In a demagogic burst, the Senate Committee on the Constitution and Justice approved a draft amendment to the Constitution (PEC) reducing the working day from 44 hours per week to 36 hours over five years. The PEC sets the end of the 6:1 scale and, in its populist momentum, manages to be even more radical than a bill under debate in the House providing for a reduction in working hours to 40 hours. Given the proximity of the parliamentary recess, the text should only be analyzed next year. The long delay is the only good news, such is the risk inherent in the proposal.
At first glance, the 6-to-1 end of the scale seems like an appealing idea. Daily life for those who leave home to work six days a week is excruciating, and other countries have already reduced working weeks. Defenders of change generally present it as a civilizing advance comparable to the workers’ achievements of the past. Unfortunately, this argument clashes with reality. If adopted, the CEP will inevitably lead to more unemployment, more poverty and more misery.
- Work: The PEC of the 6×1 scale is moving forward in the Senate committee and will be analyzed in plenary
In any country, the wealth produced results from the number of hours worked and productivity. It is illusory to want to reduce one of these factors without reducing the population’s income. Among economists, there is no consensus on the exact damage caused by the reduction in working hours, but they are unanimous in predicting a sharp decline in the economy. Without being able to reduce the salaries of employees whose work hours would be reduced, or hire to maintain business levels, business owners would have no choice but to lay off employees. According to pessimistic forecasts, the reduction would exceed one million vacant positions.
None of this seems to matter given the electoral appeal of the populist proposal. The government insists that Brazilian workers will be more productive and have more time to rest and study. You forget that there is absolutely no evidence of this in the experience accumulated so far. In France, a reform passed twice (1998 and 2000) established the 35-hour week. We quickly realized how problematic it was, with a negative impact on employment. From 2003, she began to become dehydrated. New laws increased permitted overtime and sectoral negotiations created exceptions and more flexibility. A study of similar experiences in Portugal, Italy, Belgium and Slovenia concluded that there was no notable change in productivity or hiring.
- End of 6×1 scale: understand the texts discussed in the House and the Senate and the next steps
Differences in labor laws between the European Union and the United States help explain why the European economy is growing at a slower rate than the American economy. Forcing a middle-income country like Brazil to adopt an even worse GDP growth trajectory than recorded over the past four decades would be a disaster, especially for the poorest. An economy producing less wealth would affect resources for social programs and reduce the well-being of the population.
Before reducing work hours, Congress and the government should focus their energies on increasing productivity. In productive companies, more flexible working hours are already in practice. As the Brazilian economy frees itself from constraints preventing it from becoming more efficient, the model will be expanded – and law change will be a natural consequence. Without greater productivity, reduced working hours are just populism – with more unemployment and more poverty.
About The Author
