Colombian Politics Digest XII: Labour reform and labour scandals
A sumary of recent news: The revived labour reform passes third debate, and scandals around Pacto rep. David Racero, including embarrassing allegations about working conditions.
The labour reform and the consulta popular continue to dominate political news in Colombia, while more scandals implicating high-profile Pacto congressman David Racero raise questions about the governing coalition’s double standards, including about workers’ rights.
In this edition: The revived labour reform is approved in the Senate’s fourth commission, one step closer to becoming law; more scandals implicating Pacto rep. David Racero, including embarrassing allegations about working conditions landing during the labour reform debate.
The continuing saga of the labour reform and the consulta
On May 27, the revived labour reform was approved in third debate in the Senate’s fourth commission.
The labour reform had originally been killed in third debate in the Senate’s seventh commission back in March, a defeat that prompted Petro to call for a consulta popular (a type of referendum) to let the people decide on the labour reform. Petro’s proposed 12-question consulta was submitted to the Senate on May 1, and the upper house had a period of 30 days to decide whether or not to allow the vote to be held. Amidst heated debate, an alternative escape valve for opponents of the consulta appeared in the form of an appeal against the seventh commission’s decision to kill the bill. An appeal to the plenary had been filed in March, as congressional rules allow when a bill is rejected.
After being ignored by everyone for well over a month, the idea of the appeal suddenly became appealing to a lot of senators worried about the political blowback they might face for ‘voting against workers’ rights’ in the form of the consulta. Much to the government and the Pacto’s displeasure, the Conservative president of the Senate, Efraín Cepeda, an opponent of the government, tactically scheduled the vote on the appeal right before the vote on the consulta on May 14, the day the Senate was to decide on the consulta. In a lengthy, tumultuous session, the Senate voted by 68 votes to accept the appeal, reviving the labour reform. Immediately thereafter, the Senate narrowly voted, 49 to 47, against the consulta. The Senate descended into rather shameful mass chaos and pandemonium, with the government and its caucus angrily denouncing fraud and foul play (see here).
The labour reform was revived where it left off (third debate) and sent to another commission, namely the fourth commission. The fourth commission, an economic commission which usually handles budgetary and fiscal issues, is presided by Green senator Angélica Lozano. During the Senate debate on the consulta, Lozano had made the strongest case for the appeal, claiming there could be a labour reform in law within 38 days, much quicker and cheaper than a consulta (which doesn’t directly approve laws, but rather imparts a binding order on lawmakers to translate the popular decision into law). Lozano opposed a consulta before the 2026 elections, and was among the nine senators who didn’t vote in the final vote on the consulta, an absence which the Pacto isn’t likely to forget and forgive anytime soon.
Time is playing against the labour reform. The revived text must be adopted into law before June 20, the last day of the current legislative period, after approval in two more debates (third debate, and fourth debate in the plenary) and conciliation (with the text adopted by the House in October 2024). Lozano presented a very tight calendar to have the labour reform adopted before June 20.
The government and the Pacto, despite supporting the appeal, have been, at best, very skeptical and suspicious about it. At first, labour minister Antonio Sanguino and interior minister Armando Benedetti both said that there would be no time, with Sanguino having previously described the appeal as a trap to sabotage the consulta and a perverse tactic to give the reform a second burial. All while still claiming that the consulta had been ‘stolen’ by ‘fraud’ orchestrated by Cepeda and the secretary of the Senate, and presenting a second consulta popular with 16 questions (the original 12, and four new questions about healthcare reform) before the Senate on May 19, the government, reluctantly, agreed to go along with the revived labour reform in the fourth commission. Benedetti requested urgent consideration for it, giving it priority over all other matters in the schedule and giving the Senate 30 days to decide on it. Cynics would contend that the government has little incentive in getting the labour reform approved, as it’d allow their opponents to score some points and deprive the government of its best justifications for a consulta and ‘mass mobilization’ against an identifiable enemy.
Lozano managed the labour reform now in her hands with surprising efficiency, speed and relative transparency. The commission held public hearings on May 19, listening to both business groups and unions. She tried, quite naively, to get broad consensus from all parties on a fair and concerted reform. While every party on the commission agreed that there would be no negative ponencia, or motion to kill the bill outright, as there had been in the seventh commission, building a consensual ponencia (the rapporteurs’ report, the basis for debate and votes in commission) was mission impossible.
