Short answer. No. It is unlawful to deduct anything from an employee's wages for the benefit of the employer, a representative, or an intermediary, as consideration for a promise of employment or of keeping a job. This applies whether the demand is framed as securing a new position or retaining an existing one.
What the law says
It shall be unlawful to make any deduction from the wages of any employee for the benefit of the employer or his representative or intermediary as consideration of a promise of employment or retention in employment.
Labor Code, Article 117 — Deduction To Ensure Employment. Read the full provision →
What the article actually forbids
Article 117 states the prohibition in a single, direct sentence: "it shall be unlawful to make any deduction from the wages of any employee for the benefit of the employer or his representative or intermediary as consideration of a promise of employment or retention in employment." The article is not phrased as advice or as a default rule that can be waived — it declares the deduction itself unlawful, regardless of how the arrangement is presented to the employee.
Who can be on the receiving end of the demand
The article names three possible beneficiaries of a deduction it forbids: "the employer or his representative or intermediary." So the prohibition is not limited to the employer personally demanding payment — it reaches a representative acting on the employer's behalf, and it separately reaches an intermediary, which covers a third party positioned between the employee and the job itself. Money changing hands to any of these three, in exchange for employment or retention, falls within what the article forbids.
Both getting hired and staying hired are covered
The article covers two distinct situations with the same rule: a "promise of employment," which is the demand made to secure a job in the first place, and "retention in employment," which is the demand made to keep a job the person already has. An intermediary who asks for money to help someone get hired, and a representative who threatens dismissal unless paid, both fall under the same prohibited conduct this article describes.
Why the article is framed around wage deductions
The prohibition is written specifically as a bar on making a "deduction from the wages" of the employee for this purpose. That framing matters: the article treats this kind of payment as something taken out of what the employee is already owed as compensation, not as a separate, freestanding fee the employee might otherwise agree to. Structuring the demand as coming out of wages, rather than as an upfront payment, does not place it outside what this article makes unlawful.