|
|
Both websites report that the total market would be estimated at R$ billion and, obviously, this amount tends to grow, as convictions do not cease in the Labor Court, generating on average almost R$ billion more every year of a current asset, according to the statistical reports that can be found on the Superior Labor Court website. It has long been heard in the corridors of labor forums, but without any type of proof, that some lawyers use this practice, "buying" their clients' labor complaints, which would obviously be conduct repudiated by the category itself for, at least, harm the ethics of the profession. The situation covered by the current news, however, is very different. This is the exercise of the legitimate interest of the credit holder in negotiating it, either to avoid the risk of possible default or to realize at least part of the amount due quickly. And nothing more natural, because, after all, workers who seek Labor Justice intend, after all, to receive money. Except in cases, which are quite minority, where the interest is different (reintegration or something like that). Labor culture has always been averse to the practice of credit assignment, even arguing that given its nutritional nature, labor credit could not be the subject of such negotiation. It was also understood that the competence to continue the labor action would be affected, since when transferring the credit the new holder would not be a worker, the credit losing its original nature.
Such understandings show a, let's Greece Phone Number say, romantic era of Labor Justice, where the feeling was purely to enforce labor rights to implement the social justice advocated in our Constitution, eradicating inequalities and pacifying the historic class struggle. The truth is that there is a gigantic market of interests around a way of being in Justice that involves billions of dollars and that, to be fed, needs to maintain the high level of litigation that has always been the hallmark of the labor area. Starting with the labor judiciary itself. There is a mentality that strong Justice is great Justice. The greater the number of actions and the dependence on the State judge to resolve disputes, the more public budget to feed the system, as the number of jurisdictional bodies needs to keep up with the number of actions. In other words, more judge positions, more courts, more judicial schools, more judge positions, more civil servants, more members of the Public Labor Ministry and so on. From this need, another market has arisen, where I even worked and still work a lot, that of public tenders. Books, handouts, classes and everything else for preparing candidates, a true million-dollar industry that, since the cut in the Labor Court budget, with the scarcity of new positions, has been reducing every year. In law it is not much different. With a value of convictions approaching R$ billion per year, just from contractual fees for plaintiffs' lawyers it can be estimated something around R$ billion annually, as it is quite common to set contractual risk fees in the amount of %. If we consider the contractual fees for company lawyers, there are many billions more.
These are impressive figures, but it is also important to remember that, currently, in Brazil, there are around ,, lawyers, something like lawyer for every inhabitants in the country, which obviously puts the production of actions that feed back on a mass scale. all these interests. There is, therefore, a great cyclical logic that requires things to continue as they always have been: more actions, more budget, more positions, more competitions, more fees, more books, more courses, in short, more everything. And now, more credits to be sold. It is evident that any act against this Ferris wheel must be promptly and frontally opposed, as was the case with the Labor Reform. Of all the changes in the new law, the ones that generated the most debate were those that affected the logic of the labor market: the liability of claimants in the event of failure and the end of unrestricted free employment, which reduced the number of lawsuits. The data is clear: after the reform, the drop reached % in , although in there was already a quantitative recovery in the number of shares. In , statistics cannot be considered, as the new coronavirus pandemic has immensely affected the functioning of Justice and the work of lawyers. And what exactly does this all mean? What conclusions can we draw from these data? Simple: that the entire debate about labor rights actually hides the interest in maintaining these markets.
|
|
發表於 2024-3-12 16:44:54