Neoliberal reform in Latin America is advancing significantly. Boosted by the International Monetary Fund and a new order promoted by the United States led by Donald Trump, right-wing governments in Latin America have decided to accelerate the transformation of the very structure of the states, and one of the fundamental pillars of this transformation is labor relations.
A history of massacres
The recognition and protection of workers varies across Latin America. Depending on the country, workers have more or fewer rights that recognize their contribution to society as irreplaceable. But these rights were not given freely. While workers fought for rights that would allow them to live with dignity, the Latin American oligarchies, through their armies, did not hesitate to massacre them.
Some of the bloodiest massacres of workers in human history took place in Latin America. In 1932, the government of Maximiliano Hernández massacred 30,000 peasants and Indigenous people, which is considered a trauma in the history of El Salvador that has yet to be overcome, even being considered ethnic extermination.
In 1907, in Santa María de Iquique, Chile, nearly 3,000 saltpeter workers were killed for demanding better wages. Similar cases occurred in 1928 in Magdalena, Colombia, where nearly 1,000 banana workers were massacred by the state (a tragedy captured in the novel One Hundred Years of Solitude by Nobel Prize winner García Márquez).
The same fate befell the nearly 1,000 strikers killed in 1922 in Patagonia, Argentina, under a constitutional government. That same year, in Guayaquil, nearly 1,000 Ecuadorian workers were massacred by the national army, an event that would inspire Joaquín Gallegos Lara’s novel “Las cruces sobre el agua” (“The Crosses on the Water”). The examples abound and shock even the most indifferent.
But after the massacres, Latin American workers continued to fight for their rights, eventually winning them at the expense of the oligarchies and bourgeoisie, who reluctantly conceded certain improvements for their employees. Today, Latin American oligarchies have decided to regain the little ground they lost, and they are doing so through labor reforms.
Right-wing labor reforms
The most paradigmatic case at present is that of Argentina. The far-right government of Javier Milei is promoting a labor reform that, according to the country’s largest unions, is a direct attack on the working class: it allows for an increase in the working day by several hours, workers who request sick leave or injury leave will be paid less, business owners will pay less in severance pay, collective bargaining will be weakened, workers will be paid in other currencies or in kind, and the right to strike will be reduced, among many other changes.
The response from Argentine workers has been overwhelming. The general strike has put several powerful sectors of the Argentine economy in a tight spot, but they are still far from being threatened by the workers’ actions. Milei, for his part, insists that the reform “modernizes” the law to bring it into line with the new labor needs of the 21st century, so he will not budge.
But Milei’s government is not the only one seeking to roll back workers’ gains. In Ecuador, Labor Minister Harold Burbano announced that Daniel Noboa’s right-wing government intends to increase the working day from 8 to 10 hours. The document that transforms the achievement of an 8-hour workday appears to have been leaked, because although it bears the minister’s signature, it has not yet been published in the official registry.
Read more: Argentina general strike targets Milei’s labor reform that strips rights
As in Argentina, the government insists that the reform is being carried out to benefit workers in particular, not necessarily employers. And while Burbano asserts that weekly working hours cannot exceed 40 hours, several experts point out that the measure seeks to further undermine Ecuadorian workers, especially since overtime will not be paid in money, but rather in “time, which is the most valuable thing we humans have,” said the minister. In other words, instead of money, overtime will be paid with free time.
But the document also allows for up to 12 hours of work per day, something that has caught the attention of the most neoliberal elements. Burbano said that this possibility would only apply to transport workers, but nowhere in the document is a specific productive activity mentioned, which has caused much unease among workers. Burbano, following Noboa and Milei, insists that these are measures to “modernize” the labor market.
This is the same argument used by José Raúl Mulino’s Panamanian government in 2025 to promote the Organic Law on Social Security, according to which the retirement age must be increased in three years. In addition, Mulino’s right-wing government reduced pensions and opened up the possibility of privatizing Social Security. These and other aspects (such as the increased US presence in Panama) sparked major protests by Panamanian trade unions, which lasted almost 100 days and led to several labor leaders going into exile.
