Brazil’s Congress approves shorter working week in win for Lula
Brazil’s Congress has approved a constitutional amendment reducing the working week from 44 hours to 40, with two days off each week and no loss of pay. The change, championed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is the largest overhaul of workers’ rights since the country returned to democracy in 1988 and comes shortly before the presidential run-off.
The Senate passed it by 75 votes to one after approval by the lower house in May; even Lula’s rival, Flávio Bolsonaro, backed it after previously opposing it. The measure is estimated to benefit more than 30 million workers and is supported by nearly 70% of Brazilians in one survey. It will be phased in, first reducing the week to 42 hours after two months, then to 40 hours later; critics warn of higher costs and prices, while supporters say better-rested workers may be more productive.
- Brazil will move from a 44-hour to a 40-hour working week.
- The amendment guarantees two days off without cutting pay.
- The change is expected to benefit more than 30 million workers.
New here? Start with this
Brazil’s working hours have traditionally been set by a 44-hour weekly limit, with the exact schedule varying by job and sector. Brazil’s constitution, adopted when the country returned to democracy in 1988, sets out basic rights for workers.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has made workers’ rights a prominent part of his politics. Congress includes two chambers, the Senate and the lower house, and constitutional changes need approval from both.
A shorter week affects employers as well as workers, since businesses may need to reorganise shifts or hire more staff. Supporters argue that more time off could improve workers’ wellbeing and productivity; critics say the change could raise costs and prices.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A 40-hour week with two days off could give workers more time for family, rest and community life without cutting pay, extending a labour-rights tradition many Brazilians value. Supporters argue that better-rested workers may be more productive, and the phased introduction gives employers time to adapt; broad public support and the measure’s cross-party backing also suggest it answers a widely felt need.
The case against
Reducing hours without reducing pay raises employers’ labour costs, which could lead some businesses to increase prices, slow hiring or cut investment, with smaller firms potentially less able to absorb the change. Critics may also question whether the productivity gains will offset those costs across different sectors, and whether a constitutional rule is flexible enough for workplaces with varied staffing needs.