UGT and CCOO Hold Summit on Collective Bargaining and Minimum Wages
Following the conclusion of the V Labor and Collective Bargaining Agreement (AENC), the union umbrella UGT and the Workers Commissions (CCOO) convened a summit with leaders from federal organizations. The goal was to advance through sectoral and company level negotiations a minimum wage plan that includes annual increases of 3.5 percent this year, 2.5 percent in 2023, and 2 percent in 2024, alongside clauses for salary reviews should inflation exceed the agreed targets. The unions stressed these points during remarks by their general secretaries, Pepe Álvarez and others, emphasizing the need to protect workers’ purchasing power. This report uses statements provided by the union leaders at the conclusion of the meeting to summarize the main positions and potential implications for bargaining rounds ahead.
Salary review clauses emerged as a key sticking point during AENC talks with employers. The clause under discussion would trigger a wage adjustment if inflation outpaces the set increases. For instance, if the year gives a 3.5 percent rise but inflation reaches 4 percent, the employer would cover the 0.5 percentage point gap in the current year and then apply an additional 0.5 percent rise in the following period. Leaders warned that this is a firm signal to business bodies: workers should not bear the burden of price shocks not caused by themselves. They also noted that unresolved items would be carried into other negotiations across sectors and workplaces, signaling a broad scope of impact if the agreement stalls.
The unions argue that the proposed minimum increases are reasonable when compared to this month’s consumer price index, which stood at 8.4 percent. By spring, wage settlements already reached between employers and unions averaged around 2.4 percent, closing the gap from the previous month. The 3.5 percent proposal for the current year would align closely with the prior year’s outcomes. The Minimum Interprofessional Salary (SMI) had risen by 3.6 percent. Inflation forecasts from major institutions suggested a persistent rise into late 2022, with projections around 4 percent on average and a peak near 7.5 percent by year end. For 2023 and 2024, forecasts hovered between 2 and 3 percent.
Álvarez argued that companies have raised prices in tandem with input costs, which is a major driver of CPI growth. He stated that workers must see wage increases move in the same direction to protect their standard of living. He warned that if employers push back, mobilizations could start before summer across industries and individual companies. He stressed that trade unions have maintained a notably moderate stance in the current round of bargaining, but emphasized that the pace and intensity of potential mobilizations would be driven by employer positions and the progress of negotiations. The timeline for July was highlighted as a possible milestone for action if progress stalls.
On the other side, both union leaders criticized the policy recommendations from a major business group and trade associations. They argued that employers should not resort to non-compliance mechanisms once a consultation period with workers has been established. They maintained that any deviation from negotiated agreements should be limited to scenarios defined by specific economic, technical, organizational, or production reasons. They described as irresponsible any approach that uses force majeure as a blanket justification to override collective bargaining settlements.
Álvarez commented that lawmakers should be mindful of how collective bargaining enters the political arena, noting that the current framework does not always align with the concrete needs of firms and workers. He suggested that changes to labor legislation may be necessary to prevent negotiations from collapsing when faced with highly particular situations in individual companies. He also pointed out that the 2012 labor reform introduced new flexibility, but cautioned that these tools need careful application to avoid undermining collective agreements or weakening workers’ rights in practice.