Novo mundo do trabalho: plataformas, pejotização, escala 6x1 e IAs | Entrevista com RICARDO ANTUNES

Summary (main arguments and news/commentary points)

• 1 May 2025 worker profile: more precarious and “platformized.” Ricardo Antunes argues that the working class today is far more fragmented, heterogeneous, and precarious, shaped by informality, outsourcing, and the rise of independent contractor/gig arrangements mediated by platforms. He frames this as a continuation of long labor struggles—now intensified rather than resolved.

• Structural change since the 1970s: neoliberalism and privatization of formerly public services. He points to the capitalist structural crisis of the 1970s and subsequent neoliberal trends as the turning point. Services that used to be public (education, health, utilities, infrastructure, social security) were increasingly privatized, becoming highly profitable sectors that also intensify exploitation.

• “Privilege of servitude” and the new service proletariat. Antunes claims that the growth of privatized service industries (e.g., call centers, hotels, retail/hypermarkets) helped create conditions for later platform labor. He argues that platform work extends this service-proletariat model into a digital age, turning workers into laborers without granting them the full status and protections of salaried employment.

• Platforms as a “Frankenstein coup”: hiring without employer responsibilities. He describes platform companies (Amazon, Uber, Mechanical Turk, and others) as rapidly expanding by using surplus labor plus technological acceleration to avoid labor rights and taxes. He emphasizes that workers can be controlled by algorithms while having no real control over the system.

• Technological progress coexisting with harsher exploitation. A core thesis is that advanced tools (algorithms, mobile dependence, “Internet of Things,” automation, Industry 4.0) are not designed primarily for human benefit. Instead, they help reduce living labor while allowing exploitation to intensify—producing longer days, reduced rest, and degraded conditions.

• Working hours as a central battleground: the 6x1 schedule and the push for 4x3. The interview focuses on Brazil’s debate over work schedules:

  • Antunes criticizes common practices where platform and service-sector workers effectively work far beyond legal limits (often 6 or 7 days a week, sometimes with no weekly rest).
  • He discusses legislative attempts—referring to a government bill as “disastrous”—that still permit extremely long platform workdays (e.g., up to 12 hours per day, which he notes would far exceed the typical legal weekly cap when combined across days).
  • He presents the 6x1 as emblematic of structural precarity, and argues that reducing hours (such as a 4x3 alternative) is necessary to address daily life impacts (childcare, family time, social life, fatigue).

• Union weakness in services and why hours reduction matters politically. He argues that the service and retail sectors are often less organized, with some unions acting as “sellouts,” making collective defense harder. Therefore, structural changes to working hours require self-organization and broader worker mobilization.

• International “rehearsals” show hour reduction can be done without losing productivity. Antunes cites experiences in countries such as England, Portugal, Spain, and Nordic nations as evidence that significant hour reductions can occur without pay loss and can expand social life—countering the claim that shorter hours automatically reduce productivity.

• Capitalistic competition and the “war of giants” slow real improvements. He argues that even when productivity could allow shorter workweeks, capital blocks it due to competitive pressures among large firms (he mentions conflicts between companies such as Mercado Livre and Amazon). He frames this as a system where “who wins loses,” leaving workers to bear the cost.

• Work-from-home and digitalization as both cost-cutting and control mechanisms. He highlights that remote work became a way to lower costs and blur boundaries between personal and work time, creating “unlimited” working hours and complicating collective action (he contrasts physical strikes with “digital strikes”).

• Struggle as the only path; May 1st as a continuation of labor history. In closing advice, he rejects the idea of individual salvation and argues workers must unite and organize. He points to the role of communication tools (e.g., WhatsApp used to coordinate and share income information) and references the platform worker strike timing (March 31 and April 1) as an example of collective action against algorithmic control and exploitation.

Presenters / contributors

• Fabiola Mendonça (reporter, Carta Capital)
• Ricardo Antunes (sociologist, professor at Unicamp; researcher on the world of work)