In an interview with Estadão, Wagner Lenhart argued that the Senate should abandon the discussion on the return of the “bonus” for judges, prosecutors and lawyers: “If approved, once again, the poorer majority, which has no power to lobbying, pay the bill’
BRASÍLIA – The Proposal to Amend the Five Year Constitution (PEC) produces a situation of instability in the public finances which risks generating a permanent block which would cost the public coffers around 40 billion reais, as warned by the Ministry of Finance. Per Wagner Lenhart, executive director of Millennium Institutethe measure has an “irresponsible, indefensible and immoral” face because it aggravates inequality in public service.
“We cannot forget that we live in a low-middle income country, which has various social problems, where those who receive R$7,000 are already part of the richest 10%. In a scenario like this, a proposal that brings this kind of benefit to people who have much higher salary levels does not seem to make any sense and, if approved, once again the poorer majority who have no lobbying power will pay the bill ,” Lenhart said Estadao.
The PEC is signed by the president of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG), and provides for the repayment every five years of the payment of additional hours of service (ATS) for careers in the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor and, therefore, is called the period five years. The text being drafted by Congress provides for a 5% increase in salaries for each period, which could reach a maximum of 35% of the constitutional ceiling.
The amount will be paid without being calculated within the limit of the salary cap that a public employee can receive on a monthly basis. Today this amount is equivalent to the remuneration of a minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), R$44,008.52.
Lenhart argues that the Senate should abandon the discussion on the PEC and focus on approving the bill that limits Super Salaries by regulating the payment of compensation funds, also known as “penduricalhos”. As demonstrated by Estadaothe proposal is blocked in the Constitution and Justice Commission (CCJ) while the PEC advances.
Below are the main excerpts from the interview:
What is your diagnosis on the possible impacts of the Quinquennium PEC, both from the point of view of the budget and of the careers covered? Is there anything positive?
I consider this measure irresponsible, indefensible and immoral. Violates good management practices. It goes against the necessary modernization of the state. Strengthens benefits for those already earning high salaries. It further compromises the fiscal balance. Difficult to find positive points in this PEC. Even with favorable arguments, such as talent retention, it doesn’t seem to hold water.
Especially in the private market, we will see that this “turnover” (staff turnover rate)these layoffs are few, and when they do occur, there is often a transition to other similar careers that have some type of added benefit.
Therefore, the argument in favor of the PEC seems to me to be, in fact, not standing still. The other argument that current careers do not attract new talent also does not seem to make sense. If we look at the demand and registrations for public competitions for these elite careers, we normally have a very high number of applicants per vacancy. People put years of study into preparing to take these competitions, so there is a huge investment and interest in passing. There is a lot of interest among people in pursuing these careers, and it seems to be increasing, which shows that they are already very attractive.
Even the topic of talent loss seems to have little relevance. This is not happening in a way that should concern us. And I say all this with great respect for the professionals who work in these areas.
It is clear that judges, prosecutors and all careers contemplated or covered by this PEC are extremely important careers. But we cannot forget that we live in a low-middle income country, which presents several social problems, where anyone who receives R$7,000 is already in the richest 10%. In a scenario like this, a proposal that brings this type of benefit to people who have much higher salary levels does not seem to make any sense and, if approved, once again it will be the poorer majority who have no lobbying power who will pay the price. I count. .
Is the advancement of this proposal in the Senate a demonstration of the strength of the magistrates’ associations and the judicial lobby?
It is clear that there are groups, not just associations of judges, who have the ability to articulate, argue and be close to decision makers who help in movements like this.
The groups you mentioned have this ability. They have this ability to mobilize, to be present in Brasilia, to talk to deputies and senators. This undoubtedly exists. Other groups also have this power, but the great truth is that often, and here they apply to different topics, an organized and enterprising minority ends up having a very large influence and often with an impact on the majority that does not have the same capacity to articulation or presence in Parliament.
These people are minding their own business, or often fighting for their own survival, and cannot be present in Brasilia to influence public policies. So this undoubtedly exists: an organized minority that drives the decision-making process, often to the detriment of the silent majority that does not have the opportunity to make its voice heard in Brasilia.
From a management point of view, is there any argument that justifies the return of this benefit?
On the one hand, there is the question of the morality of an act like this at a time when we are experiencing great fiscal pressure and limitations that both the population and the executive must face. If you look not only at this episode, while the population and the executive are always faced with a reality of scarcity, the judiciary seems to live in a world of abundance disconnected from the reality of the rest of the country.
So there is this fiscal nature and the limitations that the Brazilian state has from a financial point of view. But there is the problem of managing people and modernizing the state. Brazil urgently needs to modernize its state structure, especially personnel management.
I think one of the problems we have in the country, in relation to the provision of good public services, or the failure to provide good public services, is the lack of good strategic management of people. Historically, public bodies have neglected the area of people management.
Normally in municipalities, states and even in the Union it is a personnel department that only manages payroll and carries out routine activities, such as holidays, holiday planning, and does not consider people management as something truly strategic for the organization.
When I talk about people management and they present a compensation benefit based solely on time, which doesn’t take into account what really matters, i.e. productivity, commitment, delivery, performance evaluation, it’s counterproductive and a step backwards. It’s not progress. So, I think it goes against what should be a process of modernization of the state.
The president of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco, spoke about the possibility of a combination of projects. The Quinquennium PEC would be approved and, in exchange, the Supersalários Project would be approved. If the proposal limiting super wages were approved, would the damage from the PEC be reduced?
A provision like this (PEC dos Quinquênios) goes against what is requested with the law on supersalaries, because it will insert into the Constitution the compensatory nature of this remuneration, which, unless there is a better evaluation, would eliminate the impact of the constitutional ceiling. Even if changes were made to the law, considering that it is a PEC, it could prevail over the law. The PEC already constitutes an exception to what is proposed in the Super Wages Law
This is also a Brazilian problem. We created the civil service cap with the intent of establishing a maximum pay for public employees, and exceptions are constantly being sought to circumvent this rule. Various moves have been made, through laws and PECs like this one, to circumvent the public employment ceiling. Same thing with benefit payments. It was established that careers would be paid with a subsidy and exceptions to this subsidy rule are continually being proposed, such as this PEC we are discussing now.
So, Brazil always does its own thing and creates exceptions to the rule. This is the problem I see. They are antagonistic projects. It would be appropriate to move forward with the law on super wages, to moralize it, to put an end to these little things, these exceptions, these accounts that are given for not respecting the main rule and not voting for the PEC.
Source: Terra
Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.
