billsfan said:
Not true. Union is a pct deducted from the paycheck.
And the default is not to. The worker must proactively ask for that.
What is SHARED between the employer and the goverment is social security.
I could be wrong about that, for sure. It was something a friend of mine told me, but I wasn't sure of whether it was a legal thing, or a perceived thing.
However, having actually employed Argentinos here (in non-union jobs) what I know for sure is that when an Argentino discusses salary, what he is talking about is what he will actually take home, not what is his actual salary. It is up to the business then to calculate what the actual salary is that gets reported, then pay/withhold, what-have-you, the amounts for taxes, social security, union fees, et al. and make it so that the amount agreed upon between employee and business finds its way to the employee's hand.
As I remember, the company is responsible for paying roughly 40% in taxes for employee salaries (above what the employee is obstensibly responsible for), including social security and income taxes, among other things. that's on top of what the employee supposedly pays.
The employee, if I remember correctly, is responsible for roughly 19%.
The amounts might have changed in the last two years since I have employed anyone directly or I may not be remembering exactly. We changed to paying monotributos only last year.
Of course, you will not get an employee to agree to 3000 pesos a month and then accept that the company is going to actually only pay him 2430 when it comes time to write the check, hand out the cash, whatever. That 2430 represents the salary minus that 19% I mentioned (which again, may not be the exact number, but is close enough to illustrate the point I'm making).
BTW - that 19% does not include whatever percentage the employee has to pay to the union.
My point being that the guy is going to expect 3000 pesos, and it is up to the business to know that it will have to calculate that he has to pay 19% of taxes, soc. sec, health benefits, etc so instead of 3000 pesos he has to calculate that the actually salary of the employee is actually more like 3704.
And of course, now the business also has to add whatever percentage it is for the union to that total (let's say it's 5%, I don't actually know), which brings the guy's actual salary to roughly 3948 to pay the employee 3000.
Now, the business of course has to pay 40% (give or take) of 3948, not of 3000. A difference of about 379 pesos the employer has to pay additionaly because the REAL salary is not 3000 but rather 3948. Also, the employer's real cost to pay that employee 3000 is actually around 5500 (3948 + 1512 [40% of 3948]) with all taxes included that the employer pays. That is just straight payroll burden.
To the way many of us are used to thinking, that means that in reality the company is paying all taxes and fees. If the employee was paying it, he would accept that his salary was 3000 pesos and would take the money out of his salary himself to pay what he owed, just like his rent, utilities, etc. The difference? If the employee were actually paying his taxes and fees at 3000 pesos, then the emploer's cost at a salary of 3000 pesos would be 4200 pesos.
In this case, it's a matter of perception. However, one drawback to this is that even if you say that the employee really is paying the taxes and fees, and really knows that his salary is more than 3000, he doesn't care. When the union, for example, raises the rates, the business is now responsible for making sure that they raise the salary enough to accomodate that new percentage so the employee's salary stays at 3000.
The key element here is that the employee is not feeling the pain, and therefore not arguing with the union about the increase in fees (if such were to happen). Or saying "I'm not going to pay any more because I don't like something you're doing." It is the company that feels the pain. Since unions and employees are "in union" against the company, that leaves the company with little to no recourse.
If the company can't afford the increase, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Now, in order to lay the employee off who won't accept a decrease in pay for example, the business has to pay a severance to let him go, which may be more expensive int he short or medium term than it was to raise his salary.
That's not even taking into account the union (the above about severance is just the law of the land), which probably won't let the business lay off the employee to begin with, unless he pays two times the severance. Even then it may not be a possibility.
I'm thinking, for example, what happened to Ford a couple of years ago when they were having problems and wanted to lay off some workers here but the union wouldn't let them. I didn't actually follow that to the end, so I don't know how that ended.
billsfan said:
Not all unions are corrupt and corner workers to enter the union.
Well, that's where our opinions really differ. If there really is a union out there that is there only to do good for its members, I'd love to know which one.
