New union tax includes “blackmail” and will face resistance in Congress

The bill by the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) that could triple the value of the old union tax must face resistance in Congress and among economic agents, according to specialists and parliamentarians interviewed by the People’s Gazette.

The proposal, which must be presented by September to the Chamber of Deputies, is a measure by the PT management to resume financing for unions, after the end of the mandatory union tax with the Labor Reform of the government of former President Michel Temer (MDB), in 2017.

The resumption of the contribution has been on the agenda since the election campaign. Lula committed with the centrals to recreate a system to supply the coffers of the entities. In addition, the Minister of Labor, Luiz Marinho, spent the entire first half of the year criticizing the end of the tax and the labor reform for the “financial suffocation” of the unions.

A study carried out by the Inter-Union Department of Statistics (Dieese) showed that union collections fell by 98% after the reform, from R$ 3.6 billion in 2017 to R$ 68 million in 2023.

On the other hand, federal deputy Any Ortiz (Cidadania-RS) classified the government project as a major setback. According to her, there will be intense mobilization if the Executive insists on presenting the text.

“The fall in revenues allows us to say that the worker did not feel represented by the unions that today are fully equipped and an arm of the PT”, stated the deputy.

Senator Rogério Marinho, who was the rapporteur for the Labor Reform and the leader of the opposition in the Senate, was even tougher and criticized the proposal through social networks. “The pelegos who had the infamous obligatory union tax subtracted, with the labor reform, are back with full force in the PT’s setback agenda. We will be vigilant to avoid this further appropriation of the Brazilian worker’s salary”, said Marinho.

Adjustments will be conditioned to the approval of the contribution

According to the proposal, the new rate would be linked to wage readjustment agreements intermediated by unions and limited to up to 1% of the worker’s annual income, to be deducted directly from wages, including non-union members. That means a value of up to three and a half days of work, according to experts. Two-thirds of the amount collected would be allocated to unions, and the remainder distributed among labor confederations.

Every time there are negotiations on salary readjustments and other benefits, one of the points to be defined will be the union contribution. This means that wage adjustments will only be guaranteed when the union contribution amount for that round of debates is accepted by workers.

The government’s argument is that funding is essential for the basic work of the entities and that it is no longer a compulsory tax, but negotiated in assembly.

“If the union is providing a service, allowing a wage increase, it is fair that the non-unionized worker pays the contribution. If he does not accept paying the fee, just go to the assembly and vote against it”, stated the Minister of Labor to the newspaper. The globe.

Proposal includes “blackmail” and over-strengthening of union monopoly

The main concern that Congress should have when appraising the project, according to José Pastore, a professor at FEA-USP, is with the over-strengthening of union entities, which today have a monopoly on negotiation. “By current legislation, unions have the power to negotiate, set values ​​and even to define the criteria for the right to opposition”.

According to him, unions usually make the process of requesting exemption to workers who do not agree with the taxation as difficult as possible. “They ask for a signed letter, to be filed in person on a day and at an appointed time, often at meetings, to embarrass opponents among other union members”, he says.

There is another troublesome point. For Pastore, the contribution cannot serve as “blackmail” for receiving benefits from negotiations with employers. “You cannot tie one thing to another, because the law does not allow another sphere of negotiation, except the union of the category”.

Fundamental, according to the professor, would be to abolish union unity to enable competition between category representatives. The end of uniqueness, however, can only be determined through a Proposed Parliamentary Amendment to the Constitution (PEC). “The discussion should start there, not with the bill. But Brazil is always the ‘puxadinho’ country”, summarizes Pastore.

Minister talks about negotiation, but tax is mandatory

For Thiago Collodel, managing partner of Araúz Advogados, the way it is designed, it is a mandatory tax, similar to the extinct one, since the right of opposition is not guaranteed. That is, workers who do not agree do not have the option of not collecting.

According to him, on the occasion of the reform, one of the most praised points was the end of compulsory. “It was a way of forcing the unions to do their homework and become representative. “The way it is, in addition to being a setback, the project violates the principle of irreducibility of wages, guaranteed by the Constitution”.

Pastore agrees with the need to establish the right to opposition. It is also necessary, for him, to regulate the participation of non-union members in assemblies with voting power, since, according to the proposal, they will also be charged.