Proteção do trabalhador em face da automação: eficácia jurídica e social do inciso xxvii do art. 7º da constituição brasileira

Abstract

This work analyzes the legal and social effectiveness of Article 7, XXVII of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, in searching of its potential effects and its relation to modern labor, employment and income public policies. In this sense, to interpret a normative type like that calls non-attachment to formalism, the use of traditional methods of interpreting, especially the teleological and systematic, beyond the specific constitutional, as the principle of effectiveness. Of all, to materialize the Constitution is what is wanted. In terms of effectiveness, that specie is an inclusive category: principle, rule and postulate, therefore, impose objectives, consigns behaviours, serving as orientation for specific legislation, respectively. This study then builds the reading of that clause by the dimensions of the right - axiological, normative and sociological – to say that ‘protection’ is equivalent to safety, and 'automation' appears as form of unemployment and adaptation by the evolution and adaptation of production techniques. The investigation covers itineraries in order to assert that the problem of automation is controversial, but the need for protection, there are policies for entrepreneurship, social and solidarity economies and the Unemployment Insurance Program. All of them work the income and then, to qualify as security motivators in face of unemployment. The Unemployment Insurance Program, works, though, the intermediation of manpower. This last policy, for hermeneutical, historical and legislative reasons, keeps connection with worker protection in face of automation, but needs to be improved with use of the Internet, mainly in order to balance resource management through professional training, dialogue with employers and in the transit of workers to other policies. The investigation theoretical starting point is the doctrine of neoconstitutionalism. The methodology used is qualitative, when used in national and foreign authors, and quantitative on the presentation of charts and graphs, respectively, on practices of workplace policies, employment and income.