Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
The proposal creates an optional alternative to the CLT, where salary, vacation, FGTS, and 13th salary would be proportional to the hours worked. On one hand, there is talk of autonomy to choose the work schedule. On the other, there is fear of income loss and the weakening of collective agreements. The text is only at the beginning of the process.
A proposal that could change the way Brazilian workers are paid has begun to process in the Federal Senate. The so-called Flexible Hour PEC would allow the employer to pay the worker only for the hours actually worked, in an alternative regime to the CLT, and already generates intense debate, with supporters talking about more freedom of choice and unions warning of the risk of job precarization.
This is PEC 12/2026, filed on May 28, 2026, by Senator Rogério Marinho, from PL of Rio Grande do Norte, with support from about 40 of the 81 senators. It is important to clarify from the outset that the proposal is in the initial phase of processing, has not yet been voted on nor is it in effect, and that adherence to the new model would be optional for the worker. As it is a Constitutional Amendment, the text will still need to go through committees and qualified votes before eventually becoming a rule, and it may undergo changes along the way.
What the Flexible Hour PEC proposes
The proposal changes one of the pillars of labor relations in the country.
-
World Cup tickets plummet before the debut, become a headache for FIFA, and raise the question no one wanted to ask: will there be empty seats?
-
The billion-dollar acquisition of Warner by Paramount has become a headache in the United States and could put Netflix, CNN, HBO, and Hollywood in a new streaming war.
-
Chamber approves tax exemption for churches that could remove billions from revenue and surpass the cost of federal universities
-
Brazil looks to China and prepares an unprecedented issuance in yuan that could affect external debt, reduce dependence on the dollar, and open a new billion-dollar route for Asian investors.
According to PEC 12/2026, which amends Article 7 of the Constitution, the worker could choose between the traditional regime of the Consolidation of Labor Laws, the CLT, and a flexible model based on hours actually worked, in which the employer would pay only for the hours actually fulfilled, instead of a fixed monthly salary.
According to the text, in this flexible regime, benefits such as FGTS, vacation, and 13th salary would also be calculated proportionally to the hours worked.
Another central point, and one of the most controversial, is that the proposal foresees that the individual contract between employer and employee could prevail over collective agreements and conventions.
According to the author, adherence would be an option for the worker, not an imposition, keeping the CLT as an alternative.
Why the proposal emerged now
The timing of the presentation helps to understand the debate.
The PEC 12/2026 emerged shortly after the Chamber of Deputies approved PEC 221/2019, known as the proposal to end the 6×1 schedule, which reduces the weekly work hours from 44 to 40 and ends the six-day work regime for one day of rest, in an agenda that mobilized workers across the country.
For opposition parliamentarians and critics of the government, the new PEC would be a response to this advancement, bringing the logic of flexibility through another path.
By allowing, in the view of its opponents, work schedules without guaranteed weekly rest, the proposal has been nicknamed by critics as the 7×0 schedule.
On the other hand, supporters present it as a modernization of labor relations, capable of offering alternatives to different profiles of workers and companies.
The arguments of those who defend
For the authors and supporters, the key word is freedom.
In the proposal’s justification, Senator Rogério Marinho argues that the PEC expands the freedom and autonomy of the worker to adapt their routine to personal needs and market demands, allowing, for example, students or people with other activities to adjust their work hours as convenient.
From the business side, supporters claim that the measure can increase operational flexibility and facilitate hiring models more suitable for each sector.
The National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services, and Tourism, CNC, expressed a favorable position towards the proposal, but with reservations, understanding that it expands alternatives and values collective bargaining, while advocating for a broad and technical debate on the economic, social, and legal impacts of the changes.
The arguments of those who criticize
On the other side, the concern is with worker protection.
Unions, labor centrals, the Public Ministry of Labor, and various jurists warn that linking remuneration only to hours worked can lead to precariousness, with a proportional loss of income and weakening of collective bargaining, especially because the individual contract would prevail over category agreements, in a scenario of power imbalance between employer and employee.
Critics also recall the experience of intermittent contracts, created in the 2017 labor reform, pointing out that the average income of these workers has been, according to surveys cited in the debate, below the minimum wage, which fuels the fear of underemployment.
There is also the legal argument that a regime based solely on hours could clash with Article 7 of the Constitution, which ensures a monthly minimum wage for urban and rural workers.
The current status of the process
Despite the noise, the proposal still has a long way to go.
The PEC 12/2026 was sent to the Senate’s Constitution and Justice Committee and is awaiting the appointment of a rapporteur, responsible for drafting an opinion that may recommend approval, rejection, or changes to the text before any voting, which means nothing is defined at this moment.
Like any Constitutional Amendment, the proposal requires a more rigorous process than that of a common law: it needs to be approved in two rounds, with the support of at least three-fifths of the parliamentarians, both in the Senate and in the Chamber of Deputies.
Therefore, the current content can be significantly altered throughout the discussion, and the expectation is that the topic will mobilize business entities, unions, and experts in the coming months.
The flexible hour PEC places two visions of the future of work in Brazil on opposing sides: on one side, the defense of more autonomy for the worker to choose how to organize their schedule; on the other, the fear that flexibility will result in less income and less protection.
For now, it is a proposal in the initial stage, optional and still subject to many changes, far from being a rule in force.
Following the debate with quality information is essential for each citizen to form their own opinion on a topic that directly affects the lives of millions of Brazilians.
And you, what do you think of the proposal to allow payment for hours actually worked? Do you believe it expands the worker’s freedom or opens the door to precariousness? Leave your comment with respect for different opinions, share your point of view, and help spread the article so that more people can follow this important debate.
Be the first to react!