Reduced working hours can be a trap for employment

The popular appeal created around a Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) to reduce the 6×1 working day has prevented the debate about the trap that the measure represents for workers and companies. Analysts interviewed by People’s Gazette state that, as presented, the measure would result in unequal costs for small and large companies, in addition to macroeconomic distortions, such as unemployment and inflation.

Authored by deputy Erika Hilton (Psol-SP), the text, not yet filed in the Chamber of Deputies, proposes reducing the maximum working hours to 36 hours per week, 4 days a week. Thus, instead of the system called 6×1, which establishes one day off for every six worked, the 4×3 working day would come into force, with four days worked and three days off.

The parliamentarian has been collecting signatures for her request. The initiative comes in the wake of the Life Beyond Work Movement (VAT), which has gained strength on social media since September last year.

It all started with a post against the 6×1 journey made by activist Rick Azevedo, who worked as a store clerk. The topic went viral and, since then, the movement managed to gather 1.5 million signatures on a petition in favor of reducing working hours.

Repercussions for the reduction of the 6×1 working day puts pressure on right-wing parliamentarians

This weekend, the topic was one of the most talked about on the networks and boosted the support of parliamentarians for the Psolist deputy’s request. Even some deputies from the PL bench, opposed to the initiative, felt the “internet pressure” and expressed support for the reduction of the 6×1 working day.

Fernando Rodolfo (PL-PE) said that it is “time to rethink the work model in Brazil”. Another parliamentarian, senator Cleitinho (PL-MG), said he was in favor of reducing working hours and was praised in his networks.

Proponents of the proposal claim to already have 100 signatures, of the 171 required for the request to be filed with the Chamber and begin processing.

In the document, Hilton says that the working day in Brazil, especially the 6×1 scale, exceeds the “reasonable limits” of employees. It is necessary, according to her, to adapt to the “new realities of the job market and the demands for a better quality of life for workers and their families”.

Key issue is productivity, says economist

Hélio Zylberstajn, professor at the Faculty of Economics (FEA-USP) and coordinator of the Fipe Salary Meter, remembers that the idea is not new. There is a permanent demand from the union movement for the approval of a 44-hour week. Currently, the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) establishes 48 hours per week.

Several projects to amend the Constitution or modify the CLT have been presented over the last few decades. Some even advanced, but were never approved.

“This is not unusual, this debate has existed for a long time and, from time to time, populist politicians try to introduce this reduction via legislation, disregarding collective bargaining, which takes into account the needs of both sides, workers and companies”, says Zylberstajn .

According to him, populism is ignoring the main aspect for negotiation, which is productivity. “Workers want to work less and companies resist accepting less work for the same price”, says the economist. “There must be a reconciliation of interests between employers and employees”, he highlights.

To do this, you must first solve the productivity equation. “If you look at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, workers worked 12, 14 hours a day”, he explains. “With modernization and technology, the costs of reducing working hours were absorbed”.

If this does not happen now, the results will penalize the worker and society. “The problem is that when you reduce working hours and workers do not accept a proportional salary reduction,” says Zylberstajn. “They want to maintain their salary and reduce their working hours. This means that working hours have become more expensive, even though the monthly salary remains the same.”

In practice, this means that the employer will be paying more for less production. “Large companies will even be able to compensate for this reduction with modernization and technology to increase productivity”, says the economist. “But small and medium-sized companies, which have a low profit margin, will have a lot of difficulty adapting”, he explains.

According to a survey by the extinct Ministry of Economy, from 2022, micro, small and medium-sized companies represent 99% of national businesses. MSEs alone represent approximately 90% of all businesses in operation.

Small business owners, highlights Zylberstajn, will only have two options: passing on the price to products, generating inflation, or reducing jobs, generating unemployment.

“If it were a measure that ended in itself, great, right? Now the question is: why isn’t this done all over the world? Why doesn’t the world hold a general assembly of all countries and reduce working hours on a global scale? That would be great, right? It’s just that it’s not that straightforward, it’s not that simple”, says the USP professor.

Informality is also a risk

Juliana Mendonça, partner at Lara Martins Advogados, master in Law and specialist in Labor Law and Process, believes that the measure could lead to unemployment and an increase in informality.

“Businesspeople will prefer not to hire directly”, he says. “They may prefer to hire legal or autonomous entities to provide the service instead of CLT employees.”

Constitutionalist André Marsiglia also predicts an impact on the job market. “We make laws just to gain popularity and then they are unfeasible in practice”, he said this Monday (11) on the program yes People’s Gazette.

“Because it’s obvious, how are businesses going to deal with this, how are companies going to deal with this? Hiring more people and increasing the value of the product, generating inflation or increasing informality. But then the people who created the PEC already gained their popularity. That’s what matters in Brazil, that’s what people care about, what’s immediate.”

Proposal to reduce the 6×1 working day could be considered unconstitutional

The road to approving the change is still long. The proposal to reduce the 6×1 working day will only be presented after 171 signatures. From there, processing begins by the Chamber’s Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ).

If approved by the CCJ, it will be sent to a special committee, which will analyze the merits and propose amendments. By procedure, the collegiate has up to 40 plenary sessions to complete the vote on the text.

If this does not happen, the president of the Chamber will be able to put it to a direct vote by all deputies. 308 votes will be needed, a qualified majority of the 513 deputies, in two rounds of voting.

For Marsiglia, the proposal may not even go through the CCJ. For him, limiting working hours violates free enterprise and economic freedom, which “are also relevant principles of our Constitution”.

“That’s why it could be considered unconstitutional,” he says. “What seems relevant to me is that we aim at what is the spirit of the Constitution, which is to cause well-being for the population. You can cause individual well-being by reducing the working day, but collective well-being will be harmed if there is an increase in the informality of work.”

In any case, the debate on the constitutionality of the topic, according to Marsiglia, is open. “It will once again depend on the minds of our parliamentarians or our ‘enlightened’ magistrates”, he states.