Breaking news

Minimum Wage Increase to €1,088 Sparks Divergent Reactions

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

December 29, 2025

The Ministerial Council’s decision to set the minimum wage at €1,088 has ignited debate among key social partners. With the announcement drawing sharp criticism from both trade unions and employers, the issue promises to fuel further discussions in the coming days after a brief pause during the Christmas celebrations.

Policy Announcement and Initial Reactions

Trade unions have already signaled their discontent, arguing that government measures appear to favor employers rather than support employees. In parallel, employer representatives have expressed concerns that the increase does not accurately reflect the scale of the Cypriot economy. Both sides are expected to convene separate meetings soon—union representatives possibly meeting before the end of 2025, with employers scheduling their session on January 14, 2026—to deliberate the next steps following the holiday period.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Economic Implications and Warning Signals

The Observatory of Economic and Business (OEB) has taken the debate a step further by warning that this adjustment could set off a chain reaction in the economy. The report highlights that the proportional increase in the minimum wage may lead to a rise in overall price levels and could eventually strain businesses. Companies attempting to absorb the extra cost might be forced to pass on these expenses to consumers, thereby unsettling the delicate balance of market competitiveness and sustainability.

Analyzing the Real Costs

A closer look at the new minimum wage reveals that the €1,088 figure is only part of the equation. The statutory employer contributions—amounting to 15.4%—raise the total cost for employers to approximately €1,255 per month. This figure comprises allocations for Social Insurance (8.8%), General Healthcare System (2.9%), Social Cohesion Fund (2%), Surplus Personnel Fund (1.2%), and additional contributions (0.5%). Companies that also contribute to the Welfare Fund may see an extra 5% added, pushing the cost even higher.

Impact on Employee Take-Home Pay

For employees, the situation is equally nuanced. Deductions totaling approximately 11.25%—including Social Insurance at 8.8% and General Healthcare contributions at 2.65%—reduce the take-home pay to around €963, despite the gross salary being set at €1,088. Workers on short-term contracts, whose minimum wage has been raised from €900 to €979, encounter even steeper deductions, resulting in net earnings of roughly €867 per month.

In sum, while the minimum wage increase appears to be a welcome change for some, the practical implications reveal a more complex economic landscape. Both employers and employees must now navigate the real cost dynamics, which extend far beyond the advertised gross salary.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.