping everything the moment you start discussing it.
The government negotiated thirty amendments. Does that suggest the reform was weaker than originally proposed, or just more politically palatable?
Both. The original text was more aggressive—it would have let employers pay workers in cryptocurrency or digital wallets. That's gone now. But the core changes remain: longer hours, easier firing, weaker strikes. The amendments were about getting it through Congress, not fundamentally changing what it does.
Forty percent informal employment is enormous. Does the reform actually address that, or just make it easier to exploit informal workers?
The government argues it removes barriers to formalization—no more penalties for hiring someone without paperwork, new pathways to regularize existing informal relationships. But critics see it differently: why would an employer formalize a worker if they can now fire them more easily, pay them less, and work them longer hours? The incentive structure may not work as intended.
The Senate debate turned violent. Why does labor reform provoke that kind of response?
Because it's not abstract. It touches how people eat, how many hours they work, whether they can push back against their boss. The 1970s rules being replaced were won through struggle. Dismantling them feels like losing ground that was hard-fought. And the government's willingness to restrict strikes in essential sectors—that's seen as removing one of labor's few remaining levers.
What happens if the Chamber passes it by March first as planned?
It becomes law. The government gets its structural reform. But the street pressure doesn't disappear. You've already seen violence. If the reform passes, you'll likely see more—not because unions want it, but because workers feel cornered. The real test comes after passage, when people experience the changes in their actual working lives.