Against the times, unionism loses strength and distances itself from the worker

Trade unions face the challenge of reinventing themselves. The recurring failure of the May Day demonstrations reveals the loss of representation that has been increasing in recent decades.

Union demands have not managed to mobilize workers or balance the entities' sources of funding, lost with the end of the Union Tax after the labor reform, in the Michel Temer (MDB) government.

In search of reconnecting with the bases, trade unions released, at the end of April, the "working class agenda" for 2025. The document, delivered to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), lists the movement's priorities to face the new demands of the world of work.

In practice, the text consolidates ongoing agendas, such as the reduction of working hours without changing salaries, the end of the 6x1 format and the regulation of work through apps . It also reiterates the end of inequality between men and women, respect for diversity and the ecological transition.

In addition to the historical defense of labor rights, the unions' agenda proposes greater regulation, state intervention and an expansion of the role of entities, with the return of the approval of contract terminations within the union scope.

At the other end, unions seek to restrict the flexibility demanded in current relationships, guided by new technologies, under the pretext of reducing the impact on the precariousness of employment relationships.

“Trade unions are challenged to understand the profound changes occurring in the world of work and, based on these transformations, develop the agendas and new challenges that labor, social and social security protection poses for the trade union movement,” summarizes the coordinator of the Trade Union Centrals Forum, Clemente Ganz Lúcio.

Agenda does not meet the challenge of representativeness

For experts interviewed by Gazeta do Povo , however, the formula presented is “generic” or “insufficient” to face the size of the challenge of reconnecting with workers in an environment of profound changes in the relations between employers and employees.

“The agenda they are presenting is more of the same,” says Hélio Zylberstajn, senior professor at the USP School of Economics and coordinator of the Fipe salary meter. “It is important that there is a union movement. But above all, that it is close to what workers want or need, which does not seem to be happening.”

Technology and app-based work have been one of the main focuses of the debate on the topic. One of the unions' proposals is to regulate article 7, item XXVII, of the Constitution, which provides for the protection of workers "in the face of automation."

The movement also advocates the approval of a complementary bill (PLC 12/2024) that regulates the rights of transportation platform workers, which is currently being processed in the Chamber of Deputies. The bill has been criticized by members of parliament, representatives of drivers and platforms, who fear that it will impact the flexibility of the business model. Discussions between representatives of the parties also failed to reach an agreement regarding delivery workers.

For Zylberstajn, the unions still view app workers through the lens of the CLT, the Consolidation of Labor Laws – a legacy of the Getúlio Vargas government that still regulates most Brazilian workers, but cannot be adapted to all the needs of labor relations in today’s world. “The unions do not speak the same language as most current workers,” he says.

Sandro Lunard, a specialist in union law and professor at the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), states that platform workers themselves do not see themselves as workers under the CLT. Therefore, they must seek their own paths of representation.

“Traditional unionism will not represent these workers,” he says. “They need to build their own organizations based on their needs. In fact, I see potential for them to organize themselves and, autonomously, build their own unions.”

For the expert, the difficulty for organizations is establishing links with a new working class that no longer recognizes itself in traditional structures. “New technologies have reorganized the way young people view work,” he says.

“They no longer see the long temporality of a relationship that was so valued by previous generations. Today, work is completely diluted. You can work from your cell phone, take your work home. As soon as you open your eyes, you can start answering emails. This presents unions with new challenges all over the world,” says Lunard.

Reduction of working hours is a historic issue

In addition to the reengineering needed to meet new demands, unions also face difficulties in addressing historic and legitimate demands, such as reduced working hours and the end of the 6x1 format, the subject of a proposed Constitutional Amendment (PEC) that has gained support from workers on social media.

The idea is not new. The labor movement has been constantly demanding the approval of a 40-hour workweek. The Constitution currently establishes a maximum of 44 hours per week. The PEC currently under consideration calls for 36 hours, in a 4x3 format. Several bills to amend the Constitution or modify the CLT have been presented over the last few decades. Some have even advanced, but have not been approved.

One obstacle, according to Zylberstajn, is that the unions and trade unions only talk about reducing working hours and not productivity. “They just want to maintain the salary and reduce working hours,” he explains. “This means that working hours become more expensive and the sum doesn’t add up.”

For him, simply reducing working hours could be a “shot in the foot” for workers. “The increase in labor costs will force a drop in production,” he says. “The company could lay off workers or introduce technology systems that save labor.”

The root of the problem, according to him, is that the working hours are established in the Constitution. “These issues would be better addressed in collective bargaining, where both sides can make an exchange,” he says.

The professor points out that several sectors of the economy have already adopted the 5x2 work week, compensating for the hours worked during the week. “It is easy to do this, companies are not against reducing working hours. What they want is to maintain production. If production is maintained, wages can be preserved.”

Entities seek ways to finance themselves

The backdrop to the search for representation is the need for financing for trade unions. One of the points on the agenda of the unions in this direction is the attempt to reinstate the obligation of union approval in contract terminations.

“This is going back 80 years, to when it was created with the CLT,” says Zylberstajn. “It means that a contract can only be undone if it is approved by the union, which normally charges for this service.”

For him, the difficulties in maintaining revenue have led organizations to mix financial interests with other legitimate agendas. “It’s a complicated thing,” he says. “When they ask for the approval to be reinstated, we are left wondering: do they really just want to help workers or increase revenue?”

Since the 2017 labor reform, unions have been trying to restore the collection of the Union Tax, but the end of the obligation was considered constitutional by the Supreme Federal Court (STF). In contrast, the STF decided, in 2023, that the collection of the "welfare contribution " from all workers, including non-unionized ones, is constitutional, as long as it is provided for in a collective agreement and the worker can oppose the discount.

Critics question union unity

At the heart of the crisis of representation is the union structure that provides for unicity, that is, that there can only be one union representing a given category per territorial base. The rule, created in the same Vargas context of strong state control, has guaranteed unions an institutional place.

In practice, according to its critics, it prevents competition between entities and free choice on the part of workers. This creates “rubber stamp unions”, which exist only by force of law or without a real link with members.

“We need to seriously discuss this and move towards union freedom. This would mean reinventing the union in Brazil,” says Zylberstajn. He admits that organizations should be financed, but he is against the obligation linked to the monopoly of representation.

“Workers may be forced to pay a monopoly. They [the unions] want to make contributions mandatory, but they don’t want to give up the monopoly,” says the professor. He believes the criterion should also apply to employers’ associations.

For Lunard, the demand for union pluralism should be extended to employer unions, which have their structure guaranteed by centralized access to resources from the S System – compulsory parafiscal contributions charged to companies. They are levied on the payroll and collected by the Federal Revenue Service.

“With union plurality, the distribution of these resources would become unfeasible, or at least much more complex,” he says. “In addition, the majority representation in the National Congress is not in the hands of workers, but rather of employers – and they have no interest in changing the current model. Just visit the website of the National Confederation of Commerce or the National Confederation of Industry to see their explicit defense of the unitary union model.”

For Lunard, reconnecting with workers will depend on the entities’ ability to create new sociabilities, with agendas beyond the world of work.

"Although work is central, because it concerns income and survival, people have very diverse views and interests on everyday and community issues," he says.

"Unions must seek strategies for this reconnection by integrating the labor agenda with others involving culture, gender equality, the end of racism, etc. And involve young people, invest in interactions via social networks, but so that digital democracy influences union democracy," he adds.