Motta will have the final say on which version will be read this Wednesday (20) in the special committee reviewing the proposal.

The difference between the drafts is the transition period, considered the main impasse, and the scope of measures to mitigate the impact on businesses.

One version, backed by the Ministry of Labor and Employment, provides for a two-year transition. An intermediate version sets a three-year transition, while a third establishes a four-year period. In an interview with Valor, Prates said there are still a few points of disagreement with the government, but the main issue has been agreed on.

Prates said one report is “leaner” because the government asked for many points to be removed. Another text, he said, is “more or less.” The third version is “very extensive.” “But all of them have a limit of around 10 articles,” he explained.

Mitigation measures

Among the mitigation measures to be proposed in the report is a definition that only one of the two days off would officially be considered paid weekly rest for labor-law purposes. The second day would be treated legally as a “non-worked business day.”

In practice, Prates said, workers would still have two days off per week for rest. The difference would be technical and temporary, used to calculate labor costs. This would reduce, for example, the value of overtime and other charges linked to weekly rest, easing the economic impact of the change for employers during the adaptation phase.

“We are going to generate the least possible impact in the constitutional text. So, the idea is to remove the 44-hour limit, set 40 hours, two days off, one preferably on Sunday. Because I hope to cause the least possible impact on Brazil’s labor system,” he said.

He said the text will also expressly provide for no wage reduction. In addition, the report will include benefit cuts for companies that fail to comply with the rules of the constitutional amendment. Those that violate the requirements will lose the right to the transition rules provided for in the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act, he said. “I do not want to establish a penalty. I want to cut the benefits I can grant.”

Prates said he suggested to the government that, after the amendment is approved in the Lower House, the executive branch withdraw constitutional urgency from the bill it presented while the Senate analyzes the proposal, since that mechanism blocks the legislative agenda. “We may need to [vote on] other things, including for the government,” he said.

Specific work regimes

Prates also said there is no agreed voting schedule for the constitutional amendment with Senate President Davi Alcolumbre, of the Brazil Union party of Amapá, and that it is important to wait for senators to deliberate on the proposal before discussing regulation of specific work regimes, which he argues should not be addressed in the Constitution.

“Essential activities must have specific rules in law. But this should not be dealt with in the Constitution. It should be addressed in a specific law. [It is not known] whether it will be the government’s bill, whether it will not be the bill, whether it will be in a separate bill. But I also do not think this discussion should take place now,” he said.

He also said a deadline of 120 to 180 days will be set for Congress to update legislation covering specific cases. “That does not mean the effects of the measure will apply only after that period. The effects should take place within a shorter period. But the laws and agreements need more time to be updated, because the process may take longer.”

The rapporteur indicated that the Lower House’s strategy is to first approve the constitutional text and only afterward define, in detail, regulation through the government’s bill. It is still too early to finalize the bill’s design, he said, because the Senate could change the content of the constitutional amendment.

In Prates’s view, it is not possible to move forward with infraconstitutional rules before knowing the senators’ position. “Neither President Hugo Motta controls the Senate, nor does President Davi control the Lower House,” he said. For that reason, he said he considers it necessary to wait for the Senate’s deliberations before consolidating the final regulation.

Monthly work-hour parameter

The congressman also said he has sought dialogue even with sectors that oppose the proposal or are more resistant to it. He cited conversations with Senator Rogério Marinho (Liberal Party, Rio Grande do Norte) and said points raised by the opposition, especially on mechanisms to make working hours more flexible, ended up gaining space in the committee’s discussions.

Asked about comments made Tuesday (19) by Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (Liberal Party, Rio de Janeiro) regarding the end of the six-day workweek, Prates said the party is free to express its position on the issue, but he does not believe the Liberal Party will vote against the text.

A presidential hopeful for the party, Flávio Bolsonaro said the caucus has reservations about the constitutional amendment and that the executive branch’s proposal tries to sell the public “an easy solution without solving the problem”.

Prates also said the government agreed to adopt a monthly parameter to define working hours, which he said gives more flexibility to workers and employers. “I presented this suggestion to the government and there was no veto,” he said. The congressman also said he will strengthen the use of collective bargaining agreements and defended updating each category’s specific legislation to regulate other work-schedule models.

“You are changing time and you are changing the work schedule. In theory, despite giving some flexibility by using the monthly parameter, you are changing [the schedule] because, in the end, the person will go from four days off a month to eight. Everything will be regulated either by law or by collective bargaining agreement. We are empowering collective bargaining to deal with these particularities that are not for us to handle.”

One proposal rejected

In all, 200 legislative suggestions were submitted for inclusion in the constitutional amendment. Prates said, however, that he accepted only four or five that did not undermine the proposal’s main points: the end of the six-day workweek, a reduction in weekly hours from 44 to 40, two days of rest, and no wage reduction.

The rapporteur said the government asked for the removal of one proposal intended to mitigate the economic effects during the transition period. The idea was that, during the defined transition period, hours worked between the 41st and 44th hours of the week would be paid only as “hours worked,” without the same cost as traditional overtime. Normal overtime rules would continue to apply from the 45th weekly hour.