End of the FGTS anniversary withdrawal: Bank problem – 01/19/2023 – Market

The Minister of Labor and Employment, Luiz Marinho (PT), says that he thinks of the population, and not of the banks, when he defends the extinction of the FGTS birthday withdrawal (Guarantee Fund for Length of Service). The end of the modality, which today allows the annual redemption of part of the balance, has generated concern among financial institutions due to credit operations that use these resources as collateral.

“It’s the banks’ problem, not my problem. Nobody asked for a loan”, says Marinho in an interview with Sheet. “The birthday withdrawal empties, weakens the fund, and creates a trauma”, he says, in reference to the impossibility of the worker who opts for the modality to withdraw the full balance in cases of dismissal without just cause.

According to him, there is the possibility of dialoguing with financial institutions to block only new financing from now on, but, even so, he points out that “banks can find a way to hold the wave”.

Marinho still defends the unification of unions, reversing the trend of fragmentation encouraged, according to him, by the union tax itself —which will not be resumed. Read key excerpts from the interview:

The government instituted a working group to discuss the policy of valuing the minimum wage. What does the government bring to this negotiating table? What will the proposal be?

The government takes the disposition of dialogue. In 2005, we established a working group that created the policy of replacing inflation every year plus the consolidated GDP of the two previous years. What we see is this possibility, once again, of looking to the future and saying that we are going to have a growth process without causing an abrupt impact. Are we going to repeat exactly the same thing? We do not know yet. Let’s listen to the trade union movement and listen to the arguments of the government’s economic area to build something that will provide peace of mind for everyone.

In the campaign there was talk of using an average of the GDP growth of the previous five years. Is this a possibility?

I believe there will be a proposal for an average of five years, an average of three years. Let’s see what the economists come up with as a formula, if it has any innovative form. Of course there is [uma preocupação fiscal]there is not [determinação de] ‘let’s raise it’… Because, if not, we’d raise it now and period.

So a new increase is now already ruled out? I’m talking about the rise to R$ 1,320.

The technical group will also analyze this possibility. It’s 90 days of work. [Se houver] possibility of adjusting, will surely be presented to the president.

If Minister Fernando Haddad say that the new increase in 2023 is not feasible, will this be the last word or will the pressure continue?

The solidarity with Minister Haddad is the solidarity of Minister Haddad with us. We are a team, and our mission, regardless of the chair we sit in, is to take care of the country. It is having the responsibility to look at fiscal sustainability, predictability and also the responsibility to find ways that value the minimum wage.

Mr. defended, in an interview with the newspaper O Globo, ending the FGTS anniversary withdrawal. Afterwards, he went back and said that the topic would be the subject of a wide debate…

I didn’t go back. I said that, as always, there will be debate. This will be submitted to the Board of Trustees [do FGTS], which will meet in March. But I will forward to end the anniversary-looting.

For what reason?

Him [o FGTS] consisted of two tasks. An investment fund for housing and later also for sanitation, with the aim of creating jobs. The other, a savings account to protect the worker upon dismissal. The anniversary withdrawal deflates, weakens the fund, and creates trauma. Workers call me, send messages, saying: ‘look, stop this birthday withdrawal, because I got into this decoy’. Whoever is fired cannot withdraw the balance. It leaves the worker on the street of bitterness at the moment when he needs it most. It’s optional, but it’s wrong. If the salary is not enough, you have to go there and campaign, not withdraw a fund to protect yourself when you are fired.

Thousands of workers joined and took out loans with the withdrawal as collateral…

It’s the banks’ problem, not my problem. No one asked to borrow.

Would they have to bear the losses?

Febraban [Federação Brasileira dos Bancos] she is very worried about this, because she used the fund as collateral for the loan. The background is not for that. To support the payroll loan, you already have the payroll.

We are going to review the law. We can arrive, if this is the understanding built in the dialogue, [a uma proposta] to brake going forward. This we will build. Banks don’t worry for now.

Mr. first it says that the problem is with the banks, and then…

I’m worried about the workers, not the banks. Evidently we will need to increase the existing volume. We are not going to make a measure that creates an eventual trauma in the economy. It is in this sense that I tell the banks not to worry. Now, most likely banks can find a way to ride the wave.

About the labor reform, in the campaign there was a discussion, whether it was repeal, revision. Now, with the government elected, what is the perspective?