On Friday May 23, before the majority ponencia was made public, Pacto senator Aída Avella—the Pacto’s only member on the commission—announced that she would present an alternative ponencia, anticipatedly indicating disagreements with the contents of the main ponencia to be co-signed by the other parties. The main points of disagreements were night shift hours, extra pay for work on Sundays and holidays and the form of contract for apprentices. The two main unions, the CUT and CGT, withdrew their support from the reform, claiming that the majority ponencia introduced unacceptable ‘regressive’ measures. On Twitter, Petro called it a “complete counter-reform” and took shots at Lozano—who he had previously accused of wanting to take centre stage by having the reform adopted by law rather than by consulta.
Lozano also came under fire from the right. Uribista senator Carlos Meisel accused her of putting the agreements built at risk. In the end, the CD signed on to the majority ponencia, but the Liberals didn’t. The majority ponencia was published late on Monday May 26, and the debate in commission was held the next day. Avella’s alternative ponencia was first to be discussed and was defeated 12-1. The majority ponencia was approved with 14 votes, with Avella not voting, opening debate on individual articles.
Lozano said that the ponencia kept 80% of what had been approved by the House in 2024 and took up 10 of the 12 questions of the consulta. Despite the similarities, attention and debate focused on the main points of discord.
The two main points of discord were night shift work hours and extra pay (recargo) for Sunday and holiday work.
The ponencia placed night shift hours from 7pm (currently 9pm), but exempted small businesses. The right and business groups has argued that small businesses need special treatment, because of the extra costs that earlier night shift hours (paid a 35% premium) would entail for them, in a context where many small businesses are struggling or have closed in recent years. The government, which wants night hours to start from 6pm (as in the consulta’s first question), protested that excluding small businesses (over 70% of the working population, 38% of the formally employed population) would create an unequal system with less advantageous working conditions for many employees. Lozano and the Liberals noted that they opposed the exception for small businesses. By 8 votes to 7, the commission adopted an amendment by Lozano removing the exception for small businesses (Lozano, the three Liberals were joined by Avella, La U’s John Besaile, indigenous senator Richard Fuelantala and ex-Pacto dissident Paulino Riascos; the CD, CR, Conservatives and La U’s Juan Felipe Lemus voted against). The government celebrated this as a victory, while noting that in the plenary they’d keep pushing for night hours to begin from 6pm.
The other point of disagreement was about the extra pay (recargo) for work on Sundays and public holidays. While everyone supports raising the recargo for Sunday work to 100% (from 75%), as it was until 2002, the ponencia—with Lozano and the Liberals disagreeing—kept the rate at 75% for work on public holidays, noting that Colombia has a lot of public holidays (18) and that the recargo is already among the highest in Latin America. Once more, the commission narrowly adopted, 8 to 7, an amendment (by Lozano) raising the recargo for work on public holidays to 100%. The increase in extra pay rates would be gradually implemented through 2027, but with an immediate increase to 80% from July 1 of this year if adopted. The final result on this article was, again, a win for the government.
Another contentious issue, which has become a non-negotiable red line and point of honour for the government, is the apprenticeship contract. The government, supported by apprentices and trades students, insists that the apprenticeship contract becomes a fixed-term employment contract, paid the minimum wage during the practical stage of their training, with the same rights as other employees like pension contributions, benefits, bonuses and vacations, as well as being unionized and coverage by collective agreements. The government argues that Uribe’s 2002 labour reform turned apprentices into cheap labour and claims that this would repair an injustice, treating apprentices as employees as they do the same work. Opponents have said that this would raise costs for companies and be a disincentive for them to hire apprentices, running the risk of further increasing youth unemployment and informality.
The text adopted by the commission retains the current definition of apprenticeship contracts as a ‘special form within labour law’ but increases the monthly pay to 75% of the minimum wage during the in-class learning phase (currently 50%) and 100% during the practical training phase (currently 75%), with pension, healthcare and occupational risk insurance (ARL) contributions (currently, apprentices only have healthcare and occupational risk coverage). In the case of ‘dual training’ programs (alternating between in-class and on-the-job phases), apprentices would be paid 75% of the minimum wage in the first year and 100% in the second year. It also increases the ‘monetization quota’ to be paid by companies who don’t hire apprentices as obligated, but, in a concession to business, the text now allows an exception for companies who prove that they were unable to hire any apprentices.
