Government project for applications reduces autonomy and driver earnings

The regulation of work through apps, presented in a complementary bill by the government, contains “paradoxes” and “inconsistencies”, in addition to restricting drivers’ autonomy, according to an assessment by experts consulted by the People’s Gazette.

The project being processed in the Chamber creates the category of “four-wheel vehicle platform worker” and included the participation of representatives of drivers and companies, such as Uber and 99. It was celebrated by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) for combining “autonomy with social security guarantees”.

Lawyer and consultant Eduardo Pastore sees a “great paradox” in the text, which begins by defining the worker as self-employed, but, from the third article onwards, starts to regulate the relationship as if it were based on the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT).

Criteria are established such as minimum working hours, a fixed hourly rate based on the minimum wage, in addition to social security contributions – deducted at source and collected by companies – and the creation of a category union. The text also defines parameters for disconnecting or suspending the driver from the platform.

“The conclusion is that there are so many constraints, so many rules, that the worker is not autonomous at all. It’s an ultra-regulated relationship, with working hours, remuneration and Social Security. In the end, they kind of created a strange figure”, he says Shepherd.

Bruna Pereira Longhi, from Rocha Pombo & Andrade Advogados, assesses that the project has “the appearance of CLT and CLT restrictions, but tries to camouflage a relationship with the same labor consequences, without bringing all the benefits of the modality”.

Government rules do not protect drivers’ autonomy

Autonomy, an inherent aspect of working through applications, is not preserved, according to Longhi. The project explains that there should not be an exclusive relationship between the driver and the platform. However, by establishing a minimum working day of eight hours and a maximum of 12 hours, the text does not make it clear how the working hours can be divided between two or more platforms.

“There are many points that raise doubts. The application of non-exclusivity is fragile, it brings contradictions. Autonomy would mean that drivers have the possibility of working as many hours as they want and for which application they want”, he states.

Pastore also raises obscure points. “If the driver wants to do eight hours on one platform and four on another, can he? If he wants to do eight on each one, how do you do it? How can you even compute it? Because there is a whole journey control mechanism to be able to acquire these rights”, he states.

For the consultant, the worker may end up working 12 hours for a single platform, which will open up loopholes for judicialization. “The driver may feel that, in practice, he is being exclusive and claim the employment relationship,” he says. “Exactly the point that the project was supposed to pacify.”

Collective agreements restrict driver independence per app

Another point that restricts the independence of drivers, according to Longhi, is the creation of unions of workers and employers, which must conclude collective agreements and represent the parties in legal actions.

“The law establishes that the clauses negotiated in conventions and approved in the assembly cannot be revoked on an individual basis. In other words, the worker will be subject to what is established in the negotiations, hostage to rules signed in a collective agreement. Autonomy is already there committed”, he explains.

Pastore remembers that unions represent CLT workers, not freelancers. “It’s another paradox, another contradiction. The government is trying to bring these workers closer to the unions, who will engage in collective bargaining, seek more rights. And they will charge their share, with contributions. Uber drivers themselves say they don’t want this. For them It’s good the way it is, earning well. They don’t want to pay unions”, he says.

Social Security contributions can reduce salaries and make racing more expensive

Social security rates are also a point of questioning. The worker will pay 7.5% of the “contribution salary” (25% of gross income) and the company will pay 20%.

In Pastore’s opinion, this is a high cost for the platforms, especially because drivers, unlike motorcycle couriers, have fewer accidents and require less use of the Unified Health System (SUS) and aid paid by the INSS. “Paying 20% ​​Social Security for all these people could make the business unviable. It’s a big blow,” she says.

Bruna Longhi believes that it is very unlikely that companies will bear this social security cost, which should reduce the cost of the fare for drivers and, ultimately, increase the value of the service to the consumer. The project foresees R$32.09 per hour of work, with R$8.02 relating to races and R$24.07 relating to driver costs. Thus, the monthly remuneration will be at least one minimum wage (R$1,412).

“The established value is per hour worked, and not per hour that is available on the application. The driver will stop charging for trips to receive the value per hour worked, with time limitations. The value may vary in the end depending on the quantity of hours he will work. The company, precisely, may think, ‘I’m going to reduce the travel cost, and ensure that only the minimum is paid’. So it will pass on this 20%. These provisions were very imprecise in the project”, says Longhi.

Project serves the interests of the government and companies, says Fembrapp

Denis Moura, director of the Federation of Drivers for Applications (Fembrapp), which brings together 30 associations and represents around 100,000 drivers in the country, says that the project limits the driver’s earnings and takes away autonomy, “which was already little”. “The company will divide the rides between the drivers so that everyone will only receive the minimum hour”, he says.

For him, the project is “extremely” bad for the worker and the user, who will end up bearing the contributions.

“Let it be clear that this story that the company will pay 20% of the INSS is pure ‘idle talk’, because the companies do not declare how much the fare is. You, as a passenger, do not know how much you pay in fare for the ride The driver doesn’t know either,” says Moura.

“The rate discounted on each ride varies from 20% to 40%, sometimes up to 50% of the amount paid by the user. If the company manipulates the price of the trip, because no one knows what the fare is on the apps, it will obviously manipulate the 20% and who will pay this is the driver and also the passenger”, he adds.

Furthermore, Moura claims that the total rate of 27.5% entitles the driver to the same security that he would have as an Individual Microentrepreneur (MEI). But it collects much less: in commerce, services and industry activities, the MEI social security contribution is 5%; for the truck driver MEI, 12%.

“The project makes the government the “majority partner” of applications [por conta das contribuições previdenciárias]”, says the director of Fembrapp.

Driver protests are expected to intensify across the country

For the director of Fembrapp, the terms of the project were established with the consent of companies and unions that do not have effective representation of workers.

“When it created the working group, the government aimed to talk only with established unions, the overwhelming majority without app drivers on their staff. But that was who the government would like to talk to. They artificially transformed themselves into category unions. We [da Fembrapp] we had to force our way into the Ministry group [do Trabalho]”, he states.

Protests by drivers against the project have taken place in cities across the country, such as Goiânia, Belo Horizonte, Manaus and Brasília. In Rio de Janeiro, mobilization is scheduled for March 26th and in São Paulo, for April 2nd. “Nobody is accepting this,” says Moura.

The director of Fembrapp informs that a group of drivers will visit parliamentarians’ offices in Brasília to discuss the issue. The project is being processed under a constitutional urgency regime, which means that the Chamber and Senate will have 45 days each to vote on the matter.

The group’s priority is to try to withdraw the urgent request, which, for Moura, is a way of trampling on discussions. “It took them a year to do it and now they want to vote urgently? It’s so they don’t have time to react. But we’re going to try to overturn the project,” she says. “It’s not even worth making amendments”, says the director of Fembrapp.