Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
0 comments 
Labor Court Decision That Guarantees Stability Even Without INSS Absence Triggers Strong Reactions on Social Media: Business Owners Point Out Legal Uncertainty While Workers Report Illnesses, Harassment, and Dismissals Amid Medical Treatment
The recent decision by the Labor Court, which recognizes the right to job stability even without formal absence by the INSS, continues to resonate intensely among business owners and workers.
Since the new understanding came into effect, the rule that previously required an absence of more than 15 days and the receipt of the B91 benefit is no longer the sole criterion for ensuring 12 months of job stability.
Now, it is sufficient to prove the connection between the illness and work — even if the diagnosis comes after dismissal.
-
Government enacts new law: paternity leave increases from 5 to 20 days with gradual increases until 2029, and Social Security pays the paternity salary; companies no longer bear the absence cost, estimated at R$ 5.4 billion.
-
End of the 1-hour lunch break in the CLT? Current labor law maintains the break, allows for negotiated reductions, and defines rules for working hours and home office in Brazil.
-
Employee Fired After Accumulating 114 Days of Medical Leave in One Year, Labor Court Upholds Company’s Decision
-
Employee Fired While Treating Depression Wins in Court and Vale Is Required to Rehire Him Following Decision Based on the CLT and INSS Benefits
Readers Expressed Opposing Feelings: on one side, business owners who see the decision as a new burden and risk for those who create jobs; on the other, workers who consider the understanding a necessary advancement in light of precarious working conditions and increasing illnesses — both physical and mental.
Business Owners Claim Decision Increases Legal Uncertainty
Among readers identifying with the business sector, the predominant feeling is frustration.
One stated that “it’s difficult to be a business owner in Brazil,” as decisions like this increase the risk of lawsuits and leave employers in a vulnerable position.
According to him, “the business owner has become the villain of the story, while the government is negligent and the INSS tries to wash its hands of responsibilities.”
The comment, which received support from other readers, argues that the Justice system is shifting the burden of structural problems of the country, such as lack of education and professional training, onto companies.
“Brazil invests in grants and taxes but not in training. And it’s left for the business owner to foot the bill,” wrote the internet user, citing Japan, South Korea, and Germany as examples of nations that have evolved by investing in education and technology.
This perspective reveals a broader concern about the business environment.
For many, the new rule may lead employers to avoid hiring professionals over 35 years old, fearing future labor lawsuits. “No small company will want to hire someone who may become a liability after 35,” said another outraged reader. He classified the decision as “an incentive for those who do not want to work to live off the benefits of those who have little.”
Workers Respond: “Lack of Dignity and Excessive Exploitation”
However, the criticism from business owners generated strong reactions. In direct response to one of the comments, a reader countered the argument that the issue was an excess of rights.
He noted that “currently, there are plenty of job openings, but almost 90% are precarious, with a 6×1 work schedule and salaries around the minimum wage.”
For this group of readers, the Labor Court is merely correcting a distortion that has favored companies for years.
“Profits are in the millions, and workers continue to struggle for scraps,” wrote an internet user.
According to him, it is incoherent to blame social programs and advocate for cuts in assistance while politicians “live off privileges, benefits, and super salaries.”
Another point raised was about minimum dignity. “Complaining about sick workers wanting the basics is pathetic,” said one of the most liked readers.
For this audience, the decision represents a chance for balance between capital and labor, ensuring protection for those who fall ill while meeting targets or under excessive pressure.
The Voice of Someone Who Experienced the Problem Up Close
Among the most moving comments is that of a reader who reported having faced dismissal shortly after getting sick. “In a difficult moment, when expenses increase and doubtful looks fall on you, you are still fired,” she wrote.
According to her, few people understand the psychological impact of losing a job amid illness.
The reader also highlighted a little-discussed aspect: mental illnesses related to work. “We talk a lot about physical illnesses, but what about mental ones? How many get sick from unreasonable demands, harassment, and absurd targets?,” she questioned. She reminded that the prejudice against those suffering from depression or anxiety is still strong, and many are treated as “weak” or “lazy.”
This type of account reinforces the argument that the new interpretation of the Justice system protects the most vulnerable link in the relationship: the worker. “There are still employers who think they are doing a favor by providing jobs,” concluded the reader, in a comment widely supported by other users.
Concern About the Collapse of the System and Lack of Oversight
Other readers, however, attempted to adopt a middle ground, criticizing both the stance of companies and the inefficiency of the State.
One wrote that the problem is not only with the Justice system, but with the lack of oversight and the poor functioning of exit exams. “What’s the point of requiring an exit exam if it’s useless?,” he questioned.
In his opinion, the focus should be on prevention and quality control of the exams conducted at the time of dismissal. “If there were serious oversight, we could avoid overloading the Labor Court with more cases. But everything in Brazil is patchwork over patchwork,” he added.
This kind of criticism reveals widespread distrust toward institutions. Many users pointed out that the country is living a “legal mess,” where laws contradict each other and only a few profit from the insecurity — “the king’s friends,” as described by one reader.
A Portrait of a Country Divided Between Rights and Viability
The avalanche of comments shows that the Labor Court’s decision ignited a much broader debate than just the simple recognition of stability.
It touches on social, economic, and moral wounds. For some, it represents yet another barrier to job creation; for others, a chance to rectify historical injustices.
On one side, business owners seek predictability and complain about being turned into “health insurers” of the worker. On the other, employees and ordinary citizens view the decision as a form of minimum protection in an increasingly competitive and exhausting market.
Polarization became evident: while some blame the State for transferring responsibilities, others accuse it of remaining silent in the face of abuses. What is common is the feeling that the system is exhausted — and that the relationship between capital and labor remains a field of permanent dispute.
What Remains Clear After the Debate
In the end, the discussion among readers revealed more than ideological divergences: it showed the lack of mutual trust between employers, employees, and the government.
Business owners feel unsupported, workers feel exploited, and everyone agrees on one point — the State fails both in prevention and mediation.
While some call for reforms and simplification of labor legislation, others demand more rigor and social responsibility. In both cases, the message is the same: the current model satisfies nobody.
The new jurisprudence of the Labor Court, which seeks to guarantee stability for those who fall ill because of work, ended up serving as a mirror of a country in conflict. A country where the discussion is more about who should pay the bill than how to prevent illness from arising.
And in the end, as one reader summed up, “Justice tries to fill the gaps left by a system that never learned to take care of those who produce — nor of those who employ.”
Seja o primeiro a reagir!