–Olívia de Q. F. Pasqualeto, Professor of Labor Law, FGV São Paulo Law School
The constitutional amendment proposal to abolish the 6×1 work schedule
The end of the “6×1 work schedule” – that is, the elimination of a work model in which employees work six days a week and are entitled to only one day off – is one of the labor issues that has most engaged Brazilian workers in recent years. The “Life Beyond Work” (Vida Além do Trabalho – VAT) movement, created by City Councilman Ricardo Azevedo, has had a strong presence on social media and in demonstrations across cities. VAT was mobilized not only by traditional labor leaders, such as union officials, but also by other political leaders focused on social issues, which helped attract attention from various sectors.
The reduction of working hours and the consequent increase in free time for personal life are not recent demands. They are, in fact, among the main demands of workers—globally—since the emergence of the first labor laws and are a constituent element of the notion of decent work, long advocated by the International Labor Organization.[1] However, at this moment in Brazil, the issue has reached its legal peak, having become the subject of a highly prominent constitutional amendment proposal (Proposta de Emenda Constitucional – PEC): PEC 8/2025, proposed by Congresswoman Erika Hilton.
The Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988 provides in Article 7, item XIII, that “the normal workday shall not exceed eight hours, and the workweek shall not exceed forty-four hours.” Although there are specific rules in infra-constitutional legislation, this means that, generally speaking, a standard employee works eight hours a day from Monday to Friday, plus four hours on Saturday. The proposal aims precisely to amend the wording of this provision, providing for a maximum of thirty-six hours of work per week, with a four-day workweek.
During its legislative process, PEC 8/2025 was attached to an earlier one (PEC 221/2029) that also proposed reducing the workweek, though it did not gain as much traction and remained stalled in the National Congress for a long time. At the same time, the Executive Branch introduced a bill on the subject, which even generated institutional tensions between the branches. This context illustrates just how heated the debates surrounding the issue are, not only in the National Congress but also within the Executive Branch and across various sectors of society.
The significance of the constitutional debate on ending the 6×1 work schedule
Beyond the discussion on the regulation of labor relations—which is of the utmost importance—the proposal also invites us to engage in broader constitutional reflection that explores the intertwining of work, human dignity, democracy, and the right to a life beyond work.
At the heart of the debate lies an important question with profound constitutional implications: how much of human life can be consumed by work? The workday cannot be viewed as a mere economic variable to be adjusted according to productivity demands or market interests. It directly shapes the conditions under which individuals exercise their freedom, participate in family and community life, engage politically, and care for their physical and mental health. Thus, the constitutional dimension of the debate is not limited to individual well-being. Excessive working hours also affect democratic life, as democracy presupposes citizens capable of participating in collective affairs, engaging in public debate, and building social bonds. A society organized around exhaustion and constant availability weakens these conditions. In this sense, time becomes a constitutional issue, as it is intrinsically connected to the foundations of democratic citizenship.
Modern constitutional democracies have historically recognized limits on the exploitation of labor as part of a broader project of social protection. The constitutionalization of labor rights was deeply linked to the understanding that democracy could not coexist with extreme forms of economic domination. Democracy and decent work are closely related,[2] as noted in the 2024 Berlin Summit Declaration. The document points out that, in part, people’s resentment toward democracies stems from the excessive prioritization of the market and economic efficiency. Therefore, restoring trust in democracies necessarily involves creating quality jobs and reducing inequalities. Thus, limits on working hours, weekly rest, paid vacation, and other social protection mechanisms are important not only as labor rights but also as preconditions for the effective exercise of citizenship.
The 1988 Brazilian Constitution reflects this understanding: it establishes the social value of work as a constitutional foundation and recognizes social labor rights as fundamental rights. The PEC reinforces this commitment, signaling that the law can do more than merely correct market failures after the fact; it must also shape the socially available distribution of time. This approach is necessary so that we can view free time not as a luxury reserved for privileged groups, but as a constitutional condition for equality, including gender equality. Especially at a time when care work is the focus of global attention, as noted in Advisory Opinion No. 31 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, rethinking the distribution of time is fundamental to restructuring the gendered division of labor and redefining gender roles.[3]
However, despite constitutional guarantees, contemporary labor market dynamics have intensified pressures on workers’ time.[4] Long commutes, digital connectivity and constant virtual presence, precarious and temporary employment relationships, and a culture of high productivity are increasingly blurring the boundaries between work and personal life. It is precisely in this context of the growing erosion of the employment relationship and the precariousness of work that the PEC takes on even greater relevance.
Naturally, the proposal also faces fierce criticism. Its opponents argue that reducing the workweek could cause economic losses, increase labor costs, and create difficulties for some productive sectors. We do not ignore that these concerns are important; however, they cannot be the only ones.
The Brazilian framers of the Constitution took care to establish the social value of work and free enterprise (Article 1, IV) as foundational principles, side by side, in the constitutional text, as well as to emphasize that the economic order is founded on the valorization of human labor and free enterprise (Article 170). Therefore, an argument based exclusively on economic efficiency contradicts the constitutional text itself and the vision of society espoused by the 1988 Federal Constitution.
The future of the constitutional amendment proposal to abolish the 6×1 work schedule: what can we expect?
The constitutional amendment proposal to end the 6×1 work schedule has stirred the nation and brought hope to thousands of workers. However, amid market pressure over the measure’s economic impacts and tensions between the Executive and Legislative branches during a politically sensitive electoral period in Brazil, the rise of atypical forms of work in the country jeopardizes the PEC and the progress that would be achieved if it were approved.
Currently, two landmark cases are pending before the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF): the legal nature of the relationship between drivers and ride-hailing apps (Case 1291) and the validity of so-called “pejotização” (Case 1389), a historically fraudulent hiring practice in which a worker is hired as a legal entity (pessoa jurídica – PJ) for the purpose of masking the employment relationship. In both cases, the STF will decide whether these workers are self-employed or typical employees. If the court rules that there is no employment relationship, labor laws cease to apply, including the limit on working hours. So, the future of working-time protections in Brazil may therefore depend not only on constitutional amendment, but also on how the Supreme Court defines who counts as a worker entitled to labor protections.
There is, therefore, a certain paradox in this context: while the approval of the PEC would be a significant step forward for the living and working conditions of Brazilian workers, depending on the STF’s decision, it is possible that the changes introduced by the PEC will apply to an increasingly smaller number of workers, ultimately rendering it ineffective.
In this scenario, the future of the PEC aimed at abolishing the 6×1 work schedule will depend not only on its formal approval but also on Brazilian institutions’ ability to preserve the centrality of protected labor amid the contemporary transformations of capitalism.
Suggested citation: Olívia de Q. F. Pasqualeto, Life Beyond Work as a Constitutional Issue in Brazil, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, May 28, 2026, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/life-beyond-work-as-a-constitutional-issue-in-brazil/
[1] International Labour Organization. (2023). Working time and work-life balance around the world. ILO. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/publications/working-time-and-work-life-balance-around-world
[2] Dukes, R., & Streeck, W. (2022). Democracy at work: Contract, status and post-industrial justice. John Wiley & Sons.
[3] Rubio-Marín, R. (2015). The (dis) establishment of gender: Care and gender roles in the family as a constitutional matter. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(4), 787-818.
[4] Kremer, M., Went, R., & Engbersen, G. (2021). Better work: The impact of automation, flexibilization and intensification of work. Springer Nature.