The text adopted by the commission includes some other modifications or new articles compared to the version adopted by the House, including:
The maximum, non-renewable, length of fixed-term contracts is increased to five years, instead of four. Currently, fixed-term term contracts may last up to three years but are renewable indefinitely.
The possibility of employers and employees agreeing to a 4-day workweek, extending the work day and without overtime pay, within the current legal 42-hour workweek.
Employers would be required to grant leave to employees to attend scheduled or emergency medical appointments (including for endometriosis but no longer for menstrual pains, as in the House’s version) and their children’s school obligations, but only thosse where their presence is required.
The creation of a new additional bonus paid to employees of companies recording 4% yoy growth, ranging from 20% to 40% of the minimum wage depending on the size of the company, and tax reductions for the employer. This is an old uribista favourite, based on their idea of a ‘harmonious’ relationship between employers and employees.
New measures to promote formalization, addressing one of the main criticisms levelled against the labour reform (that it did little to reduce labour informality) including the monthly payments of legal bonuses and severance pay (currently paid annually or semiannually) for part-time workers, the creation of a new mechanism of social security contributions for employees and workers earning less than the minimum wage and the creation of a new payroll subsidy program to formalize employment especially in small businesses (up to 25% of the minimum wage for each new formal employee hire).
The proposed increase in paternity leave from 2 to 4 weeks was eliminated, as was a new three-day paid leave for newlyweds, citing fiscal constraints and that the current law allows for the division of parental leave between both parents.
The proposed ban on union service contracts (contratos sindicales), supported by the government, was eliminated. They’re a type of civil law contract between employers and trade unions for certain activities that have been misused to circumvent labour law (mostly in the healthcare sector) and as a form of labour outsourcing/subcontracting. Nevertheless, the commission eliminated the article, arguing that it’d violate freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.
The approved text keeps a lot of things from the House’s version including: regulation of delivery app work, definitions of telework (including a connectivity allowance for teleworkers), stronger legal protections against discrimination, allowing part-time social security contributions by formalized small businesses, flexbile workdays and workstyles for employees with caretaker responsibilities, flexible work environments (allowing emotional support animals), the ‘reinforced labour stability’ protections against dismissals, a disability employment quota (though it would be optional in the first year) and the formalization of several groups of workers (domestic workers, athletes, artists etc.).
With the exception of the apprenticeship contracts and some other issues, this was a generally good outcome for the government. Benedetti celebrated the approval of ‘our’ labour reform. Lozano called out his hypocrisy of “jumping on the victory bus after throwing stones at every opportunity” and said that the reform was adopted not thanks to, but rather in spite of the government.
But while parts of the government seem happy with the labour reform, the Pacto is unhappy, at least in part because of their intense personal dislike for Lozano. A statement from the Pacto’s caucus has called the text “regressive and against the people.” Their criticisms have focused on the apprenticeship contracts, the contrato sindical, the ‘legalization’ of hourly jobs, the ‘denial’ of leave for menstrual pains and the possibility of 4-day workweeks with concentrated hours without overtime pay. The government and the Pacto are playing opposition, focusing on points of disagreement to keep their base mobilized and motivated, while holding out the possibility of claiming victory for themselves if the final result is to their liking.
Despite scoring key wins on night work and overtime pay, which had previously been two paramount points for them, the Pacto seems to have searched the text for any other articles that could be ‘evidence’ of some betrayal or evil plot—ignoring that what was approved in the fourth commission, much like what was approved in the House in 2024, was the product of agreements, consensus and inevitable concessions that are part of passing a law in a multiparty democracy. The government and the Pacto had no real problem with the major concessions made during the debates in the House last year. Given such behaviour, one could question whether the Pacto/government is really acting in good faith, and wonder whether they really want the labour reform to be adopted by Congress.
The main unions (CUT, CGT and Fecode, the teachers’ union) have also said that what was approved in the fourth commission was a ‘counter-reform’ in favour of the business elite. Their statement singled out 13 points they considered ‘regressive’, including enabling hourly jobs, denying employment contracts to apprentices, promoting labour outsourcing and extending fixed-term contracts to 5 years. A national strike called by the unions on May 28-29, in support of the consulta and with the government’s backing, was a flop with only meagre turnout. Described in the media as a ‘failure’, Petro and the government sought to distance themselves from the strike: Petro tweeted that a strike is not a demonstration, and strikes can only be called by unions; likewise, Benedetti said that the government doesn’t call for strikes but rather the unions.
