Two out of Ten Job Openings in Brazil Are for Daily or Hourly Work

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Introduced with the 2017 labor reform, the ultra-flexible intermittent employment system allows the employee to render services only when requested by the employer, for a certain number of hours or days, but assures the rights granted by the CLT (Labor Code) , such as proportional vacation and thirteenth salary.

The company will register the employee, even if the worker does not have an exclusive relationship, and may sign contracts with several employers.

Surrounded by many uncertainties as soon as it came into force over two years ago, the system has recently been gaining ground in the labor market and reached its peak in June, according to data from the General Registry of Employees and Unemployed (CAGED).

There were 10,177 jobs under this type of flexible contract, corresponding to 21 percent of the total of 48,436 jobs created in the country in June.

Over the first half of the year, the system also increased. The intermittent work model’s share of formal job opportunities rose from 5.5 percent in the first half of 2018 to 9.4 percent over the same period this year.

Even though it is growing, the system prompts debate. While critics argue that this type of flexible contract is highly precarious and unconstitutional, supporters say that the intermittent model stimulates the hiring of informal workers who currently live on “odd jobs,” entitling them to a number of additional rights provided for in the Labor Code.

Judge Luciana Conforti, Director of Training and Culture of the National Association of Labor Justice Magistrates (ANAMATRA) evaluates that the intermittent work contract is unconstitutional because it violates the employment system, human dignity, the commitment to professionalization and the minimum level of protection due to people who need to live from their work, in addition to curtailing the right to integration in the company.

Labor economist Renan Pieri, a professor at FGV (Getúlio Vargas Foundation), maintains that at a time when unemployed, under-employed and under-used workers total more than 28 million people, this discussion is no longer relevant.

“It’s not that it’s not important to discuss, but in the absence of this type of contract, wouldn’t we would have even more unemployment today?” he asks.