The amendment to Article 29 of the Law of the Infonavit worries the employers, since the companies must keep making the payments to repay the workers’ housing loans even if the worker is absent or on medical leave.
Ricardo Martínez, of the De la Vega & Martínez law firm, stated that this implies the payment of significant amounts to the Infonavit during the whole period when the worker is not receiving salary.
“This will burden the worker with a significant debt in favor of the employer, which will be almost impossible to recover considering the limits on discounts from the salary established in articles 97 and 110 of the Federal Labor Law. The result will be severe economic costs for the employer as a consequence of making presumably irrecoverable payments”, he indicated.
He added that this amendment to article 29 of the Law of the Infonavit is unconstitutional, so it may be challenged through an “amparo” trial.
“We consider that this amendment to article 29 of the Law of the Infornavit is unconstitutional, so it may be challenged through an “amparo” trial, which shall be initiated in a timely manner to avoid, through a suspension, the application of the amendment while the trial is in progress”, he emphasized in a recent interview.
Attorney Germán de la Garza, managing partner at Fisher Phillips stated that the amendment to this article of the Law of the Infonavit means still another burden on employers.
“The main issue we are watching is that this reform establishes an additional obligation on the employers to keep making contributions to the Infonavit even when the labor relation is suspended in case of a medical leave, which is not currently working this way.
“If we also consider current increases to the minimum wage, the reform on subcontracting, the probable amendment reducing the workweek, it adds up to more burdens on the employer and not an incentive to create jobs“, observed De la Garza.
He expressed that, under the former law, employers were not bound to make this contribution.
“This results in higher costs, more money to be invested, although it is not a matter attributable to the employer”, commented the lawyer.
He explained that this reform created much dissatisfaction among the companies and thus they are seeking “amparo” (protection) to avoid the application of the amendments.