All the while, the government has continued waving the ‘threat’ of the consulta popular over the Senate’s head—as a warning, supposedly ready to be activated at any moment, if the labour reform is not adopted. On May 27, while the commission was debating the labour reform, Benedetti came out claiming that the Senate had in fact never legally pronounced itself on the consulta, due to a technicality (the Senate leadership did not properly read the full proposal about the consulta before opening the vote, which he says is clearly against congressional rules) that invalidates the vote on May 14. As a result, Benedetti claimed, if the Senate didn’t ‘pronounce itself’ by June 1, Petro would call for the original (12-question) consulta by decree. This rather outlandish idea is based on a peculiar, though untested, interpretation of the law that isn’t shared by many jurists.
Cepeda quickly said that doing so, ignoring the Senate’s decision on May 14, would be a serious attack on the rule of law and the separation of powers, and the secretariat of the Senate dismissed Benedetti’s legal arguments. The opposition loudly denounced the government’s intentions as illegal and dictatorial.
Unsurprisingly, Cepeda allowed the June 1 ‘deadline’ come and go without taking any action. Benedetti has insisted that the government is now allowed to organize the consulta by decree, and that the president has eight days (until June 9) to do so. If Petro does so, the decree will certainly be immediately challenged, opening an institutional conflict involving the electoral authorities and the judiciary. The Constitutional Court would have to rule on the constitutionality of this decree, and could impose an injunction suspending the consulta while it decides on the case.
At the same time, Sanguino, the labour minister, suggested, on May 29, that if the Senate adopts the labour reform, the government could ‘deactivate’ the consulta. It’s unclear how the government believes that it could convene the consulta by decree in the next few days and later, possibly, ‘deactivate’ it.
To recap, the labour reform must be adopted by June 20. With at least eight days between the third and fourth debates, the plenary of the Senate will take up the topic from June 5, with the second week of June being the crucial moment. Once adopted, it would need to (very quickly) be reconciled with the House’s text from last year during the conciliation process (and the chosen text adopted by both houses). Cepeda, the president of the Senate, doesn’t seem as intent as Lozano on ensuring a speedy process for the labour reform in the plenary. In addition, if they so desire, the opposition could block the reform by setting the order of the day on three ‘opposition days’ (that they haven’t used in this legislative period).
Double standards: David Racero’s scandal
Pacto representative and former president of the House (2022-23) David Racero is mixed up in another scandal.
Last September, Daniel Coronell had published WhatsApp conversations suggesting that Racero received part of the salary of a member of his congressional staff (UTL) who, at least once, paid his credit card statement and that another staffer ended up working in a fruver minimarket (small shop selling fruits and vegetables) owned by Racera, on his salary paid for by taxpayers. Coronell later published bank statements showing cash deposits into Racero’s accounts and money transfers to Racero’s father and brother from members of his staff. El Tiempo published audio recordings of the congressman giving instructions to his driver, a member of his UTL, about purchasing produce for his fruver.
Coronell also published chats in which Racero asks Jorge Londoño, the director of the SENA (National Training Agency, the public institution provide vocational and technical training), for jobs in the SENA. In the chats, Racero asked Londoño for patronage jobs in Cesar department (that had been previously held by uribista appointees), to which Londoño consented, “of course but leave a little for the Greens” (Londoño’s party). The operation was managed by Racero’s uncle, José Luis Mayorca, a doctor who unsuccessfully ran for governor of Cesar in 2023.
In response to these allegations, Racero himself asked to be investigated by the Procuraduría and the Supreme Court.
Once upon a time, Racero, first elected to Congress in 2018, was seen as a promising young figure of the left (he is 37). Since he was first elected, his main political cause has been fighting against political privileges, clientelism and traditional political clans, vowing to set an example and ‘doing politics differently’. As one of the most prominent figures of the Pacto in the House, Racero was president of the House of Representatives in the first year (2022-2023). Until the scandals came out, he was generally held in relatively good regard as an intelligent, hard-working congressman with genuine convictions.
