|
|
The tone of labor reform eliminated the need to discuss any and all more relevant topics through collective bargaining with union entities, a situation that continued until the introduction of Law No. 13,467/2017. "For Ricardo Calcini, a professor, critic and labor consultant, from a collective point of view this decision is consistent with decisions already taken by unions, professionals and companies. " This is a decision taken within the parameters set out in the Federal Constitution, since it concerns the issue of working hours and this negotiation can actually be verified under the provisions of the Constitution itself. Of course, the intention of the legislators in 1988 was to have this negotiation be conducted in a collective manner. As a result, the legislators in 2017 expanded this possibility because there is such a loose norm that as long as the minimum survival minimum stipulated by laborers is respected, You can agree on working hours. The Federal Supreme Court itself was in Topic 1,046, when he dealt with the generality of the superiority of negotiated content over legislative content.
Domain partner Eduardo Alcântara Lopes considers the Supreme Court's decision to be positive and supports common conduct in agreements between workers and employers. He believed that the judgment left no turning point and correctly understood the 36-hour work system and the 12-hour work system within the concepts stipulated in Article 13 and Article 7 of the Constitution. “This decision is to provide greater strength to the now-questioned labor reforms, and is also a step forward for both employers and employees. /url] Recognition of the actions taken over the years, thus making possible various business models based on the 12 x 36 working day." Alcantara López said, "The adoption of the above-mentioned dates by personal agreement The odds do not alter the likelihood that the union will defend the interests of the professional category and therefore the thesis supported by the National Federation of Health Workers at trial does not affect the interests of the union." It stands. There is no flexibility in labor rights here to the detriment of professional categories.
Trade union strategy João Guilherme Walski de Almeida, lawyer and master in constitutional law at the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), said that after almost six years of validity, the labor reform Questions remain about the constitutionality of some of the provisions introduced in . And, for him, the STF's decision raises concerns about the importance of collective bargaining, "an institution chosen by the federal constitution to regulate special circumstances between employers and trade unions." "For the company, the decision guarantees greater legal security. However, taking into account the 12 x 36 system, the adoption of which has become more flexible, may harm the health of workers." Member of the Law Firm Gasam Advocacia, Attorney, Professor André Ricardo Lopes believes that this decision was taken recklessly. "With 'negotiations' or 'agreements' we understand mutual concessions between the parties, but as we all know, in In this case, workers do not have the right to raise any issues in this regard, and the national nature may lead to the extraterritorial application of laws regulating digital platforms.
|
|
发表于 2024-1-22 14:20:49