Brasilia - Right-hand man and long-time ally of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) - since their days as labor activists in the ABC region of São Paulo - the Minister of Labor, Luiz Marinho, said he believes that the end of the 6x1 work schedule is a "point of no return" for the Brazilian economy.

For him, the new work schedule is already consolidating as a new reality in the market, even though the president of the Senate, Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP), is "sitting on" the proposed amendment to the Constitution (PEC) on the subject.

Despite all the complaints from the business community, he says he continues to hold talks with employers' associations, but believes the situation has already changed. He adds that labor law itself already provides for collective bargaining that can make the daily work schedule more flexible, as long as the maximum limit of 40 hours per week is respected. "If you exceed that limit, you have to pay," he says.

“They [business entities] are even speaking up, albeit in a somewhat embarrassed way. It’s not with that same fury anymore. Today they’ve kind of accepted it and are planning how to proceed,” Marinho says in an interview with NeoFeed . “The government will never create problems for the economy.”

That's not what industry associations are saying. The end of the 6x1 shift system has been described as a major economic risk for the shopping mall and retail sectors. Abrasce predicts the loss of 130,000 jobs in the first year alone, in addition to a reduction of R$ 15 billion in mall revenue, equivalent to 7.3% of the sector's total revenue, with increased informality and store closures, especially among small retailers.

In the retail sector, a report by BTG Pactual indicates that it will be necessary to hire 30,400 new employees to compensate for the reduction in working hours, which would add a cost of R$ 2 billion per year. The study also projects an average drop of 9.5% in EBITDA, with the greatest impact on pharmacies, which could register a contraction of 13.6%.

The minister acknowledges, however, a thorny scenario for the government in the Senate, where the PEC (Proposed Constitutional Amendment) is stalled and "depending on how things are going, it will likely be postponed until after the parliamentary recess."

"For now, it seems things aren't going very well in the Senate. So far, President Alcolumbre hasn't forwarded the PEC to the Constitution and Justice Committee [CCJ], and things are stalled."

Despite criticism from business leaders, who are calling for a longer transition period for implementing the new work schedule and reduced working hours, Marinho defends the current 14-month period proposed by the rapporteur in the Chamber of Deputies, Representative Leo Prates (Republicanos-BA). However, he admits that, depending on political negotiations, senators in particular may want to extend this period.

Prates himself, before the PEC was approved, had explained that, after conversations with the president of the Chamber, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB) - the government's main political backer of the PEC in the Chamber - there was a consensus among parliamentarians that any regulations on working hours for specific sectors of the economy would be left for another bill.

The Chamber should address these sector-specific issues within the framework of a bill by Representative Daiana Santos (PCdoB-RS), which is already being processed in the Chamber's Labor Committee. Originally, the bill already addressed the 5x2 shift schedule and provided for a 40-hour work week, as approved by the majority of representatives in plenary and also defended by the government.

But Marinho doesn't believe it's necessary to regulate specific cases for certain categories of workers. "I don't see any major problems with that, but I'm open to holding roundtables with employers and workers," the minister stated.

Below are the main excerpts from the interview:

What is the likelihood that the amendment to end the 6x1 work schedule will not be voted on before the parliamentary recess? How are the talks with the Senate going?
 Our Minister Zé Guimarães [Institutional Relations] is trying to create channels and talk with President Davi Alcolumbre. For now, it seems things aren't going very well in the Senate. So far, President Alcolumbre hasn't sent the PEC [Proposed Constitutional Amendment] to the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ), and things are stalled. The government's part is done. Now it's up to Congress to take this project seriously, considering how sensitive and important it is for workers, commerce, and industry.

Should it be left until after the elections?
 We ask that they analyze this calmly. Now, given the way things are going, if things continue like this, they probably won't approve it before the parliamentary recess. So far, President Davi [Alcolumbre] is sitting on it. If the Senate delays scheduling it, if the debate doesn't begin, it will be stalled. But the clock is ticking.

Does the Senate president not want the proposed constitutional amendment to move forward?
 That's the impression we get. On the other hand, the Chamber of Deputies was fundamental. Now, it's necessary that the senators also be heard, so they aren't eventually held responsible for something that isn't theirs. Effectively, there's a stressful situation in the labor relations in Brazil. The job market is becoming increasingly stressed, the turnover rate is scandalous. And it's clear that the work schedule and hours are among the causes of this problem, leading to illnesses and absenteeism.

"There is a stressful process in the labor relations in Brazil. The job market has been becoming stressed, and the turnover rate is scandalous."

Do you see change as a necessity?
It's a necessity not only for the people, but for the Brazilian economy as a whole. And it involves the debate: what kind of work schedule will we have? What scale will we have? So, it would be wise for the Senate to follow the example of the Chamber of Deputies, listen to all sides and let things flow. Holding things up, sitting on top of things so the debate doesn't move forward, is not the best approach. I believe the Senate needs to listen to all sides.

Have you spoken to or are you planning to meet with Alcolumbre?
 The debate is being led by the [Presidential] Palace. But regarding the content, I intend to address this debate with the senators in public hearings. If the Senate president wants to engage in dialogue, I am entirely available to conduct a debate to raise awareness among people, working women, and Brazilian society. The government is doing its part. It is seeking to open a debate, as it did in the Chamber of Deputies. And we are listening to hear the concerns of Parliament.

Should President Lula speak personally with Alcolumbre to unblock the PEC?
 President [Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva] has already said he's open to discussions. Now, it's strange to hold up an agenda item that depends on a conversation with the President. Let's wait and see. President Lula wants to talk to President Alcolumbre. Then it's a matter of coordinating schedules. But that would have to happen now. If the Senate doesn't open the agenda, will they schedule controversial items? This isn't a cordial relationship. There needs to be dialogue because it's a necessity for the institutions.