Now, Coronell has come back with new evidence of Racero’s clientelism in the SENA. In audio recordings, Racero explains how the clientelist operation should work, discussing the mechanics involved (lists of candidates, CVs, acting positions, rigged hiring process) and splitting the spoils with his uncle. He’s heard saying “the director appoints him as acting subdirector […] and then we start managing him” and “take out the ones that are there now and put ours in.” Coronell has also revealed recordings of Racero negotiating a clientelist exchange of favours with the then-director of Colombia Compra Eficiente, the national public procurement agency, proposing a job ‘swap’: a deputy directorship in Colombia Compra Eficiente in exchange for a vice presidency in Positiva, the state-owned insurance company (currently headed by former Caldas Liberal representative José Luis Correa).
Two days later, in his Sunday column in Cambio, Coronell published audio recordings of Racero talking about hiring a woman to be a cashier in his fruver (likely in 2020 or 2021), detailing the job: a monthly pay of a million pesos (US$ 240 today), without any social benefits, for a 13-hour workday (7am-8pm), six days a week (78 hours a week), also doing other odd jobs (cleaning bathrooms, washing floors, preparing food). Since 2022, the minimum wage has been over 1 million pesos, and the maximum duration of the workweek is being gradually reduced from 48 hours (before 2023) to 42 hours (from 2026).
This last scandal comes at a particularly bad time for the Pacto and Racero, currently presenting themselves as the champions of workers’ rights, vehemently defending the labour reform and the consulta. Petro has repeatedly called those who oppose his labour reform ‘slaveowners’. On social media and in public speeches, Racero takes on the role of great defender of workers’ rights against those who want to exploit them, with fiery rhetoric in defence of workers’ dignity, fair pay and access to social security benefits. As an employer, he seemed to do the opposite.
In a statement that didn’t provide any explanations, Racero instead said that he was terrified at the idea of someone having access to his private communications (questioning the authenticity of the published recordings) and claimed that the opposition was seeking to use the issue as a ‘Trojan horse’ to destroy the labour reform. In a video posted on his social media, Racero said that the government’s reforms were greater than a single congressman and defiantly vowed that he wouldn’t let a concerted strategy of ‘moral annihilation and media lynching’ destroy the reform or the consulta. Racero’s only explanation was that, for six months in 2020, he and his family had a small fruver that went under because of the pandemic.
The scandal is, of course, deeply embarrassing for the left. Some supporters have gone through the mental gymnastics of arguing that Racero’s scandal shows why the labour reform is necessary. Pacto politicians have defended him as an honourable man, while others have kept to saying that justice will determine whether he committed any wrongdoing (and reminding that he himself requested an investigation). Gustavo Bolívar stood out, saying that they must set an example and cannot defend the indefensible.
In a tweet with no clear addressee that could allude to Racero, Petro wrote that a left-wing party doesn’t order the murder of workers, massacre of workers or vilify the working world’ and that any activist who doesn’t adhere to these principles must be ‘examined’ in depth by disciplinary committees and cannot ‘be with us’.
The scandal isn’t the first case of alleged labour exploitation in the government: Laura Sarabia (now foreign minister) reportedly ordered that her nanny be interrogated by polygraph test in a basement, Hollman Morris (director of RTVC, the public broadcaster) faces several accusations of workplace harassment at RTVC, Pacto rep. Susana Boreal has a disciplinary case for mistreating a member of her UTL and Pacto rep. Mafe Carrascal is accused of using an official car for personal purposes.
In other news
They’re off: The period for presidential candidates seeking ballot access through signatures opened on May 31, until December 17. Candidates who want to get on the ballot with signatures have until then to register and collect around 630,000 signatures—3% of the number of valid votes in the last presidential election. In 2022, 46 candidates sought ballot access in this fashion but only seven got the required number of signatures. So far four candidates have already registered their names, including former senator David Luna (ex-CR) and Petro’s former ICT minister Mauricio Lizcano. They’re expected to be joined in the coming days by Claudia López, Vicky Dávila, Juan Daniel Oviedo and others.
The Senate is scheduled to elect a new magistrate to the Constitutional Court on June 4, choosing from an historic all-woman shortlist of three candidate presented by the Supreme Court. There’s no clear favourite between Lisneider Hinestroza, Lina Marcela Escobar and Myriam Carolina Martínez, three women with a more academic than political profile.