Wait for the legal dust to settle before making moves
En Colombia, una decisión judicial ha suspendido provisionalmente el aumento del salario mínimo del 23%, sumiendo a empleadores y trabajadores en una incertidumbre legal que pocas veces se ve en tiempos de paz económica. El Consejo de Estado, árbitro de la legalidad administrativa, ha dado al gobierno ocho días para establecer un porcentaje transitorio, recordándonos que incluso las promesas salariales más concretas pueden quedar suspendidas entre el derecho y la realidad. En este intervalo, lo que está en juego no es solo una cifra en una nómina, sino la confianza de los trabajadores en que el Estado cumple su palabra.
- El Consejo de Estado suspendió de forma provisional el decreto que fijaba el salario mínimo en 1.750.905 pesos, dejando sin piso legal claro a millones de relaciones laborales en el país.
- La federación empresarial Acrip lanzó una alerta urgente a las empresas: congelar cualquier ajuste salarial de inmediato para evitar exposición legal ante directrices contradictorias.
- El gobierno tiene apenas ocho días calendario para emitir un nuevo decreto con un porcentaje de aumento transitorio, una ventana estrecha que no garantiza satisfacer ni al tribunal ni a los trabajadores.
- Los trabajadores quedan atrapados en la espera: los aumentos prometidos se retrasan mientras la justicia y el ejecutivo negocian el terreno legal, sin retroactividad asegurada.
- Las empresas que ya pagaron bajo el aumento del 23% no deberán revertir esos pagos, pero quienes aún no lo han hecho enfrentan la orden de no moverse hasta que llegue el nuevo decreto.
El 16 de febrero, el Consejo de Estado suspendió provisionalmente el aumento del 23% al salario mínimo que el gobierno había decretado semanas atrás, abriendo un vacío legal inusual: el decreto original técnicamente sigue vigente, pero está bloqueado. El tribunal otorgó al gobierno ocho días calendario para fijar un porcentaje de aumento transitorio mientras el proceso judicial avanza hacia un fallo definitivo.
Ante la incertidumbre, la Federación Colombiana de Gestión Humana emitió una advertencia urgente a las empresas del país: no realizar ningún ajuste salarial hasta que el nuevo decreto sea publicado. La lógica es clara: cualquier cambio hecho antes de esa fecha podría generar responsabilidad legal para los empleadores atrapados entre órdenes contradictorias. Las compañías que ya pagaron bajo el aumento del 23% no tendrán que recuperar esos recursos, pero las que aún no lo han hecho deben mantener sus estructuras salariales actuales sin alteraciones.
Para los trabajadores, el panorama es más inquietante. El aumento que esperaban queda en suspenso mientras los poderes del Estado resuelven qué cifra es legalmente válida. Los próximos ocho días serán decisivos: el gobierno deberá proponer un aumento transitorio que satisfaga al tribunal y que, al mismo tiempo, no traicione las expectativas de quienes dependen del salario mínimo para sostener su vida cotidiana.
Colombia's State Council has thrown the country's minimum wage into legal limbo. On February 16th, the court provisionally suspended a 23 percent wage increase that the government had decreed just weeks earlier, leaving employers and workers in a state of uncertainty about what salaries should actually be paid.
The suspension creates an unusual situation: the original decree, which had set the minimum wage at 1,750,905 pesos, technically remains in effect even though it has been blocked. The State Council gave the government eight calendar days to establish a temporary wage increase percentage while the court case continues toward a final ruling. Until that new decree arrives, no one quite knows what the rules are.
The Federación Colombiana de Gestión Humana, a major business association representing human resources professionals and employers, has issued an urgent advisory to companies across the country: do not make any salary adjustments right now. The federation's message is blunt—hold steady on payroll until the government issues its next decree. Any changes made before that new order takes effect could create legal exposure for companies caught between conflicting directives.
What makes this moment unusual is the federation's emphasis on protecting both business and workers. The organization stressed that this unprecedented situation demands careful handling, not rushed decisions. Any salary adjustments that do occur will only take effect after the new decree is published, meaning workers will not be owed retroactive payments or refunds for wages paid under the current structure before that date. In other words, companies that have already paid workers under the 23 percent increase will not have to claw that money back.
The federation also made clear that employers should maintain whatever salary structures they have been using up to this point. The message is one of caution and patience—wait for the legal dust to settle before making moves that could expose the company to liability or create confusion in the payroll system.
For workers, the situation is more fraught. They face the prospect of delayed wage increases while the courts and government sort out what the actual minimum wage should be. The eight-day window the State Council provided is tight, and there is no guarantee that whatever transitional increase the government proposes will satisfy the court or match what workers were expecting when the original 23 percent hike was announced.
The federation's call for careful, legally grounded handling reflects the real stakes involved. Companies need to protect their finances, but workers need to know they will be treated fairly. The next eight days will determine whether the government can thread that needle.
Citas Notables
Companies should not make any salary adjustments or payroll changes until a new decree is issued, even though the original increase remains technically in effect— Federación Colombiana de Gestión Humana (Acrip)
This unprecedented situation requires careful, deliberate handling with proper legal safeguards to protect both company finances and worker welfare— Acrip
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the court suspend the increase if the government had already decreed it?
The State Council found legal problems with how the government set the 23 percent figure. The court didn't kill the increase outright—it just hit pause to examine whether the process was done correctly.
So what happens to workers who were already promised that raise?
That's the painful part. They're in a holding pattern. The government has eight days to propose a smaller temporary increase while the case continues. Workers don't know if they'll get the full 23 percent, something less, or if there will be delays.
Why are business groups telling companies not to adjust salaries?
Because the legal ground is unstable. If a company raises salaries now based on the suspended decree, and then the court rules differently, the company could face claims that it overpaid or underpaid. It's safer to wait.
Will workers lose money they've already been paid under the 23 percent?
No. The business federation made that clear—wages paid before the new decree takes effect won't be clawed back. But going forward, everything depends on what the government proposes in the next week.
What's the real risk here?
Chaos. If the government doesn't act quickly or if its new decree is challenged again, companies and workers could be caught in legal uncertainty for months. The longer this drags, the more damage it does to planning and trust.