The business sector is still asking for more transition time. Is the government willing to discuss a longer timeframe? By how much?
 The proposed transition is a 42-hour work week for 90 days, followed by another year to reduce to a 40-hour week. This seems appropriate to me. The government and the Chamber of Deputies debated this transition extensively with employers and employees and approved it. It seems to me that it is adequate. It's a quite plausible transition. Now, if the Senate wants to change it...

What could happen?
It would be prudent for the Senate to follow this entire debate that was being built with the Chamber of Deputies, and the Senate was following the debate. Evidently, the government proposes and the Senate gives its opinion. If it were up to the government, it would approve the report that came from the Chamber of Deputies. If it approves something different, it will go back to the Chamber of Deputies. But will the Chamber accept it?

Business leaders continue to resist the proposed constitutional amendment, arguing that the 5x2 work schedule will negatively impact the economy. What is the solution?
 Every time a possibility of achievement for the working class arises—not just this one, like when the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws) and maternity leave came about—any achievement of rights, there's an outcry saying the world is going to end, and they keep stalling and postponing it. That's the historical practice. During the Constituent Assembly, I helped lead this process of assemblies, gigantic marches to sensitize Parliament regarding the reduction of working hours, and the conversation was always the same: it will bankrupt the companies!

"Every time a possibility of victory arises for the working class, not just this one, but any victory in terms of rights, there's an outcry saying the world is going to end."

And what happened?
It was the opposite: it generated more jobs, and no companies went bankrupt for that reason. So it's a natural reaction related to the situation we have. But entrepreneurs, not all, but some have already started to implement this scaling and are reaping the rewards. Is there a cost impact? Yes, but that's not a determining factor in saying it will lead to business failures and fewer jobs. We need more technology for the transition process.

Despite the complaints from business owners, do you believe this debate is irreversible and here to stay?
 My feeling is that there's no turning back. It may take more or less days, but it will happen. Because it's a very strong opinion in society. It's prudent, it's positive. There are some business owners who have even done tests and are convinced that they benefited, that they implemented the 5x2 schedule in all their units. They saw that it's advantageous for the companies, advantageous for the workers, for the Brazilian state. If you reduce worker absences, it's good for productivity. If you reduce sick leave, it's good for everyone. It's not smart to keep postponing it.

How are the talks with business entities going? Do the identified problems have solutions? What are they?
 Yes, I've been talking to them. But they're even talking about it in a somewhat embarrassed way now. It's not with that fury anymore. Today they've kind of accepted it and are planning how to proceed. I tell them: talk to your union and figure out if there are any situations that could be resolved through collective bargaining. When they reduce it to 40 hours, they [companies] think they'll be harmed by the shorter hours. But it's just a matter of negotiating for the additional hours. Or the employee can create a time bank. It's a possibility. A worker from São Paulo who's going to be a best man at a wedding in Minas Gerais tells his boss he'll use accumulated hours, and everything's fine.

"When they reduce it to 40 hours, they [companies] think they'll be harmed by the shorter working hours. But it's just a matter of negotiating the additional hours."

So it would be a matter of adjustment?
If he's going to have that kind of need, just tell the manager that he'll have to make up the hours that month to adjust. Then you negotiate. And [the boss] deducts it from that balance of hours. That's a possible process. Things like that alleviate the doubts of companies that thought there would be rigidity and a very big problem for the economy. But the government will never create a problem for the economy.

Does the government want to regulate the new working hours for specific sectors this year as well? Which sectors are of most concern?
 All sectors are adjusting. The aviation companies, for example, were with me and raised the issue of pilots who need to travel for several hours on international flights. But where has it ever been seen that the government would make international flights unfeasible? We want to have other routes covered and we don't want to create problems. But I told them: you already have a specific law and you need to negotiate collectively with the workers' unions and make some compensation. But they say that the reduction to 40 hours will impact their working hours. No. We are reducing the maximum working hours. Those who have 36 hours will maintain that. That's what it's about. I don't see any major problems.

So, regulation by specific sectors, as suggested by the Chamber, is not the best approach?
 I'm willing to hold talks with business owners and workers. But we want Parliament to maintain its understanding. If they want to increase the workday, by agreement, they can. But a reduction to 40 hours per week is not being decided at this time. Now, if it exceeds 40 hours, they have to pay overtime.

Employers' associations didn't want to discuss the topic now, arguing that the election year is a hindrance. Won't the debate be tainted?
 I find the parliamentarian's argument strange: "Oh, it can't be done because it's an election year." What are you saying? That you're going to defend issues you don't believe in just because it's election time? I can't be against ending the 6x1 work schedule now, but would I be after the election? Be against it now! Be honest with your voters. If you're against it, be against it now too, admit it to your voters. Why leave it until after the election? The [workers'] mobilization didn't ask to happen in an election year; it could have happened last year. The mobilization grew steadily. And the debate grew to such an extent that this audience reached Brazilian parliamentarians, and there was sensitivity.

And what about the alternative constitutional amendment proposed by the opposition, by Senator Rogério Marinho? Is there room for this discussion about working hours? What is your assessment of it?
 I see this merely as a proposal to disrupt and prolong the debate. This proposed amendment regarding working hours makes no sense. The CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws) is comprehensive, and collective bargaining agreements are sufficient. But disrupting the debate on changes to work schedules and shifts would not be prudent.