Among the multiple changes introduced by the presidential DNU that came into force last Friday is the possibility that salaries will no longer be collected only through bank accounts.
A worker, therefore You may choose to collect your salary via a virtual wallet, something awaited by both employees and fintech companies. This means “deregulation”. a new offer between banks and the fintech sector, this time for the mass of over 9 million “salary accounts” that currently exist in the country.
In the traditional banking sector they warn of some dangers for workers, as they support it deposits in non-financial entities are “unsecured”. They even remember the Wenance case, the fintech that declared bankruptcy last year and left a hundred savers without an answer.
Specifically, the Employment Contracts Law established, in article 124, that wages must be collected in a bank account “which will be called a salary account and in no case may have limits on withdrawals, nor any cost to the worker, regarding its establishment, maintenance or extraction of funds throughout the banking system”.
The new formulation of the article based on Milei’s DNU, however, maintains: “The monetary remuneration due to the worker must be paid, under penalty of nullity, in cash, by bank check to the worker’s order, to be cashed personally by him or by someone indicated by him or through accreditation in an account opened in your name at a bank, at an official savings institution or at other categories of entities that the payment system application authority deems suitable, safe, interoperable and competitive“.
That means, eliminates the exclusivity of banks for the payment of salaries and enables new players. As far as he knew Clarionthese changes apply for the time being for workers covered by Labor Contract Law 26.704, and not for other types of employees, such as those of private individuals or those governed by the agricultural labor regime.
In a technical note, Adeba, the chamber that brings together private banks of national origin, assured that the existing limitation to salary accounts only with official banks or savings institutions was based onn “the need to ensure the safety of funds”.
“Banks have regulations that oblige them to monitor liquidity and solvency ratios which, in turn, are overseen by the BCRA. Furthermore, Banks must contract deposit insurance, which fully covers salaries. For its part, the banking system as a whole has a financial safety net, the objective of which is to mitigate systemic risks and protect deposits”, we read in the work presented by the Banking Chamber.
In the banking sector we remember that it is true that “banks cannot fail”. All funds deposited in banks are guaranteed up to $6 million by Deposit Guarantee Insurance (Sedesa) and salary accounts fall into this universe.
“Financial institutions have individual accounts to allocate customer deposits and, according to the Financial Institutions Law, banks cannot apply for preventive bankruptcy nor can they go bankrupt.”. Banks in serious difficulty will have the resolution under Article 35a of the Financial Institutions Law and depositors will have preferential treatment in such resolution.”they remember.
Adeba’s work ensures that neither fintech nor mutual societies can provide “the levels of security that the banking system offers to preserve funds”, since These entities do not have to comply with liquidity regulations that the Central Bank asks banks, nor the minimum levels of capital to operate.
“They are not required to have comprehensive minimum risk management standards. They are not subject to the prudential supervision of the Superintendence of Financial and Exchange Institutions. They do not contribute to the deposit guarantee scheme. They do not fall under the financial safety net system. They have no branch network or ability to manage and provide cash,” the publication reads.
One of the central reserves of banks is this Only banking institutions have the necessary ATM network to secure these salaries in physical format in different parts of the country.something that looks like a central aspect in the BCRA regulations that establish the operation of so-called “salary accounts”.
Finally, Adeba’s work uses the case of Wenance, Alejandro Muszak’s fintech which in July last year stopped paying at least 3,000 savers in the country and many others in Uruguay and Spain, as an example of the negative consequences that would have “opened the game” to other entity types.
“If the legislation had allowed companies to pay the salaries of their employees or Anses to provide benefits through fintech, the State would certainly be sued today to take responsibility for the repayment of these payments and the people affected would be even more . without having chosen that company and without knowing its financial statements”, says Adeba.
Source: Clarin