There is no going back to the past. You have to look to the future. Evidently there may be things there that need to be partially revoked. [A questão é] How to build a new legislation in the light of this moment, which has the objective of protecting the worker. Today there are many unprotected people. In the case of applications, you need to listen to them. There are parts that do not want, do not want the CLT regime [Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho], it might not even fit. But there is a lot of labor fraud. A lot of companies that hire a lot of MEI [microempreendedor individual] when the function is not MEI.

How to curb this?

Inspection and fine. It’s framing companies. Companies are very loose. It has rules, it has laws. If you are not going to comply with the law, you will be framed, simple as that. There is a fine from the Ministry of Labor, Revenue, Social Security.

In the case of app workers, will companies necessarily have to contribute?

Necessarily, of course.

Intermittent work should be one of those points to be revisited?

I don’t see a company resorting to intermittent work. But it will be visited for sure. Let’s evaluate the numbers, and if it’s not working, why have it?

Mr. said that there would be no return of the union tax. But, at the same time, the government defends a strengthening of unions, including financially. How to reconcile?

The union I presided over went without union dues for a number of years. We defined the support of the union in an assembly with the workers. When will the worker feel the urge to do this? When you have the benefit counterpart. What unions don’t like that? Those who do not represent, those who do not want to negotiate. We also need to encourage a decrease in the number of unions.

How to do this?

This unit of centrals will lead, I believe, to a process of reunification, incorporation of categories into other categories. You can have the industry union, you don’t need to have the metallurgist, the chemical, the I don’t know what. You can have a syndicate instead of four, five.

Why is there this spraying of unions today?

The union tax may have stimulated. It happened recently in a union, two slates disputed and the one that lost went there and created a new union, splitting the other one. We have to encourage the opposite. It’s not easy. We agree to discuss this, to offer this process to Congress. Now, who are truly masters of this process are the workers.

What would they gain? Greater bargaining power in negotiations?

Yes definitely.

President Lula thanked Congress for approving the increase in spending. Will the government be able to consolidate this majority?

It is possible, with a lot of work. Each and every deputy, from any party, who goes there [no ministério] because there is any situation, we will attend.

The Lula government accommodated parties such as União Brasil and PSD in search of governability and should do the same in the second echelon. Doesn’t that set up a give-and-take?

There’s no take it there. What has a co-responsibility process, the assumption. If you have a group in which they chose you, for example, to be a minister or president of an institution or secretary of this and that, it presupposes the co-responsibility of helping to govern. Helping to govern involves approving projects. The party took responsibility. If it doesn’t work, the party is responsible for that.

The president of the PT, Gleisi Hoffmann, denied in an interview that the ministries are going to be a ‘closed gate’. What mr. do you think of that?

The closed gate story is not a good one. We have a commander, who is President Lula, and everyone owes loyalty to Lula’s direction. It’s not party A, B or C. If it doesn’t match, it doesn’t work, exchange it. Because party A has indicated, is he untouchable? Do not. It has to work, it has to produce, it has to handle the given task.

What is your assessment of anti-democratic acts? President Lula said today that Bolsonaro is to blame because he incited hatred. Do you believe that Bolsonaro should be held accountable?

I see President Lula as the same. We cannot say that Bolsonaro has to be condemned. It’s the Judiciary, the Federal Police, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, you [Augusto] Aras [procurador-geral da República]. Our feeling is that he [Bolsonaro] he has responsibility insofar as he spent four years distilling, preaching, stimulating hatred, lies, fake news. Now, the degree of accountability is with the Judiciary.

What I think is that the intervention determined by President Lula had a lot of results. President Lula could not fall into the trap of enacting GLO [Garantia da Lei e da Ordem].

Would that be a trap?

It’s a feeling, it might not be. ‘Ah, nonsense, imagine, the Army wouldn’t…’ But the way he behaved, apparently it would be a hell of a trap. A strike advance, an evolution, or difficulty.

X-RAY

Luiz Marino, 63

Graduated in Law, he was a metallurgist in the 1970s, when he met President Lula. In 1996, he was elected president of the ABC Metallurgists Union, a position for which he reappointed twice more (1999-2002 and 2002-2003). Elected federal deputy, he was Minister of Labor from 2005 to 2007 and of Social Security from 2007 to 2008. He commanded the São Bernardo do Campo City Hall for two terms.