Business leaders are warning about the latest labor reform debate approvals.

The labor reform bill, approved in its latest debate in the Senate, has received a series of criticisms from business leaders due to the salary costs it would entail, especially for micro and small businesses. Furthermore, they claim that it does not seek to create jobs and will impact informality.

Some of the items that would have higher costs include bringing forward nighttime surcharges to 7 p.m. (today they start at 9 p.m.), increasing Sunday and holiday pay from 75 percent to 100 percent, and making apprenticeship contracts labor-related.

According to the merchants' union Fenalco, this reform would increase labor costs by between 18 and 34 percent , depending on the economic activity and the size of the company. This will discourage formal hiring, drive informality, and generate a chain of negative impacts such as business closures, higher prices for consumers, and reduced job opportunities.

"A reform that endangers micro, small, and medium-sized businesses and was considered unfeasible just a few months ago cannot now be presented as good for the country simply because it serves as a bargaining chip to stop a costly and deceptive referendum. It is a misguided decision, born of pressure, blackmail, and political calculations, not of true technical analysis or genuine social dialogue," warned the union's president, Jaime Alberto Cabal.

The greatest impact would be felt by businesses such as shops, bakeries, neighborhood cafes, and those that operate during extended hours or on weekends , as well as sectors such as gastronomy, tourism, security, and transportation.

"It's not fair that these businesses end up paying the costs of decisions made under political pressure. The reform penalizes precisely those who generate the most jobs," Cabal stated.

For Rodolfo Correa, president of the Colombian Association of Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises (Acopi), the reform would generate significant losses for the business sector and jeopardize its stability. "For small businesses, we're estimating a loss of 157 million pesos per year, and for microenterprises, it would represent an increased expense of nearly 22 million pesos annually ," he stated.

Additionally, he indicated that the reform would help create more jobs and increase informality. "The bill will not benefit the majority of the population. Only 10 million workers, as another 12 million are in the informal sector and nearly 2.5 million are unemployed," he noted.

Meanwhile, the president of the Colombian-American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham Colombia), María Claudia Lacouture, said it would bring risks such as disincentives to formal employment, reduced competitiveness and flexibility, disconnection from new forms of work, distortion of apprenticeship contracts, and the closure of SMEs.

Bruce Mac Master, president of the National Association of Businessmen of Colombia (Andi), lamented that Congress did not approve the proposal seeking to prevent the advance of nighttime surcharges for small and medium-sized businesses and certain sectors, as business leaders had requested.

"By not creating exceptions for SMEs, we are making a huge mistake. We believe the country is running an immense risk that will lead to informality and unemployment ," the union leader stated.

Specifically, the Association of Bar Owners (Asobares) had asked Congress to include a special and exceptional nighttime surcharge regime for certain activities such as bars, nightclubs, gastropubs, and hotels in the country.

Camilo Ospina, president of the union, told this outlet that the approved measure penalizes the sector that operates at night. “ The payroll will increase between 17 and 25 percent. That means that a small business that currently pays 25 million pesos in payroll could see its payroll increase to 32.2 million pesos. Furthermore, with every hour the night shift is reduced, 11,500 formal jobs will be lost,” he stated.

Fedeseguridad, the private security and surveillance industry association, had also requested a series of exceptions. In this case, they requested that the 100 percent surcharge be applied only on Sundays or rest days and not on holidays. Furthermore, the surcharge increase should be 80, 90, and 100 percent and should also begin in January 2026, 2027, and 2028, respectively.

"Changes in working hours and surcharges could make many contracts unviable, reduce demand for legal security services, and lead to mass layoffs , affecting thousands of families and jeopardizing public safety," warned its president, Nicolás Botero.

For the president of Acopi, the attempt to equate the apprenticeship contract with an employment contract distorts its legal and pedagogical nature. "Equating this concept to an employment relationship would distort its legal nature, devoiding the principle of progressiveness of the right to education and affecting the harmonization of the job training system," he explained.

He also stated that, from an economic and business perspective, converting the apprenticeship contract into an employment relationship would generate parafiscal, tax, and social security burdens that would be "unviable" for thousands of micro, small, and medium-sized businesses that currently access human talent training through this modality.

"Such a transformation would lead to a drastic reduction in the supply of apprenticeships, harming young people from the most vulnerable strata who find their first real training experience in the SENA (National Education Service) and in companies. This measure could even lead to the informalization of business practices due to the impossibility of assuming new work obligations," he asserted.

Specifically, regarding SENA apprentices, the Anif think tank noted that the current labor reform seeks to increase the monetization of the apprenticeship fee from 1 to 1.5 minimum wages for each apprentice who is not hired.

This change poses two concerns for Anif. On the one hand, the fine for not meeting the apprentice quota is higher. On the other hand, the additional financial cost to companies unable to expand their business size is ignored, as the monetary cost is now based on each apprentice not hired.

"This effect is detrimental in two ways. In addition to making apprentices relatively more expensive than experienced personnel, it penalizes companies precisely because of the lack of design of this economic incentive," he asserted.