The dispute over FOPETCONS has a history spanning more than a decade. The business association is demanding changes to its operations and its compliance with Law 87-01, while the workers are defending the special system that finances their pensions and social services. Meanwhile, the wage escalation adds another dimension to the conflict
SANTO DOMINGO. – The statement published yesterday, Wednesday, October 14, 2026, by the Dominican Association of Housing Builders and Developers (ACOPROVI), regarding the social protection of construction workers, is part of a controversy that has pitted business and union representatives against each other for years: the operation of the Construction Workers' Pension Fund (FOPETCONS), the administration of its resources, and its relationship with the Dominican Social Security System.
Although ACOPROVI's message reaffirms its commitment to a dignified pension and the well-being of workers, the association again raises, on the one hand, the application of dispensation mechanisms to eliminate the so-called salary escalation and, on the other hand, the adaptation of the sector's specialized funds to the provisions of article 41 of Law 87-01.
The publication coincides with a new union reaction: in a report published on October 14, Noticias SIN reported that the National Federation of Construction Industry Workers (FENTICOMMC) sent a formal communication to the National Council of Private Enterprise (CONEP) and ACOPROVI to demand respect for labor rights and the continuity of FOPETCONS.
The federation expressed concern about proposals to transform the fund and demanded that any discussion about its future include union representation, as reported by Noticias SIN on October 14, 2026.
A conflict that goes back a long way
The debate didn't begin this week, nor with the recent economic legislation. In publications hosted on its own website, ACOPROVI has argued for years that FOPETCONS should comply with general Social Security regulations.
On March 25, 2014, the association published on its website the article "Law and harm", in which it questioned the application of Law 6-86, which created the fund, and argued that the subsequent provisions of Laws 173-07 and 87-01 required it to be adapted to the new legal framework.
In that text, ACOPROVI argued that the special funds should be subject to the regulation and supervision of the Superintendency of Pensions (SIPEN) and also questioned the distribution of the fund's resources between pensions and social services.
The position was reiterated publicly on 7 , 2017, when ACOPROVI proposed on its own website that the fund be transformed into a Pension Fund Administrator (AFP). According to the organization's statement, the proposal aimed to provide workers with individualized accounts and greater transparency regarding their accumulated retirement savings.
The association also questioned the allocation of some resources to social services and argued that the model should guarantee greater transparency and a better correlation between individual contributions and the benefits received by each worker.
On November 18, 2013, Acoprovi filed a constitutional challenge against Law 6-86, which created the Construction Workers' Pension Fund (FOPETCONS). The union's then-president, Fermín Acosta, stated that this law created a privilege for a small group of workers, to the detriment of the entire population. He added that with the enactment of Social Security Law 87/01, since the fund had not converted into a private pension fund (AFP) within four years, the law had become invalid and constituted double taxation.
Subsequently, according to the union communication reported by Noticias SIN yesterday, ACOPROVI took a proposal to the National Social Security Council (CNSS) on July 8, 2019, to transform FOPETCONS into an AFP or eliminate it.
What does Law 87-01 establish and why does ACOPROVI invoke its article 41?
Article 41 of Law 87-01 regulates pension funds created through specific laws or corporate plans and provides that they can continue to operate if they meet certain conditions, including the accumulation of the corresponding resources in individual accounts, investment rules, life and disability coverage, and regulation, supervision, and monitoring by SIPEN.
The article also includes requirements for the eventual transformation of certain funds into pension fund managers and establishes conditions for funds that are not financially and actuarially viable.
The interpretation defended by ACOPROVI is that FOPETCONS must adapt to that framework and the legal discussion consists of determining how those requirements apply to the special regime, created by Law 6-86, taking into account its legislation, its benefits and the judicial decisions that may be relevant.
Article 41 does not, in itself, mandate the dissolution of FOPETCONS; rather, its text allows special funds to continue operating if they meet the legal requirements. Therefore, to determine which transformation would be mandatory or appropriate, it is necessary to examine the applicable legislation and the specific legal status of the fund.
