Some waste pickers could ride for free; others paid their own way.
En el corazón de Buenos Aires, una disputa judicial sobre subsidios de transporte para cartoneros revela tensiones más profundas: quién merece el apoyo del Estado, cómo se distribuye la justicia entre trabajadores informales, y hasta qué punto una ciudad puede desmantelar lo que una vez construyó. Más de dos mil personas que recogen residuos en los márgenes de la economía formal se encuentran atrapadas entre un fallo judicial que les restituye el servicio y un gobierno que lo impugna, argumentando inequidad en un sistema que él mismo heredó y financió durante años.
- Más de 2.000 cartoneros perdieron en julio el transporte gratuito que los llevaba desde el conurbano hasta la ciudad, afectando directamente su capacidad de trabajar.
- Un juez ordenó al gobierno porteño restablecer el subsidio mientras el caso avanza, pero Jorge Macri anunció de inmediato que apelará la decisión, calificándola de 'inusual y contraria a los intereses porteños'.
- El gobierno sostiene que el sistema era injusto desde su origen: solo las cooperativas vinculadas al activista Juan Grabois recibían financiamiento de transporte, mientras otras hacían el mismo trabajo sin ese beneficio.
- La ciudad argumenta que sus nuevas medidas —pagos bancarios directos y control biométrico de asistencia— mejoran la transparencia, aunque los datos ya muestran un aumento del 45% en ausencias injustificadas desde su implementación.
- La apelación definirá si una ciudad puede eliminar unilateralmente un servicio social que ella misma instituyó, y si los sistemas de gestión de residuos basados en cooperativas requieren que el Estado financie el traslado de quienes los sostienen.
En julio, el gobierno de Buenos Aires cortó el subsidio de transporte que cada día llevaba a cartoneros desde el conurbano hasta la ciudad, un programa que costaba alrededor de 6.000 millones de pesos anuales. La justificación fue la inequidad: de las doce cooperativas que integran el sistema de reciclaje porteño, solo las vinculadas al activista Juan Grabois —unas 3.100 personas agrupadas bajo nombres como Amanecer de los Cartoneros o Cartonera del Sur— recibían ese beneficio. Las demás pagaban sus propios pasajes.
Un tribunal administrativo ordenó restablecer el servicio mientras el caso se resuelve. Jorge Macri respondió en redes sociales anunciando la apelación, y el gobierno aclaró que cumplirá la medida cautelar por ahora, pero sin abandonar su postura. Su argumento central es técnico y político a la vez: el contrato público que regula el sistema de reciclaje no obliga a la ciudad a financiar el transporte, y además, el Estado porteño no subsidia los traslados de ningún otro trabajador que viaje desde la provincia.
El conflicto tiene raíces históricas. El subsidio nació durante la crisis de 2001, cuando el Tren Blanco conectaba Once con Moreno transportando cartoneros. Con los años, el trabajo informal fue formalizándose: en 2007 se otorgaron credenciales y se firmaron contratos. Cuando el tren dejó de funcionar, algunas cooperativas negociaron mantener el financiamiento del traslado; otras no lo lograron. Esa asimetría es la que el gobierno dice querer corregir.
Paralelamente, la ciudad introdujo cambios en la forma de pagar a los trabajadores: en lugar de girar fondos a las cooperativas para que las distribuyeran, ahora deposita directamente en cuentas bancarias individuales con control biométrico de asistencia. En el primer mes, las ausencias injustificadas aumentaron un 45%. La apelación que viene decidirá algo más amplio que un subsidio: si una ciudad puede deshacer lo que construyó, y qué le debe el Estado a quienes sostienen, desde los márgenes, parte de su infraestructura urbana.
In July, Buenos Aires cut off a transportation subsidy that had been moving waste pickers from the suburbs into the city each day. The program cost roughly 6 billion pesos a year. Now a court has ordered the city to turn it back on, and the city's government says it will fight the decision.
Jorge Macri, the city's chief executive, announced the appeal on social media, calling the court's order "an unusual decision that works against the interests of porteños." He framed the dispute as one about fairness: the city had concluded that most of the transport money was flowing to a small cluster of cooperatives tied to Juan Grabois, a prominent social activist. The city's recycling system includes more than 6,000 waste pickers organized into twelve cooperatives. Of those, about 3,100 belong to groups connected to Grabois. Those were the ones getting free rides into the city—cooperatives with names like Amanecer de los Cartoneros, Madreselvas, Recuperadores Urbanos del Oeste, and Cartonera del Sur.
The city argues the arrangement was inherently unequal. Not all cooperatives doing the same work received transport funding. Some waste pickers could ride for free; others paid their own way. When the city stopped the subsidy in July, it said it was eliminating that unfairness. A lower court disagreed. The administrative court ruled that the city had to restore the service while the case proceeded through the system.
The city says it will comply with the order for now, but it's appealing. Its argument rests partly on a technical point: the public contract that governs the recycling system doesn't actually require the city to pay for transport. The city also points to changes it made starting this year. Instead of sending money directly to the cooperatives—which then distributed it to workers—the city now pays individual waste pickers through the municipal bank. The shift, the city says, brings transparency and ensures money reaches people who actually show up to work. In the first month alone, unexcused absences jumped 45 percent once biometric attendance tracking went in.
The transport subsidy has a history. It began during the 2001 crisis, when a train called the Tren Blanco ran from Once to Moreno, ferrying waste pickers between the suburbs and the city. In 2007, the city registered waste pickers formally and gave them credentials. That was the start of turning an informal practice into a public contract. When the national government eventually shut down the train, some cooperatives negotiated to keep getting transport money. Others didn't. That created the unequal system the city now says it's trying to fix.
The city's position is that it shouldn't have to subsidize commutes for waste pickers when it doesn't do the same for other workers traveling from the province. The court disagreed, at least for now. The appeal will determine whether a city can simply stop funding a service it once provided, and whether a waste management system built on cooperatives requires the state to pay for the people who run it to get to work.
Notable Quotes
An unusual decision that works against the interests of porteños— Jorge Macri, Buenos Aires city chief
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the city decide to cut this subsidy now, after so many years?
The city says it realized the money was going mostly to cooperatives linked to one activist, and that created unfairness—some waste pickers got free rides, others didn't. But there's also a political dimension. The current government wanted to show it was being fiscally strict and not favoring particular groups.
But 2,000 people lost their transport money. How did they respond?
The cooperatives went to court. A judge agreed with them and ordered the city to restore the service. The city says it will comply while it appeals, but it's clear they think the ruling is wrong.
The city mentions it's now paying workers directly through a bank instead of through the cooperatives. Is that actually better?
It depends on your view. The city says it's more transparent and ensures money reaches people who actually work. The attendance data supports that—absences jumped when they started tracking. But the cooperatives might say the city is using that as cover to justify cutting transport.
What happens next?
The appeal will go through the courts. If the city wins, it stays cut. If it loses, the subsidy stays in place. Either way, it's a test of whether cities can unwind social services once they've been established.
Is there a middle ground here?
Possibly. The city could keep transport funding but tie it more directly to attendance or work output, rather than giving it to cooperatives to distribute. But that would require both sides to negotiate, and right now they're in court.