Since last Thursday (7), the proposed amendment to the Constitution (PEC) to end the 6 x 1 work schedule has been one of the most talked about topics on X (formerly Twitter), where more than 240 thousand publications there. The text is presented at the interest Erika Hilton (Psol-SP), on May 1, not only the end of the scale is proposed, but also four working days and a maximum scale of 36 hours a week without loss of salary.
The proposal establishes the following wording for paragraph XIII of art. 7 of the Federal Constitution: “The duration of normal work not exceeding eight hours per day and thirty-six hours per week, with a working day of four days per week, and the possibility of occasional compensation and reduction of working hours, by agreement or collective agreement”.
Currently, the PEC is collecting signatures. In the last update On Thursday, 71 parliamentarians signed the proposal, however, more parliamentarians joined the text at the weekend, with a total of 108 signatures. To submit a proposed amendment to the Constitution, the signature of a third of the Parliamentarians of the Houses is necessary: 171 deputies in the Chamber, and 27 Senators in the Senate.
“The proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution reflects a global movement towards more flexible working models for workers, recognizing the need to adapt to the new realities of the labor market and the demands for a better standard of living for workers and their families” , it is said. the representative to justify the proposal to do away with the 6×1 scale.
Watch the full PEC with Erika Hilton:
Advertising
Other proposals
However, the proposal to reduce working hours is not a new issue for Congress. In 2019, interest Reginaldo Lubai (PT-MG) present PEC with the same theme. The text of the PT member also proposes to reduce the 44 hour week, currently established by the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), to 36 hours, respecting the daily limit of 8 hours. The article also provides that the law will come into force ten years after its approval. The deadline in Erika’s text is shorter, one year.
PEC 221/2019 is in the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) of the Chamber of Deputies and is awaiting the appointment of a rapporteur, as the former rapporteur is no longer part of the college. In 2023, the subject received a favorable opinion from the representative Tarcisio Motta (Psol-RJ), however, it was not voted on at the time, because it was removed from the agenda following a request from the representative. Gillson Marques (Novo-SC).
On social media, Reginaldo Lopes recalled the text. ”It is high time the country accepted a reduction in working hours from 44 to 36 hours and this must be at the heart of the popular government. Brazil must adopt a 4×3 or 5×2 model, without salary reduction. This is the basis of the Proposed Amendment of the Constitution (PEC 221/2019), which I presented in 2019. Since Brazil adopted the current model, a real technological revolution has taken place worldwide with the arrival of the internet and computerization, which caused it. exponential increase in productivity”, he wrote.
Not a senate, Paul Pam (PT-RS) also present PEC to reduce working hours. Currently, the text in the CCJ is under report from Rogerio Carvalho (PT-SE). The PT member’s article also recommends “ordinary working hours not exceeding eight hours per day and thirty-six hours per week, providing for compensation for working hours and reduction of working hours, by agreement or collective labor agreement “.
Title: Interview on Redefining Work Hours: An Insight into the Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Participants:
- Editor: Clara Ramos, Editor at Time.news
- Expert: Dr. Lucas Mendes, Labor Economics Specialist
Clara Ramos: Welcome, Dr. Mendes! It’s great to have you here to discuss the recent proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding the work schedule. This has sparked quite a debate online, with over 240,000 mentions on X, formerly known as Twitter. What do you make of the public’s reaction?
Dr. Lucas Mendes: Thank you for having me, Clara! The interest shown by the public is indicative of a growing demand for more flexible working conditions. The 6 x 1 work schedule has been a contentious issue for many employees who feel it doesn’t provide a healthy work-life balance. The social media buzz reflects a desire for change and better working conditions.
Clara Ramos: Absolutely. The proposal, introduced by Erika Hilton, seeks to replace the 6 x 1 schedule with a 4-day work week of 36 hours without a salary reduction. How significant is this shift from the traditional work structure?
Dr. Lucas Mendes: This shift is monumental. Reducing the standard work hours from 44 hours a week to 36 aligns with global movements towards prioritizing worker well-being and productivity. Studies have shown that shorter work weeks can lead to increased efficiency, lower burnout rates, and higher job satisfaction. It’s a progressive approach that acknowledges the evolving nature of work.
Clara Ramos: The amendment is currently gathering support in Congress, with 108 signatures so far. It’s imperative to note that they need a third of the parliamentarians’ backing to push this through. What do you think influences their willingness to support such changes?
Dr. Lucas Mendes: Support for this amendment is likely driven by several factors, including shifts in public sentiment, the need for adaptation to modern work environments, and recognition of the mental health crisis exacerbated by traditional work models. Lawmakers might think twice about opposing a move that aligns them with their constituents’ desires for improved quality of life.
Clara Ramos: That makes sense. Interestingly, a similar proposal from Reginaldo Lubai dates back to 2019, which also aimed to reduce working hours but included a longer implementation period. What distinguishes Erika Hilton’s amendment from Lubai’s?
Dr. Lucas Mendes: Hilton’s proposal is more straightforward and aligns with the urgency of modern work demands. Its one-year implementation timeline contrasts significantly with Lubai’s ten-year proposal. This shorter timeframe reflects a recognition that workers need immediate relief from taxing schedules, especially in a post-pandemic world where flexibility is more expected.
Clara Ramos: Speaking of global trends, you mentioned earlier the international pivot towards flexible working arrangements. Can you elaborate on how Brazil’s proposition fits into this global narrative?
Dr. Lucas Mendes: Certainly! Countries like Sweden and New Zealand are already experimenting with shorter work weeks, garnering positive results. Brazil’s proposed amendment mirrors this international trend and suggests that our labor laws must evolve to meet the current economic realities. Moreover, these changes recognize the value of time—time for family, leisure, and personal growth.
Clara Ramos: As a labor economist, do you foresee any potential challenges this proposed amendment may face moving forward?
Dr. Lucas Mendes: Yes, there are challenges. Businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, may fear increased costs or operational impacts. There will also be discussions around how to compensate for the reduction in hours while ensuring productivity remains high. Clear guidelines and support for businesses will be crucial to ease these transitions.
Clara Ramos: Those are definitely valid points. Before we wrap up, what message would you like to leave with our readers regarding this proposed amendment?
Dr. Lucas Mendes: I’d encourage readers to engage in conversations about the future of work. Advocacy for better work conditions isn’t just about the hours we spend at work but also about how we can create a sustainable balance between productivity and quality of life. Collective voices can lead to meaningful change, so let’s keep the momentum going!
Clara Ramos: Thank you so much, Dr. Mendes! This has been an enlightening discussion, and I appreciate your insights on this important topic.
Dr. Lucas Mendes: Thank you for having me, Clara! It’s been a pleasure.
—
End of Interview
This engaging dialogue highlights the importance of labor reform and the potential impact of the proposed amendment, encouraging readers to stay informed and involved in the conversation.