Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
0 comments 
Change in the 6×1 schedule advances amid dispute in the Chamber, as government, opposition, and Centrão negotiate transition period, exceptions for essential sectors, compensations for companies, and limits for labor agreements that may alter the weekly work schedule.
The Special Committee of the Chamber discussing the reduction of working hours and the end of the 6×1 schedule postponed to Monday, May 25, the presentation of the opinion by Deputy Leo Prates (Republicans-BA), the rapporteur of the proposal in the committee.
The reading of the report was scheduled for this Wednesday (20), but was postponed during negotiations on the transition period for the new rule, a topic that mobilizes the government, opposition, Centrão, workers’ representatives, and business sectors.
Reduction of working hours reignites debate in Congress
The debate takes place in the analysis of PEC 221/2019, presented by Deputy Reginaldo Lopes (PT-MG), which amends the Constitution to address the weekly work duration and serves as the basis for the discussion in the special committee.
-
New law prohibits motorcycle passengers, imposes a fine equivalent to R$ 2,100, and was created to try to curb robberies and attacks committed by criminals using motorcycles in Peru, Brazil’s neighboring country.
-
Gun permits for veterinarians advance in the Chamber: see what changes and what the requirements are
-
New Inmetro label removes D, E, and F refrigerators from shelves in Brazil since January: classes A, B, and C now pay up to R$ 400 less on the electricity bill.
-
In Brazil, will employers be required to give employees time off during the national team’s World Cup matches?
Also being processed as an attachment is PEC 8/2025, authored by Deputy Erika Hilton (PSOL-SP), which proposes reducing the workweek to four days in Brazil, without a forecast of salary cuts.
The disagreement among parliamentarians involves the time needed to replace the current schedule of up to 44 hours per week with a new limit of 40 hours and two days off, according to the line debated in the committee.
While the opposition and Centrão parties advocate for a longer adaptation, the Lula government supports a change without salary loss and resists adopting a ten-year transition to the new schedule.
The president of the committee, Alencar Santana (PT-SP), stated that there were still points under negotiation before the presentation of the opinion and attributed the postponement to the need to seek understanding among the different groups involved.
“If there was a definition, the report would be presented tomorrow. But there isn’t yet. There are dialogues, without a doubt,” said the parliamentarian, commenting on the decision to transfer the presentation of the text.
According to the schedule discussed in the Chamber, the vote in the special committee is still expected to occur after the presentation of the report, although the opinion may still receive changes before a possible analysis in the Plenary.
The commission was created to analyze PEC 221/2019 and, according to the legislative process, the proposal was still awaiting deliberation by the committee responsible for issuing an opinion on the merit of the measure.
10-year Transition Focuses Opposition’s Efforts
One of the amendments under discussion was presented by Deputy Sérgio Turra (PP-RS) and gathered 176 signatures, a number higher than the 171 required to formalize an amendment to the proposal to amend the Constitution.
The text proposes replacing the goal of 36 hours with a general ceiling of 40 hours per week, but preserves the limit of 44 hours for workers in activities classified as essential.
According to the amendment, these activities would be defined by complementary law and could include areas whose interruption compromises life, health, safety, mobility, supply, public order, or continuity of infrastructures considered critical.
Until this regulation is approved, the reduction of working hours would not begin for sectors classified in this category, maintaining the constitutional limit currently applied to these workers.
The amendment also establishes that the new constitutional rule would only take effect ten years after the publication of any constitutional amendment approved by the National Congress.
If the provision is approved in these terms, the full application of the new limit would be shifted to the following decade and would depend, in essential sectors, on subsequent regulation by complementary law.
Labor Agreements May Alter Weekly Limit
Another provision of Turra’s amendment allows individual or collective agreements to increase the workweek by up to 30% above the constitutional limit defined for the new rule.
As the general ceiling provided is 40 hours per week, this mechanism would open the possibility for workweeks of up to 52 hours per week, as long as they are agreed upon under the conditions outlined in the amendment itself.
In addition to the rules on transition and workweek, the text presented by the parliamentarian provides compensations for employers who adopt the new work regime during the adaptation period.
Among the measures are the 50% reduction in the FGTS contribution rate, temporary and staggered immunity from social security contributions on new contracts, and tax deductions related to job creation.
The proposal also mentions a proportional reduction of charges related to environmental work risks, with the declared objective, in the amendment’s justification, of adjusting business costs to changes in the organization of work shifts.
In the justification, Turra states that the amendment seeks phased implementation and legal security, under the argument of reducing risks of informality, litigation, and economic impacts associated with the constitutional change.
The document also argues that the diversity among economic sectors requires differentiated rules for continuous, seasonal, and activities considered essential, a point that supports the defense of a longer transition.
Amendments maintain exceptions for essential activities
Another amendment presented in the committee, authored by Deputy Tião Medeiros (PP-PR), also foresees a ten-year transition and maintains a maximum 44-hour workweek for essential activities.
Although it is more briefly written than Turra’s amendment, the proposal follows the same logic of conditioning the reduction of the workweek to the approval of a specific complementary law.
The government has advocated for reducing the workweek without salary cuts and without adopting a ten-year transition rule, a position presented by its representatives in the negotiations on the report.
The rapporteur, Leo Prates, stated in public declarations that he seeks a formulation capable of considering the demands of workers and employers, preserving central points of the proposal under review.
Before the postponement, Prates had informed that the report would be presented on May 20 but would remain open to suggestions until the vote in the special committee.
In an interview with Agência Câmara, the rapporteur also stated that there is an agreement around 40-hour workweeks, two days of rest, and maintenance of salaries, three points that guide the negotiations of the opinion.
6×1 schedule still depends on voting in two rounds
The dispute also involves the role of conventions and collective agreements in organizing the workday, a topic addressed by Turra’s amendment in provisions aimed at labor negotiation.
The text expands the scope of negotiation on topics such as workday, schedule, time bank, compensation, breaks, telework, and productivity-based remuneration, as long as the limits set in the Constitution are observed.
Erika Hilton, author of the attached PEC that addresses the four-day workweek, criticized the amendment on social media and stated that the opposition’s proposal postpones the end of the 6×1 schedule until 2036.
The parliamentarian released the list of deputies who supported the text and called the amendment an “attack on workers,” attributing to the proposal the effect of delaying the change advocated by her caucus.
After the reading of the report, the committee members may request a review, present highlights, and negotiate changes before the vote, a stage that determines whether the text will proceed to the Plenary for analysis.
If approved by the committee, the PEC will still have to pass through the Chamber Plenary, where it needs to be voted on in two rounds and receive support from at least 308 deputies in each vote.
The Senate would also have to analyze the proposal in two rounds, should the text advance in the Chamber, before eventual promulgation by the National Congress.
Until the report is finalized, the negotiation remains focused on the scope of the transition, exceptions for essential activities, and the proposed compensations to companies during the change in the workweek.
It is important to highlight that the portal is non-partisan. That said, in your view, reader, is this measure aiming to postpone the end of the 6×1 schedule correct or not? Leave your opinion in the comments!
Be the first to react!