The Vacarrezza Consolidation—or the Consolidation of Material Labor Laws (CLMT)—is rapidly advancing toward approval in the National Congress. The reasons for this are unclear. Perhaps due to its ideological bias, flirting with deregulation and flexibilization, so pleasing to the current prophets of the end of employment; perhaps simply for political expediency, thanks to the glorious foresight of the working-class president, Vargas' successor, who would dictate the country's second major social consolidation.
From a semantic standpoint, however, Bill No. 1,987/2007 shows signs of being stillborn. From the perspective of social guarantees and the principles inherent in Labor Law (including the principles of protection and the granting of social setbacks), the shell appears almost empty. Regarding working hours, the guarantee of collective action—collective bargaining agreements or conventions—for the establishment of working hours compensation and the infamous "hour banks" (which already constitute a "se" flexibilization of the norm, as per Article 7, XIII, Part 1, of the CRFB) will fail, with a mere "written individual agreement" (Article 59, § 2, of the bill) being sufficient in any case. As for the work of minors (arts. 411 to 414), the old wording that authorized overtime for reasons of force majeure, up to a maximum of twelve hours per day, remains in place, but with an increase of "at least" twenty-five percent over the normal hourly rate, in blatant conflict with the rule of art. 7, XVI, of the CRFB. Regarding the work environment (unhealthy, dangerous, arduous), art. 183-B even states that "in all workplaces where workers are exposed to asbestos/chrysotile asbestos or natural or artificial fibers proven to be harmful to human health, the tolerance limits established in the relevant legislation must be observed and, in their absence, they will be established based on the exposure control criteria recommended by scientifically recognized national or international organizations.” Now, there are no scientifically safe indices for human exposure to chrysotile asbestos (white), just as there are none for gray asbestos (even more lethal, banned worldwide); which justifies, in fact, the absolute prohibition of its industrial use in almost fifty countries around the world. Data from the OSWALDO CRUZ FOUNDATION reveal that, from 1980 to 2003, 2,414 deaths from mesothelioma, a pleural cancer linked to asbestos, were recorded in Brazil. Under such conditions, how can we admit that Bill No. 1,987/2007 repeats the mistake established in Article 2 of Law No. 9,055/95, which violates flagrantly violates the precautionary principle (principle no. 15 of the Rio Declaration) and is currently the subject of ADI no. 4,066, currently being processed by the Supreme Federal Court?
Furthermore, where it could have advanced — in the wake of the recent Portuguese Labor Code (arts. 15 to 32) — the project remained eloquently silent: nothing was established to safeguard the fundamental rights of workers (equality, with guarantees of non-discrimination; privacy, with the prohibition of pre-employment medical and genetic tests; economic security, with the prohibition of unjustified dismissals), or even for the extension of collective guarantees (“umbrella” agreements), or even for the formulation of a more guarantee-based labor process.
It is argued that the purpose of the initiative, linked to the activities of the GTCOL (Working Group for the Consolidation of Laws), is merely to summarize and "reconsolidate" Brazilian labor laws. Hence the difficulty in innovating. But this is not the situation we see: a careful reading of the project has revealed passages of undeniable social regression, which institutions such as ANAMATRA, the OAB, and ABRAT have denounced in recent months.
For these and other reasons, ANAMATRA has been following the progress of Bill No. 1,987/2007 with concern. There is no point in "reconsolidating" under the pretext of "systematizing" and/or "renewing" if there is no substantial progress, but rather a disturbing setback. If this is the case, good principles dictate that the current labor law system be preserved, at least at the individual level: in the end, a "retroconsolidation" disguised as "reconsolidation" will serve neither social justice nor the pacification of conflicts, much less corporate finances. It will serve only as a historical milestone in a state's hastiness uncommitted to the social value of work. Against everyone and for no one; for the worse... and for the worse.
Editorial Board