The Brazilian Senate has become the arena for a fierce ideological battle between two opposing labor reform proposals. One, dubbed the "PEC da Liberdade" (Freedom Amendment), is backed by opposition senators Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) and Rogério Marinho (PL-RN). It would allow workers to be paid only for hours actually worked, coexisting with the traditional CLT regime. The other, already approved by the Chamber of Deputies, would abolish the 6x1 shift and reduce the weekly limit from 44 to 40 hours without salary cuts. The cleavage has mobilized nearly forty senators around the alternative bill and drawn warnings from labor market experts.
A Battle of Two Visions for Labor Reform
The opposition proposal, spearheaded by Marinho—who also serves as the coordinator of Flávio Bolsonaro's presidential pre-campaign—allows individual agreements to override collective bargaining. Benefits such as the 13th salary, vacation pay, and maternity leave would be calculated proportionally to hours worked. In an interview with Itatiaia radio in early June, Flávio defended the idea that workers themselves should set their schedules and hours without losing any labor rights. "What we are proposing is that the worker himself sets his own schedule, his workday, without losing any labor rights," the senator stated. However, the bill does not eliminate the 6x1 shift nor reduce the maximum 44-hour weekly cap, setting it apart sharply from the text passed by deputies.
Critics Sound the Alarm Over Risks
Lawyer Antonio Megale, who represents the Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT), sees a strong incentive toward precarization. He argues that companies would circumvent union negotiations and seek less protective conditions worker by worker. "The result tends to be fragmentation of the category, loss of collective strength, and a lowering of the level of rights," Megale said. He cautioned, however, that the criticism is not of the individual worker's will but of the "fiction" that this will is free when exercised under economic dependence, legal subordination, and the threat of unemployment. Initially, Marinho stated there would be no hour limit under the flexible regime, but later backtracked and guaranteed that the 44-hour weekly ceiling would be maintained. "Flexible workday, established ceiling of 44 hours: below that, okay, not above," the senator said in a video.
Expert Divergence on Flexibility and Protection
Analysts consulted by BBC News Brasil diverge on the merits of the two bills. Economist José Márcio Camargo, chief economist at Genial Investimentos, believes ending the 6x1 shift would have negative side effects, such as increased costs for companies, inflation, and informality. In contrast, he sees greater flexibility in the hourly regime as an opportunity for groups that currently struggle to enter the formal market. "For example, women who have children: it becomes much easier to get a job that isn't 8 hours a day. Or elderly people who don't want full-time work," he explained. For Camargo, this is the great advantage of the opposition proposal.
The Risks of Self-Exploitation Under Flexible Regimes
Sociologist Zhuofei Lu, a researcher at the University of Oxford and specialist in flexible work arrangements, adopts a more cautious stance. He views the reduction of the workweek and the end of the 6x1 shift positively but sees considerable risks in the PEC that creates an hourly regime. "Flexibility alone does not guarantee workers' well-being. The decisive factor is who controls that flexibility," Lu told BBC News Brasil. He emphasizes that when flexibility primarily serves to increase employers' power over schedules, it can lead to unpredictability and insecurity. Lu cites his own research and the book "The Flexibility Paradox" by researcher Heejung Chung to show that flexible work often produces self-exploitation rather than relief. Effects, he notes, often differ by gender: women tend to accumulate more domestic work during free time, while men convert flexibility into longer hours to prove commitment to the ideal of the "exemplary worker," generating a spiral of overwork.
The Missing Middle Ground and Pension Impacts
Researcher Daniel Duque of FGV Ibre argues that neither proposal represents the best path for Brazil. He believes legislation prioritizing individual agreements is problematic due to the power disparity between employers and employees. On the other hand, Duque considers making two days of weekly rest mandatory excessively rigid. "I think politicians could look at international experience and see that [the country] is moving toward a model that doesn't exist anywhere in the world," he said. His ideal would be a flexible model maintaining the 44-hour limit but with incentives for 40-hour contracts through differentiated employer contribution rates to social security. Zhuofei Lu, meanwhile, notes that the 5x2 workday is already a consolidated standard in countries like Germany without legal requirement, and he sees no issue with Brazil innovating by making the schedule mandatory, since time norms are historical constructions that can be revised when they no longer serve social well-being.
Professor Naércio Menezes of Insper views the reduction to 40 hours positively but criticizes both the mandatory two-day rest and the opposition PEC. For him, Brazil's labor market rigidity lies not in the work regime but in the high payroll taxes on hiring. A measure he advocates is the elimination of the FGTS, arguing that workers would benefit more from having the money available than from mandatory contributions. "The problem is that it becomes much more expensive to hire a worker with all these contributions. So you have a worker earning minimum wage, and sometimes it costs double for the company," he stated. Lawyer Antonio Megale warns that reducing monthly pay under a flexible regime tends to shrink the social security contribution base, affecting revenue and individual protection. Camargo, however, counters that concern, arguing that an increase in formal workers could expand the number of contributors to the social security system. "My intuition is that, with this new type of contract, you will have more workers working, because you will have more flexibility," he contends.