Progressive labor reforms
But not all attempts to reform labor legislation are in line with the IMF’s wishes. Claudia Sheinbaum’s progressive government is pushing for a reform to reduce the working week from 48 to 40 hours, something that has been demanded for several decades in Mexico.
The proposal has already been approved by the relevant committees of the Mexican Senate. If approved, the reduction is expected to be implemented gradually until 2030, when only the 40-hour work week will apply. In addition, the measure aims to ensure that overtime is paid at the same rate as a normal working hour and that overtime cannot exceed 12 hours per week; if this quota is exceeded, the employer must pay the worker double for the hour worked.
Read more: How Mexico lifted 13.4 million out of poverty in six years
Last year, the Colombian government of Gustavo Petro promoted an ambitious labor reform that sought to settle a historic debt that the country owed to workers. After several setbacks, Colombia’s progressive and leftist forces achieved a slightly fairer reality for Colombian workers in mid-2025.
The most emblematic measure was the reduction of the working week to 42 hours. This measure will be implemented gradually, as proposed by Mexico. In addition, the night shift in Colombia now begins at 7 pm instead of 9 pm, which implies recognition of night shifts. Furthermore, workers who work on Sundays and holidays will receive a 100% increase in pay for the hours worked on those days. In addition, permanent contracts, with certain exceptions, will be the basis for future contracts. This is not to mention the recognition of the rights of workers who work through digital applications.
In Brazil, a major legislative battle is underway to end the six-day workweek and reduce the work week to 36 hours. The effort led by the government of President Lula da Silva and Legislator Erika Hilton in the Chamber of Deputies has been accompanied by mass mobilization on the streets. The popular support for the measure is overwhelming. A poll released on February 12, 2026 showed that 73% of Brazil’s population supports the end of “6×1” workweek.
Why are there such different paths?
The answer to the question of why there are two such different paths seems to be more complex than it appears. A simplistic answer would be that right-wing neoliberal governments legislate in favor of big business, while progressive governments, without revolutionizing economic structures, opt for more balanced labor legislation and, in that sense, recognize the fundamental contribution of labor to the development of economies.
But the truth is that it is not only two economic and political models that are in dispute, but also the very path of development and production of Latin American societies. On the one hand, neoliberalism, led and sponsored by developed Western countries, seeks to ensure that Latin American economies maintain their historical role as suppliers of raw materials for Western industries, while at the same time seeking to lower labor costs to ensure more substantial profits. It should not be forgotten that many Western industries relocated their factories to the Third World, including Latin America, in order to obtain greater profits.
On the other hand, progressive governments are attempting to combine social democratic measures with moderate Keynesianism to develop their industries and domestic markets. This development seeks to turn Latin American workers not only into producers, but also into consumers of domestic and foreign products, thereby boosting the national economy. However, despite free trade agreements, workers’ consumption of US and European products is still very limited in Latin America. But Chinese products are cheaper…
This poses a major economic dichotomy that transcends a geopolitical dichotomy. The development model of progressive governments forces them to seek cheaper markets, and this is something that US and European interests are not willing to let go, even if it means delaying the development of Latin American countries and pushing them back to a reality closer to the 20th century than the 21st. In this sense, Latin American oligarchies have not changed sides and understand that their survival is assured under an imperialist and Western order.
It is still too early to know what the future of the Latin American economy will be. History moves forward with its contradictions, and historical trends are revealed in this movement. Although it may not seem so, one of the issues that will most affect this future is the current labor rights dispute in the region, and for this reason, it is one of the issues that deserves the most attention.
The post Labor rights in dispute: neoliberalism vs progressive reform for workers in Latin America appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.
From Peoples Dispatch via This RSS Feed.