As if there weren’t already a lot of problems that hinder the development of the Brasil Without the government bothering to try to solve them, every now and then an authority emerges — apparently without any more useful idea with which to occupy its time — willing to make the scenario even more confusing. And these authorities, when they say what they intend to do, seem possessed by the noblest of intentions. The sad thing, however, is that, behind his seemingly innocent and generous ideas, there are usually proposals that, although they seem to have sprouted from the head of a harmless sheep, cause more damage than a pack of wolves.
The Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) signed by Deputy Erika Hilton (PSOL-SP), and which proposes the reduction of the working day in the country, is an exemplary case of this situation. The objective of the initiative is a mandatory reduction in the working hours of all workers in Brazil. Under current law, no one can be hired for a shift that exceeds the limit of eight hours per day and 44 hours per week. This is what is contained in the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) — fascist-inspired legislation that since May 1, 1943 has made it impossible to advance relations between employees and employers in the country.
Note that the law establishes the maximum working day—and it would affect even those who, today, have 40 or 38-hour working hours. No one is prevented from any contract with a smaller scale, defined for the convenience of employees and employers, or by the characteristics of some professional categories. Bank employees, for example, have a working day defined by law of six hours a day. Journalists, five. Some categories, such as hotel workers, drivers, merchants and several others follow the 44 hours and the regime of six days of work for one day of rest that the legislation provides.
Now, Érika Hilton wants it because she wants to reduce the maximum working day. But he has already made it clear that he does not accept reducing salaries in the same proportion! That’s not even a thought! Since January, the congresswoman — a trans woman serving her first term in the Chamber — has been dedicated to collecting signatures for the bill. Last Wednesday, she had already, according to her, managed to get the adhesion of almost 200 parliamentarians. For the PEC to have a designated rapporteur and start processing, it was necessary to 171 signatures of parliamentarians. To be approved and become part of the Constitution, the number is at least 308 votes in the Chamber and 49 in the Senate. With two shifts in each house.
POPULIST APPEAL — The path, as can be seen, is difficult and, due to the damage that an amendment like this can cause to companies and the public service in the country, it would hardly be approved if we lived in a country where parliamentarians had to answer for the consequences of the measures they approve. It turns out that we are in Brazil, where Parliament makes decisions without thinking about the implications for society and, when everything goes wrong, that’s it! Érica Hilton herself has already admitted, in an interview about the PEC of her authorship, that she has no idea and, apparently, does not care about the impact of the reduction of the working day on companies and on public accounts.
Logically, the PEC has everything to be rejected in the Committees in charge of analyzing it before going to the plenary. The problem is that the Brazilian Congress demonstrates an uncontrollable tendency to give in to any and all kinds of populist appeals. It doesn’t matter if the proposal comes from the left or the right! She said she is a populist, the parliament treats her as if it were the most serious measure in the world. Therefore, it is good to be prepared for the confusion that will happen in the country if the maximum working day allowed by law is reduced to the 36 hours per week intended by the deputy. The worker may not, as written, have a working day of more than four days a week for three days of rest (the 4 X 3 regime), with eight hours of service in each of them.
Ops! There’s something wrong there! Multiply the maximum number of days to be worked (four) by the maximum hours of each day (eight) and you get it—check it out! — to the result of 32, and not the 36 hours announced in the project! This is a primary, regrettable and inexcusable error in a text that can turn the country upside down. But no one — with the laudable exception of the young federal deputy Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG) — had the courage to denounce this arithmetic barbarity and make it the starting point of a criticism that exposes the lack of quality, amateurism and neglect of Érika Hilton’s project.
COSTS AND BENEFITS — Before delving into the criticisms, however, it is worth pausing for reflection. No one, in their right mind, can criticize any initiative that aims to improve the living conditions of the worker. This is a discussion that has been growing especially in Europe – but which, contrary to the lack of interest shown in the PEC, is always accompanied by calculations that point to the costs and benefits.
In Germany, companies joining the project is voluntary and can be reversed. In the United Kingdom, companies that have implemented the model as a test receive government funding and are closely monitored. In the Netherlands, companies opt for the model voluntarily and individually, as a way to retain the most talented workers. In Portugal, some real-world tests are being developed to measure the impact of the measure on productivity, company costs and the worker’s quality of life.
One detail: all the countries where the measure is under discussion are at a much more advanced stage of the capitalist system than the Brazilian one. Sweden, an oft-cited example when it comes to rights and well-being, the debate is ongoing. There, the maximum working day, by law, is 40 hours—but most workers work a 38-hour week. The vacation conditions are so privileged that it makes the work regime of any other country seem too harsh when compared to theirs. Even with so much expansion of rights, the adoption of the 4 x 3 scale is viewed with reservations by the Swedish authorities and the obstacle has been the high cost of reducing the working day for the country’s economy
It is the case of highlighting the differences between the two realities. Unlike the Brazilian state, the Swedish state is very well managed. The interest rate is less than 2% per year and inflation is expected to close 2024 at 1.6%. The tax burden, although among the highest in the world, is used to meet the basic needs of citizens – and not to finance state privileges. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson usually walks the streets of the capital, Stockholm, and the parliament, compared to the Brazilian one, looks more like the austere atmosphere of a Trappist convent placed next to the fuss of a nabobesque court!
