Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
22 comments 
With Judgement Set for December 3, Supreme Court Will Analyze Action That Challenges Central Points of the Pension Reform, Including the Prohibition of Converting Special Time into Common Time and the New Minimum Age Requirements
The decision of the Supreme Federal Court regarding Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 6.309 could become a turning point in the pension reform. The focus is precisely on the rule that, since 2019, prohibited the conversion of special service time into common time, directly affecting workers exposed to risky and unhealthy activities who relied on this mechanism to advance or improve their retirement.
If the STF accepts the thesis of the action proposed by the National Confederation of Industry Workers, sensitive points of the pension reform could be revisited, such as the minimum age for special retirement, the calculation of benefits, and the possibility of converting special time into common time. In practice, this could either allow for new retirement concessions under more favorable conditions or open the door for revisions of benefits already granted.
What the STF Will Judge on December 3
The trial set for December 3 concerns ADI 6.309, proposed by the National Confederation of Industry Workers, which questions the validity of sections of Constitutional Amendment 103 of 2019, known as pension reform.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
The entity argues that three main changes made by the amendment violate the Constitution:
The imposition of minimum age for special retirement
The new method of calculating the benefit amount, with a reduction of the average
The prohibition of converting special service time into common time starting from 2019
According to the presented thesis, these changes would have broken the logic of financing special retirement, in which the company collects additional contributions precisely because the worker performs risky activities.
The action requests that the STF recognizes the unconstitutionality of these points and, in practice, reopens the door for more advantageous rules than those set by the pension reform.
How Special Time Works in the Pension System
Special service time refers to the period when the worker is engaged in risky activity or exposed to harmful agents, with additional contributions to the INSS.
Because of this higher financing, this time “counts more” in the pension system.
Under the classic rule prior to the pension reform, men and women could retire after 15, 20, or 25 years of special activity, depending on the level of risk.
In many cases, this allowed for retirement before common contribution time retirement, because the system recognized that the worker paid more, through additional contributions from the company.
When the insured does not reach the 15, 20, or 25 years required for special retirement, that period is not simply discarded.
It can be converted into common time, increasing the total contribution time and helping the insured to achieve a more beneficial retirement rule, even compared to that defined by the pension reform.
Conversion of Special Time into Common Time: Why Is This So Important
The conversion of special time into common time is one of the most sensitive points in dispute. Before the change, the rule was simple:
- For men, special time converted at a factor of 40%
- For women, special time converted at a factor of 20%
In practice, this means that:
- A man with 20 years of special time ends up with 28 years of common time (20 + 40% = 28)
- A woman with 20 years of special time ends up with 24 years of common time (20 + 20% = 24)
The difference in percentages is not treated as discrimination, but reflects the fact that, under the rules prior to the pension reform, men needed more contribution time than women.
The conversion also applies to fractions of time, such as months and days, allowing gaps in contributions that were missing when the law changed to be filled.
This mechanism is crucial because:
It allows for early retirement by meeting the minimum required time more quickly
It can place the insured in a more advantageous transition rule
In some cases, it opens the door for revisions of already granted benefits, if the worker did not fully utilize all the conversions to which they were entitled
Starting in 2019, the pension reform prohibited new conversions of special time into common time for periods after the amendment, which blocked this option for many workers.
It is precisely this blockage that is now at stake in the STF.
What Could Change If the STF Strikes Down Points of the Pension Reform
If the Supreme Court finds that Amendment 103/2019 exceeded constitutional limits, some expected effects by specialists tracking the issue are:
Resumption of the conversion of special time into common time
Workers who continue in risky activities would again be able to convert special time into common time, increasing their count and facilitating access to retirement under rules more favorable than those of the pension reform.
Review of the minimum age for special retirement
There is a possibility of returning to a logic where special retirement does not require a minimum age, privileging the criterion of time exposed to harmful activity.
More Advantageous Calculation of Benefits
The previous model, with 100% of the average salary and discarding the 20% lowest salaries, resulted in higher benefits than the formula brought by the pension reform, which reduced the initial income level in many cases.
Reopening space for revisions
Insured individuals who retired after 2019, especially those with unconverted special time, may have room for seeking a review, if the STF recognizes the unconstitutionality of the restrictions.
Everything still depends on the outcome of the trial, but the potential impact is significant enough to be described by specialists as a possible “revolution” in special retirement, if the conversion and the old calculation are rehabilitated against the original design of the pension reform.
How the Worker May Be Affected in Practice
In practice, the decision of the STF may affect different profiles of insured individuals:
Those who have not retired yet, but worked for years in special activity and have not managed to complete the minimum time
Those who retired after the pension reform without fully using special time in the count
Those who were close to completing the service time when the amendment came into effect and ended up falling under a stricter rule
In all these cases, the conversion of special time into common time may:
Increase the amount of recognized contribution time
Place the insured in a more favorable rule (of transition or acquired rights)
Raise the value of the benefit, if the previous calculation is applied again to some extent
Therefore, many specialists in social security law have been closely following the STF’s agenda, as the outcome of the trial directly interfaces with the core of the pension reform.
What to Expect from the Trial and What the Next Steps Are
ADI 6.309 puts the Supreme Court in front of a delicate discussion: the possibility of a constitutional amendment being considered unconstitutional in part of its content.
The debate is not about the existence of the pension reform itself, but about the extent to which it could go in restricting rights already supported by specific funding and by a logic of worker protection in risky environments.
Until the completion of the trial, the scenario remains under the current rules. However, once the outcome is proclaimed, the effects may:
Affect ongoing processes
Encourage new administrative or judicial requests
Reignite discussions about financial balance, legal certainty, and social protection in the pension system
The central point, however, remains the same: the decision of the STF could redefine what the true scope of the pension reform is regarding special time and the most sensitive retirements in the system, those related to health and the physical integrity of the worker.
To conclude, a direct question to stimulate debate:
Do you think the STF should limit points of the pension reform to preserve the right to convert special time into common time, or would that endanger the balance of the pension accounts?
O **** do Bolsonaro prejudicou milhares de vigilantes para favorecer o centrao e banqueiros.
Tenho 57 anos, trabalho desde 13 anos de idade, em 2019 poderia ter me aposentado e ter sido convertido o meu tempo de vigilância, mas o INSS negou.
Em 2023 dei entrada na aposentadoria, em um mês o INSS negou, alegando que eu deveria fazer **** de audiometria, mas sou vigilante.
Meu advogado deu entrada no recurso, esperei quase 600 (seiscentos) dias e o INSS negou novamente, com a mesma resposta, exame de audiometria.
Meu advogado entrou com processo na esfera federal, o INSS negou novamente, alegando que os processos estão suspensos e aguarda decisão do STF.
Meu advogado deu entrada denovo, informando, que desde 2019 eu poderia já estar aposentado, que após 2019 já completei mais de 25 anos na área de vigilância e que já atingi uma das regras de transição, onde até 2019 é lei que se converta o tempo ANTERIOR a mudança da regra de aposentadoria e que quem tivesse ao meu ver o bom senso em ver que apresentei todos os PPPs, por ser da área de vigilância e não trabalho que lida com RUÍDOS.
Enquanto isso aguardo a boa vontade do servidor responsável do INSS “LER O MEU PROCESSO.
Espero que em 03 Dezembro 2025, saia o resultado positivo para todos nós e que alguém leia o meu processo com boa vontade.
Trabalho como vigilante a 30 anos e tenho mais 5 anos de especial em outra função mais 3 anos de estorquista, e não consigo me aposentar ,, eai