In the midst of the discussion about the labor reform promoted by the Government – focused on reducing or replacing compensation with an insurance system – a confession from Javier Milei himself about a difficult moment in his life is once again circulating. Before arriving at the Casa Rosada, the economist said that, after becoming unemployed, he was able to support himself thanks to the compensation his employer paid him. And that, even in that situation, his priority was to ensure the well-being of Conan, the English mastiff that he describes as “his son.”
The anecdote arose in 2022, when he was a deputy and spoke with Ernesto Tenembaum on Radio Con Vos. There he said that, upon losing his job, he made a pessimistic calculation about how long it would take to reintegrate. In that context, he said: “When I lost my job and had the severance money, I did the math to find out how long it would take to get a job again and I said: ‘It’s going to be bad for me and it’s going to take twice as long.’ And in that context the restrictions were: Conan’s ride is not touched and the quality of Conan’s food is not touched. None of Conan’s things were touched. He gave me one pizza a day to eat. And I had pizza for breakfast, lunch and dinner, which is why I weighed 120 kilos.”
Today Milei promotes a scheme that seeks to replace that system that assisted him in his worst moment. He argues that compensation “makes hiring more expensive,” feeds “the trial industry” and slows down the creation of formal employment. Unions and opponents maintain the opposite: in an unstable country with high labor turnover, compensation is a necessary cushion for those who are left without income.
The contradiction fueled the political debate: for the ruling party, having received compensation in the past does not invalidate proposing a different system if it is considered that it can boost employment and reduce litigation. For the opposition and unionism, however, the episode reveals a double standard between the President’s personal experience and the risks that a dismissed worker would face under the new rules.
The central fact is that the compensation functioned as support at a critical moment in Milei’s life. The current discussion revolves around what equivalent mechanism an employee who loses his job in Argentina would have if this scheme is modified or eliminated, and what level of protection the model promoted by the Government would offer in the face of unemployment and economic uncertainty scenarios.