Moral of the story: in Sweden and other countries with more flexible working hours and more free time for workers — as is the case in tiny Iceland — this discussion has evolved because the economy has reached a point of maturity that generates benefits for companies and workers. Industry and services have achieved a high level of productivity that many employers are able to offer their workers a more flexible working day without compromising their competitiveness.
ADDED VALUE — Labor benefits are generous because companies are solid and productive, and the discussion of reducing working hours is done with an eye on the 22nd century. In Brazil, it is not like that. Many people here still consider that all social relations are guided by the class struggle described by Karl Marx and his partner Friedrich Engels and, because of this, the country still lives with its head turned to values of the 19th century.
Deputy Hilton’s own argument in the justification of the project to reduce the working day exudes the ideological rancidity that always treats the worker as a poor and defenseless person. And the boss, like the soulless man who skins his employees in exchange for profit to extract some of the “surplus value”. Érica Hilton defends “a legal reduction of the working week from 44 to 36 hours, which covers all workers, as everyone needs to have more time for their families, to qualify in the face of the growing employer demand for greater qualification, to have a better life, with fewer health problems and work accidents – and more dignity”.
The project presented by the PSOL deputy is based on a proposal by Rick Azevedo, who worked as a clerk for a pharmacy chain in Rio de Janeiro before leading, on the Tik Tok platform, a movement called Life Beyond Work (VAT). The movement’s goal is to eliminate the 6 X 1 journey. “It’s modern slavery. If we don’t revolt, put our mouth in the world, get our foot in the door, things won’t change,” said Rick in one of his posts — which spread on social networks and gained the support of actresses, influencers and other celebrities.
VAT’s arguments, with all due respect to the poet, recall the verses of Pernambuco’s Ascenso Ferreira, in the poem Philosophy: “Time to eat — eat; Bedtime—sleep; Time to loaf—loaf; Time to work? Legs up because no one is made of iron!”. According to Rick, the peak of his burnout came when he received, on a day off, a phone call from the supervisor of the pharmacy chain where he worked asking him to arrive early the next day — which, according to him, would reduce his rest time.
Without considering in this debate whether a phone call from his boss would be reason enough to rebel against a regime that was already clear at the time he accepted the work contract, Rick, as he advocates that others do, put the mouth of the world. And, in the name of his revolt, he got a job where his last concern will be the extension of the working day…
With the prestige he has earned as a spokesman for those who want to work less in exchange for the same salary they receive for the 6 x 1 workday, he got a job in which the weekly working day is already beyond the four days of work for three days of rest that he defends. Rick was elected councilor by the PSOL of Rio in this year’s elections and will move to a work regime that starts at 3 x 4, goes through 2 X 5, 1 X6 and, if he fools around, goes up to 0 x 7.
PEOPLE’S MONEY — Anecdotes aside, so far, everything seems to be the story of a virtuous journey, in which selfless people concerned with the quality of life of the poor exploited employee try to demand decent working conditions from the boss. But, as said in the first paragraphs of this text, the problem is not so much the idea of reduction, but the consequences that there may be on the economy if Érica Hilton’s PEC is processed, goes to the plenary and is approved.
The first and most predictable consequence of the approval of a measure like this is the increase in unemployment levels – because no entrepreneur will be able to afford a measure that, from one moment to the next, can have an impact of up to 20% on their labor costs. The second consequence is that, in the name of a supposed expansion of rights, there will be an absurd increase in the number of workers pushed into the informal market – where there are no labor rights. The third will be the discouragement of private investments in Brazil, with the interruption of a growth cycle that has not even managed to overcome the disaster of the recession that began in the Dilma Rousseff government.
Another consequence — although few people have talked about it so far — will be the pressure on public accounts. Érica Hilton’s PEC does not distinguish between public servants and private sector workers. Its approval, therefore, will require an increase, on a superficial account, of more or less 20% in the number of federal, state and municipal workers.
Without wanting to prolong this discussion even further, it is a case of saying that, even if it is rejected, the PEC of the reduction of the working day will already cause damage. No one should be surprised if, for example, the deputies let the proposal go ahead and, at the time of the vote, demand favors from the government in exchange for the rejection of the measure. A parliament that seems more concerned with expanding the access of its members to the people’s money than with carrying out proposals that solve society’s problems is fertile ground for proposals such as that of Congresswoman Érica Hilton. And the most harmed by it will be precisely those that the PEC proposes to defend: Brazilian workers.
