Um debate sobre a positivação do direito de greve na Constituição de 1988

• Autor(a) principal: Melgaço, Gabriel Pitta Pinheiro de Souza
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: gmelgaç[e-mail]
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/20114
• topic: History of Law; Right to strike; Constituent; Democratic state; Constitution; Democracy; História do Direito; Direito de Greve; Constituinte; Estado Democrático de Direito; Constituição; Democracia; CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PRIVADO::DIREITO DO TRABALHO

The Brazilian legal and constitutional tradition regarding the right to strike moves towards the criminalization, delegitimization and unfeasibility of its full exercise by Brazilian workers. Depending on the political context, different blocking mechanisms have been developed to deprive the worker of full control of going on strike. Most legal studies on Strike consider the wording contained in the 1988 Letter to be a chronological and natural advance of the legal understanding of the time. However, even though the Right to Strike was elevated to the category of Social Rights, the strikes launched after 1988 continued to be severely repressed by legal acts or omissions of the institutions. In view of this scenario, knowing the mechanisms of blocking the right to strike in past legislation, I intend to investigate and confront the process of affirmation of the right to strike in the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988, from the draft of Afonso Arinos, to the final wording. enacted, to answer some relevant questions: after all, did the enacted wording represent a break with the Brazilian tradition of prohibiting or making unfeasible the full exercise of the right to strike? Which groups and interests prevailed and which arguments won? What were the unsuccessful arguments? What blocking or unfeasible strategies were used? The answers first depend on a dive into the political scene of the time. Knowing the scenario, the board where the dynamics of forces influenced the directions of the constituent, as well as the disposition of the pieces in play, removes the false idea that the moment of redemocratization was of full consensus. Understanding the universe of forces and interests, I proceed to analyze the debates, the arguments about the right to strike, how these arguments materialized in proposals and which proposals won and lost. The Sarney Government's actions against the strike deserve attention. From the analysis of the political speeches in the annals of the constituent, it is sought to better understand the strategies, the dynamics of interests and forces favorable and contrary to the recognition of the right to strike. Through a diachronic analysis and without restricting the analysis to the positive legal text, problematizing this historical moment, in the experiences and legal consciences about the right to strike, the answers are emerging and removing any mists about the process of struggle and political and legal dispute over the right to strike.