May Day Dilemma: Minimum Wage Negotiations Fail as Quiroz Plans Budget Cuts to Labor Programs

Original article: La cuenta amarga del 1 de mayo: sueldo mínimo sin acuerdo y Quiroz prepara tijeretazo a programas del Trabajo May Day Dilemma: Minimum Wage Negotiations Fail as Quiroz Plans Budget Cuts to Labor Programs May 1st arrives with a bitter taste for workers. While the negotiations for the minimum wage ended without agreement, the Minister of Finance under José Kast, Jorge Quiroz, is pushing for a budget adjustment plan that directly impacts the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare. This is more than just a numbers game.

The Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT) rejected the government’s proposal to adjust the minimum wage, which included an increase of nearly $23,000, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) changes. Instead, the union has proposed moving towards a minimum income of $637,000 in a context where the cost of living continues to strain household budgets. Following the negotiation table, CUT President José Manuel Díaz expressed his disapproval: “We reject the proposal presented by Minister Quiroz and Minister Arrau, as we consider it insufficient.

” He added, “It does not meet any of the expectations we deem necessary. ” The fight now shifts to Congress. “We will go to Parliament to present our positions and make them understand that things are more expensive today in April than they were in January,» Diaz indicated.

To put it simply, the government offered a formula that barely tracks inflation, while the CUT demands a real recovery of purchasing power. The difference is not technical; it is political. For the Ministry of Finance, the supposed fiscal margin rules.

For workers, the wage is not enough. Quiroz and the Path of Adjustments in Labor The other front is opened by the circular sent by the Ministry of Finance preparing the 2027 Budget and the Financial Program for 2028-2031. In this document, Quiroz’s team instructs ministries to formulate their budgets under a logic of spending restraint, program review, and limits defined by Finance.

In other words: before each ministry states how much it needs to operate or strengthen its policies, the Ministry of Finance already establishes the framework of austerity. And when the budget tightens from above, social programs begin to compete for survival. In the case of the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, the annex is particularly sensitive.

It lists programs classified with recommendations for continuity, budget adjustment, or discontinuation. According to the document, 74. 3% of the programs in the sector are marked for budget adjustment; 8.

6% are earmarked for “discontinuation”; and only 17. 1% have no observations. The very logic of the annex is harsh: “budget adjustment” is not a neutral term.

It implies a decrease in resources that, according to the criteria applied in the document, can reach at least 15%. Therefore, referring to a scissors cut to labor programs is not an exaggeration: it reflects the concrete effects this instruction can have on public policies related to employment, welfare, and labor rights. Employment, Welfare, and Training Under Pressure Among the programs recommended for adjustment are initiatives directly related to household budgets and social protection, such as the Permanent Family Contribution, the Family Subsidy, the Universal Guaranteed Pension, the Child Allowance, the Winter Bonus, the Family and Maternal Allowance, as well as welfare subsidies and benefits related to disability.

There are also signs of pressure on programs from the National Training and Employment Service (Sence), including Labor Scholarships, Women’s Employment Bonus, Despega Mipe, On-the-Job Training, Train for Work, and Reinvent Yourself. The situation becomes more critical when programs are marked with recommendations for discontinuation, such as Solidarity Unemployment Fund Scholarships, Community Investment, and the Program for Promoting Sustainable Employability (PROFES). This is significant.

If a labor scholarship is reduced, there are fewer tools for a person to receive training. If an employability program is adjusted, it shrinks a pathway for reintegration into the job market. If union training is impacted, it weakens the organization of those who must defend their rights against corporate power.

The Bitter Count of May 1st The political coincidence is evident. While the government fails to reach an agreement with the CUT over the minimum wage, the Finance Ministry enacts a framework of adjustments that could undermine labor and welfare programs. In other words, one side offers a wage adjustment that trade unions deem insufficient; on the other side, a pruning occurs over public tools meant to support employment, training, welfare, and social protection.

The underlying problem is that Kast’s government seems to view the world of labor from a fiscal spreadsheet, not from everyday life. However, families’ accounts do not balance with macroeconomic projections or efficiency slogans. They balance with wages that can suffice, stable jobs, guaranteed rights, and functioning public programs.

This May 1st, therefore, does not bring a message of recognition to workers, but rather a warning. The CUT enters Parliament to fight for a minimum wage of $637,000, while Quiroz establishes a cutback to labor programs that may weaken the very policies designed to protect those who rely on their jobs. In straightforward terms: one cannot applaud workers with one hand while wielding the scissors over the programs that sustain them with the other.

That is the heart of the bitter count that this May 1st leaves us. Below, the letter and annex from the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare allow insight into where the scissors of the 2027 Budget will cut.