Ending the 6×1 Scale: what is being discussed in Congress and its impacts

The discussion about the end of the 6×1 work schedule has made significant progress in the National Congress with the Complementary Amendment Bill (“PEC”) No. 08/2025, authored by Congresswoman Erika Hilton, and already represents one of the main possible changes in labor relations since the 2017 Labor Reform.

Currently, Article 7 (XIII) of the Federal Constitution allows working hours of up to 44 hours a week, making it possible to adopt the 6×1 scale – a model widely used in sectors such as commerce, retail, restaurants, hotels, logistics and continuous services.

In recent months, however, the focus has been on reducing the weekly working day and extending the rest period for workers.

The proposal initially put forward envisaged more far-reaching changes, including a 4-day week and a 36-hour working week. However, over the course of the political negotiations, its content was modulated to a more intermediate format that was considered more economically viable.

The text approved by the Chamber of Deputies, which is currently being processed by the Federal Senate, provides:

① gradual reduction of the working day;
② initial transition from 44h to 42h;
③ subsequent reduction to 40h a week;
④ adoption of a two-day rest week;
⑤ progressive replacement of the 6×1 logic with the 5×2 model;
⑥ wage maintenance.

The central idea behind modulation was precisely to avoid an abrupt change in the labor market, allowing companies to adapt gradually and gradually reducing the economic impact.

In this context, the PEC has gained momentum in recent months, driven by parliamentarians and trade union organizations that defend the reduction of working hours as a mechanism for improving quality of life, mental health – a topic that has gained particular relevance following the recent updates to NR-1 related to psychosocial risks at work – as well as in the post-pandemic scenario in which the balance between personal life and work has come to occupy a central position in labor relations, job security and a potential increase in productivity.

At the same time, the proposal has come up against resistance from business sectors and opponents, who argue that a mandatory reduction in working hours could have significant economic impacts:

• One of the main points raised by business sectors involves the potential increase in operating costs, especially in activities that depend on continuous operation, rotating shifts and intensive labor. In practice, reducing the weekly working day without reducing wages may require expanding teams, hiring new employees, reorganizing shifts, reviewing time banks and increasing the cost of the hour actually worked;

• In certain segments – such as retail, supermarkets, logistics, restaurants, hotels, health, industry and call centers – the impact tends to be even more sensitive, especially for companies that today operate with lean scales and a heavy reliance on the 6×1 model;

• At the same time, some economists and market agents also began to discuss the possible macroeconomic effects of the measure, such as an increase in the cost of formal employment, inflationary pressure in certain sectors, passing on costs to the end consumer and a possible impact on competitiveness and attracting investment.

As a result, the debate on more flexible models, a greater role for collective bargaining and sectoral adaptation mechanisms has become more relevant in Congress:

• Opponents are now advocating an alternative solution based on greater flexibility in labor relations. Instead of a mandatory constitutional reduction in working hours, some MPs believe that companies and employees should have more freedom to negotiate scales and working hours, according to the needs of each economic sector.

• The main opposing arguments debate the very economic viability of the change in the Brazilian scenario, especially in view of the already high cost of labor in the country and the historically low productivity rates.

• The PEC’s report also proposes an exception for employees with salaries of more than approximately R$21,000 a month (2.5 times the RGPS (Social Security System) ceiling), allowing the rules on working hours to be relaxed by means of a specific agreement.

To understand what is actually being discussed in Congress, it is worth comparing the current scenario, the proposal under debate and the main points defended by opponents:

Another point worth mentioning in the discussions is precisely the possible strengthening of collective bargaining as a central instrument for adapting future working hours rules, so that unions and companies take on an even more strategic role in building economically sustainable and legally secure solutions.

One of the issues that should generate debate is the need for the PEC to expressly preserve the possibility of collective bargaining. If the Constitution were to provide only for the new maximum working hours, with no negotiating provisos, collective agreements and conventions would not be able to set aside or make more flexible the constitutional limit, reducing the scope for companies to adapt to the particularities of each economic activity.

• The PEC has strengthened the debate on collective bargaining as a central mechanism for adjusting working hours and schedules according to each economic sector, in such a way that they can play a leading role in defining time banks, flexible working hours, relays and transition periods.

• The discussion is linked to STF Theme 1046, which expanded the recognition of the normative force of collective agreements and conventions.

• Industry, retail, transportation, health and hospitality sectors maintain that a uniform rule could generate very different operational impacts, which favors collective bargaining for each segment.

Another issue to be debated involves the possible conversion of remuneration structures currently based on monthly salaries to models linked to hourly wages, preserving the overall remuneration currently practiced and observing the applicable legal and conventional limits.

However, although part of the market sees this possibility as an alternative for economic adaptation, the issue involves significant legal risks. This is because structural changes in the form of remuneration can generate discussions related to irreducibility of salaries, harmful contractual changes, habitual overtime, reflections on remuneration and the possible de-characterization of compensation systems, especially if implemented without adequate collective bargaining or without transparency in the composition of remuneration, in a clear effort to contain the effects of the legislative change.

The text approved by the House of Representatives shows an attempt to build a middle ground between the demands for longer rest periods for workers and the economic concerns related to maintaining business competitiveness. The gradual transition of the weekly working day demonstrates the search for a model of progressive adaptation, reducing potential impacts on sectors with a high dependence on continuous operation and intensive labor.

More than just a change in the rules on working hours, the PEC related to the end of the 6×1 scale has come to represent a structural debate on the future of labor relations in Brazil, involving issues such as productive organization, occupational health, collective bargaining, economic sustainability and the balance between business efficiency and social protection of workers.

Our Labor Team is available for any questions or clarifications.