Entre turnos e lutas: a escala 6 x 1, o precariado brasileiro e as consequências para a saúde mental dos trabalhadores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a scenario of increasing precarization of labor relations in Brazil, the 6 x 1 work schedule –which imposes six consecutive days of work for a single day of rest –emerges as one of the most normalized yet cruel regulatory devices in the daily life of wage workers. Furthermore, its legal validity, supported by Article 67 of the Brazilian Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), is often interpreted as a guaranteed right, although in practice it represents the consolidation of a logic that overburdens the body, compromises social life, and weakens the mental health of millions. Therefore, this article aims to reflect on the psychosocial and existential effects of the 6 x 1 schedule within the context of the Brazilian working class, especially amongthe segment known as the “precariat” –that is, workers who face chronic insecurity, unstable contracts, and lack of established labor rights. In this sense, the object of this research focuses on a critical analysis of the schedule as a “device that reproduces structural psychic suffering” in the contemporary world of labor. In other words, it seeks to understand how the temporality imposed by this schedule is articulated with factors such as labor intensification, deregulation of work relations, and the individualization of suffering in neoliberal societies. It is important to highlight that, when dealing with individuals affected by multiple vulnerabilities –such as youth, women, Black people, and peripheral populations –the schedule operates not only as an imposition of labor time, but as a mechanism of life depletion beyond work. Thus, the guiding question of this research is: how does the 6 x 1 schedule, as a form of work time organization, contribute to the intensification of psychological sufferingand the deepening of life precarization in contemporary Brazil? Theoretically, we draw on the works of Antunes (2005; 2009; 2018; 2020; 2021), Bader Sawaia (2016), Butler (2004; 2009; 2017; 2019), Byung-Chul Han (2015; 2017; 2025), Dardot and Laval (2016), David Harvey (2000), Dejours (1987; 1992; 1994; 2006; 2009; 2011; 2013; 2015), Dunker (2015), Durkheim (1999; 2014), Ferreras (2017), Lordon (2010; 2013; 2014), Hardt and Negri (2001), Isabelle Ferreras (2017), Souza Martins (2012), Karl Marx (1844; 1845; 1867), Lessa (2007), Weber (2004), Richard Sennett (1998; 2002; 2012), among others. The research adopts a qualitative (Minayo, 2007), bibliographic and descriptive (Gil, 2008) approach, with a critical-comprehensive analytical framework (Weber, 2004). The analysis revealed that the 6 x 1 schedule functions as a structuring mechanism of life precarization, intensifying workers’ psychological suffering through the capture of time, normalization of exhaustion, and fragmentation of social bonds. Moreover, itwas found that this work model disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, reinforces historical inequalities, and undermines self-care and the care of others. Finally, it was concluded that the schedule not only regulates work time, but redefines the very meaning of existence under the logic of performance and submission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".