End of the 6×1 scale cannot generate costs for the Treasury and there may be a transition, says Durigan

The Minister of Finance, Dario Durigan, defended this Friday, the 17th, that the end of the 6×1 scale (six days of work and one of rest) cannot entail costs for the National Treasury.

At a press conference in Washington, Durigan stated that the issue must be debated among all sectors of the economy, but without generating pressure on public accounts.

“There cannot be a bill left for the Treasury,” said the minister. “This has to be a recognition of a civilizational gain, of a generational gain for workers. It is not possible to want to finance an advance like this with the public resources of society as a whole.”

Durigan stated that the discussion about the end of the 6×1 scale must be led by Congress. According to the minister, recent studies indicate that the change in labor rules should affect few sectors that still apply the 6×1 scale. He stated, however, that it is reasonable to debate a transition rule for the segments that would be affected.

“I am very much in favor of us debating, understanding with the sectors how to adapt, possibly for some sectors to have a transition to give time to adapt”, said the minister, adding that the debate on the topic is “meritorious”.

As shown by the Estadãoleaders of centrist parties and the allied base state that, despite the government having sent a bill with constitutional urgency on the end of the 6×1 scale, the Chamber will continue to prioritize the proposed amendment to the Constitution (PEC) over the issue being processed in the Legislative House.

Understand the proposals

The bill sent by the government proposes to reduce the weekly working hours from 44 hours to 40 hours, without a salary reduction, in addition to providing for a working day of eight hours a day and two paid weekly rest periods of 24 consecutive hours each.

The measure would come into force after the law is approved. As it was sent with constitutional urgency, the Chamber would have up to 45 days to consider the proposal, at the risk of blocking the agenda. The Senate would have the same deadline.

The PECs have different texts. That of congressman Reginaldo Lopes, from 2019, says that the duration of normal work cannot exceed eight hours per day and 36 hours per week, with the possibility of compensating working hours and reducing working hours, through an agreement or collective work convention. The proposal would come into force ten years after publication.

Representative Erika Hilton’s PEC also provides for eight hours a day and 36 hours a week, but adds a four-day work week – that is, the work schedule would be 4×3. The constitutional amendment would come into force one year after publication.

In addition to the content, there are other important differences between the two legislative instruments. The bill requires a smaller quorum to be approved – a simple majority, as long as 257 parliamentarians are present. The text could also be vetoed by the president. The veto would have to be considered in a joint session of the Chamber and the Senate in Congress.

The PEC, on the other hand, requires a greater quorum – approval from at least 308 deputies, in two-round voting. But the final word would be up to the deputies, as the PEC is enacted by Congress.