The Great Debate: End of 6×1: Does a one-year transition change the direction of the election?

CNN commentators Vinicius Poit and José Eduardo Cardozo debated, on Monday (25), in O Grande Debate (from Monday to Friday, at 11pm), about the end of the 6×1 scale: Does a one-year transition change the direction of the election?

The president of the Chamber, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB) announced on Monday (25) the details of the agreement signed with President Lula (PT) on the PEC that foresees the end of the 6×1 scale. The proposal establishes a reduction in working hours from 44 to 40 hours per week, without salary reduction, with a transition period of one year.

The reduction will be implemented in two stages. As Motta explained, 60 days after the promulgation of the PEC - as long as it is approved in both the Chamber and the Senate -, a first reduction of two hours in the weekly working hours will be made. After 12 months, the remaining two hours will be reduced, completing the transition to the maximum 40-hour workday.

"The transition of one year allows you to adjust perfectly. The transition is even long", he declared. The report presented by deputy Léo Prates contains these same points.

Populism and economic impact
Commentator Vinícius does not believe that the one-year transition to reducing working hours changes the course of the elections, but criticized what he classified as the lack of in-depth technical analysis.

"Meeting a social need without taking into account it is populism and is irresponsible", he stated.

Poit argued that the measure, when applied uniformly to large and small companies, could generate informality and pass on costs to the consumer. "Doing this only with a populist measure, without taking into account, without evaluating which sector, with a stroke that applies to the big company and also applies to the bakery on the corner, doesn't work," he said.

Defense of the measure as social justice
José Eduardo Cardozo vehemently defended the proposal, classifying it as "very fair, correct and necessary". He argued that, historically, every achievement of labor rights was accompanied by negative predictions that did not materialize.

"I have never seen any labor right since the 19th century granted without there being an affirmation that this will harm the economy, it will generate unemployment," he said.

The commentator also refuted the economic impact argument, stating that the available studies point to a relatively small effect. For Cardozo, the measure represents a historic recovery of rights: "What is correct is not populism, it is a historic recovery of what is unfair."

The texts generated by artificial intelligence on CNN Brasil are made based on video cuts from the newspapers in its programming. All information is investigated and checked by journalists. The final text is also reviewed by the CNN journalism team. Click here to find out more.

Source: CNN