In 2026, revenue collection became the focus of the dispute
The controversy took on a new dimension in June 2026, during the approval of economic and fiscal measures. On June 18, President Luis Abinader enacted Law 30-26, concerning measures to promote economic growth, tax simplification, and mitigate the international crisis.
Article 61 assigned the Social Security Treasury (TSS) the responsibility of collecting contributions for FOPETCONS. According to information published by Diario Libre on June 29, the scheme stipulated 1% of the value of public and private works and 1% of the salaries of workers in the sector.
The provision provoked a legislative reaction and on June 29 the Chamber of Deputies approved a bill to repeal that article and restore the regime provided for in article 4 of Law 6-86, which attributed the collection to the General Directorate of Internal Taxes (DGII).
Subsequently, the Senate approved the amendments, and Law 35-26 repealed Article 61 of Law 30-26 and reinstated Article 4 of Law 6-86. The measure was published in Official Gazette No. 11251, on July 11, 2026.
FENTICOMMC maintains that ACOPROVI again promoted a new structure to assume the functions of the fund on June 30, 2026, and that this initiative was linked to the debate on article 61.
What is FOPETCONS and what is at stake?
The Construction Workers' Pension Fund was created by Law 6-86, of March 4, 1986, and its implementing regulations. Its purpose is to provide pensions and social protection to workers in a sector characterized by project-based contracts, mobility between employers, and a variety of work arrangements.
According to the fund's own institutional information, its mission includes guaranteeing a decent pension and contributing to the well-being of workers and their families.
The controversy centers on how that protection should be organized: whether the special regime should be maintained in its current configuration, whether it needs adjustments to the general system, or whether some of its functions should be transferred to another structure.
For employers, regulatory compliance, oversight, and clarity of obligations are key issues. For workers and their organizations, the priority is preserving acquired rights, benefits, and the allocation of resources that fund their social protection.
The outcome depends not only on which model is considered more modern or efficient. It also requires establishing what the legislation allows, what obligations correspond to each entity, and what guarantees affiliated workers have.
The other front: salary increases
The statement from yesterday, October 14, incorporates a related, though distinct, issue: the so-called salary escalation.
In a publication in Hoy about ACOPROVI's proposals to improve the sector, the president of the entity explained that the Social Security system has difficulties registering construction workers according to their actual working conditions.
According to that explanation, the calculation based on general salary scales and the hiring of the same person by different companies can cause the system to register them as if they worked full-time in several places.
ACOPROVI argues that this situation creates obligations that do not adequately reflect the salary or the time actually worked and that it may discourage formal employment.
The association is calling for effective exemption mechanisms to resolve this difficulty, but the statement of October 14 does not identify the specific administrative provision that should be modified nor does it detail the mechanism it proposes.
To establish its actual scope, the corresponding technical proposal is needed.
The problem is relevant because informality can leave workers without effective coverage, while registration and contribution obligations affect company costs.
A discussion that requires documents and dialogue
The publication by ACOPROVI and the union's response show that the debate on social security in the construction sector remains open.
To determine the scope of the current proposals, it is necessary to know the technical approach presented by ACOPROVI to the CNSS, the formal position of FOPETCONS, the criteria of SIPEN and the legal and administrative provisions that regulate contributions and exemptions.
It is also crucial to distinguish between the discussion about who collects contributions, the administration of the fund, and a potential transformation of the pension system. These are related issues, but legally distinct.
The goal of ensuring decent pensions enjoys broad support in the discourse of all parties. The controversy lies in how to achieve it, what structure should manage the resources, and how to ensure that any changes preserve workers' rights and establish clear obligations for employers.
Until the technical documents of both parties are known and compared, the discussion should be understood as a conflict about the social protection model for construction, not as a definitive decision to eliminate or replace FOPETCONS.
