The approval by the Chamber of Deputies on Mai 27, 2026, of Proposed Constitutional Amendment 221/2019 to end the 6-on-1 shift schedule, and the subsequent referral of the bill to the Senate, where it stands a strong chance of passage, brings the following question back to the forefront of the debate: does reducing working hours necessarily mean increasing costs?
Practical experience, including historical precedent, shows that this is not necessarily the case.
1. The Reduction of the Workweek and the “Déjà Vu” of 1988: The current debate bears a resemblance to the situation following the 1988 Federal Constitution, when the weekly workweek was reduced from 48 to 44 hours. At the time, predictions of a sharp rise in costs and an economic downturn also prevailed. However, the market responded with operational reorganization, productivity gains, automation, and a review of management models. Now, the debate returns in a completely different context: more digitized companies, advances in artificial intelligence, and greater regulatory concern for mental health and the work environment.
2. AI and Operational Cost Reduction: The potential reduction in working hours is likely to accelerate trends already underway: the automation of repetitive tasks, the review of administrative structures, and the adoption of AI tools to improve efficiency. The strategic use of technology can offset the increase in hourly costs resulting from reduced working hours. This trend also reinforces the need for internal skill-development programs, especially in areas related to technological adaptation, data analysis, management, and decision-making, including the potential use of tax incentives and benefits related to professional training.
3. Mental Health and Regulatory Standard No 01: With the start of the enforcement phase of Regulatory Standard No 01, corporate policies focused on quality of life are likely to gain importance not only as a tool for attracting and retaining talent, but also as a preventive measure against labor inspections and litigation. The implementation of more efficient work schedule models often yields positive results in indicators such as reduced absenteeism, fewer sick leaves, fewer accidents, and an indirect reduction in costs related to transportation vouchers, meals, and unproductive hours.
4. 4×3 Workweek Trials and Productivity Indicators: Recent experiments conducted in Brazil and abroad involving reduced workweek models, including trials of the 4×3 schedule, have yielded significant results in terms of productivity, employee engagement, and retention. In Brazil, we refer to data from the pilot project conducted by “4 Day Week Brazil,” in partnership with Reconnect Happiness at Work and Boston College, and abroad, research from the University of Cambridge and trials conducted in the United Kingdom in 2022 also reported reduced turnover and lower burnout rates.
5. Phased Transition and Collective Bargaining: The reduction of the workweek will undergo a transition period: 60 days after publication, the workweek will drop to 42 hours; after 12 months, it will be reduced to 40 hours, with two days of paid rest (one preferably on Sunday) and guaranteed wage protection. During this transition period (up to 14 months), collective bargaining agreements may extend the daily workday beyond 8 hours, enabling the workweek to be completed in just five business days. Note: 60 days after publication, clauses in collective bargaining agreements regarding working hours and weekly rest that are incompatible with the Amendment will be rendered null and void. An exception was also established for highly qualified employees (those with higher education and salaries above R$ 21,000) who remain outside the traditional rules governing working hours and limitations.
6. What Companies Need to Review: Key areas of focus include: (i) reviewing employment contracts and internal policies; (ii) analyzing operational schedules and shifts; (iii) reassessing collective agreements and standards and paying attention to compliance deadlines; (iv) mapping activities suitable for automation; (v) reviewing productivity indicators; (vi) training and professional retraining programs as a strategy to enhance skills and productivity; (vii) retention and engagement strategies; and (viii) updating documentation related to Regulatory Standard No 01 and psychosocial risks.
The likely elimination of the 6×1 shift schedule marks a new phase in the reorganization of labor relations, requiring a strategic review of operational structures, efforts to promote technological proficiency, enhanced occupational health measures (particularly regarding mental health and Regulatory Standard No 01), and the modernization of human resources management.
