The extinction of the 6×1 working day (six days of work versus one day off), proposed by the Life Beyond Work Movement, placed entities linked to workers and those representing employers on opposite sides. Among several antagonistic points, while on the one hand, the former defend issues of improving quality of life, the employers’ associations believe that the measure would reduce the reduction in the number of jobs.
The initiative took over the debates this week with the formalization of the constitutional amendment proposal (PEC), presented by deputy Erika Hilton (PSOL-SP), in the Chamber of Deputies. THE Brazil Agency consulted three entities on each side of the issue. See below the main arguments for each.
In favor
Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT) – “CUT reaffirms its historic commitment in defense of workers, against all threats of withdrawal of rights, against the reduction of the budget for public policies and in defense of the end of the work schedule weekly 6×1 without salary reduction and without the withdrawal of rights to reduce working hours already won by some categories through collective bargaining. The country’s growth and development will only be possible with income distribution, with permanent social protection policies and appreciation of the minimum wage, with a reduction in working hours without reducing wages and with the Brazilian people in the public budget.”
Federation of Metalworkers Unions of Cut-SP – “At the base of FEM-CUT/SP, several examples of reducing working hours show that this is the right path. Agreements that reduce weekly working hours to 40 hours and the end of the 6×1 scale are already a reality and have not harmed companies. The metalworkers in ABC, Sorocaba and Pindamonhangaba are proof of this, as exemplary agreements that bring great benefits to the category and to the factories”.
General Union of Workers (UGT) – “The 6×1 journey is not only physically exhausting, but it also deprives workers of essential moments with family and friends, leisure activities and opportunities for personal development, such as investing in professional qualifications. This constant disconnection from social and family life can generate stress and mental health problems. For the General Union of Workers (UGT), fighting for the end of the 6×1 working day is a priority, as we know that mental health and well-being are not just rights, but factors that benefit the entire society.”
Against the proposal
Federation of Commerce of Goods, Services and Tourism of the state of São Paulo (Fecomécio-SP) – “Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) has not taken into account an important element in this debate: that the vast majority of employers in the country are formed by small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) which, although on the one hand they are the ones that generate the most jobs, on the other hand they would not be able to reduce their employees’ working hours without a proportional salary reduction. In this way, the economic effects would be significant, with the potential to make a large number of these businesses unviable.”
Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo (Fiesp) – “The Brazilian Constitution, in its article 7, establishes that the normal working day must not exceed 44 hours per week. Nothing prevents the parties from reaching different journeys through negotiation. Data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) indicate that, in practical terms, in the second quarter of this year, Brazilians worked an average of 39.2 hours per week. Fiesp argues that the appropriate way to establish a working day of less than 44 hours per week are collective agreements signed between employers and employees, as provided for in the Constitution. Only direct negotiation is able to address the specificities of each sector, considering factors such as the local context, company size and worker demand, and guarantee the economic sustainability of the productive segments. Therefore, we must seek to strengthen collective negotiations.
São Paulo Commercial Association – “The São Paulo Commercial Association understands that this is a setback and we will have a very serious problem. For two reasons: the first is because it can put the employee’s job at risk, since by adopting it the company will have a higher cost and will need to modify its funding in general. On the other hand, if the company accepts this additional cost that the entrepreneur will bear, this will necessarily be passed on to the price of the final product. Imagine an employee buying a kilo of rice, with this additional cost, what was ten will become 12. In the end, the worker himself will pay the bill. It’s a time to forget about a project of this nature.”
