Being retired and being employed are no longer mutually exclusive
Em toda sociedade que envelhece, surge a mesma tensão: o que fazer com o conhecimento que só o tempo constrói? A Câmara dos Deputados do Brasil votou nesta quinta-feira para abrir uma exceção à aposentadoria compulsória aos 75 anos para funcionários de empresas estatais, permitindo que especialistas em pesquisa, tecnologia e inovação continuem trabalhando — ou sejam recontratados — além desse limite. O projeto, que nasceu como um pedido específico dos pesquisadores da Embrapa e foi ampliado para abranger todas as estatais, segue agora para o Senado, onde o país terá de decidir até onde a experiência vale mais do que a renovação.
- A reforma previdenciária de 2019 criou um corte rígido: aos 75 anos, funcionários de estatais são obrigados a se aposentar, sem exceções — uma regra que pode expulsar décadas de conhecimento especializado de uma só vez.
- Pesquisadores da Embrapa foram os primeiros a sentir a pressão, alertando que projetos de longa duração e transferências de tecnologia ficam comprometidos quando especialistas insubstituíveis são forçados a sair.
- A deputada Bia Kicis ampliou o escopo do projeto original, transformando um alívio pontual para uma agência agrícola em uma válvula de escape para todas as empresas estatais brasileiras.
- O texto aprovado permite não apenas a permanência, mas também a recontratação por parte do mesmo empregador — dissolvendo a fronteira entre estar aposentado e estar empregado para trabalhadores em funções especializadas.
- O Senado ainda não pautou a matéria; se aprovada, a medida deverá ser aplicada de forma seletiva, retendo os mais valiosos enquanto o ciclo de renovação continua para os demais.
A Câmara dos Deputados aprovou nesta quinta-feira um projeto de lei que abre exceção à aposentadoria compulsória aos 75 anos para funcionários de empresas estatais. A regra atual, estabelecida pela reforma previdenciária de 2019, foi concebida para aliviar o peso da folha de pagamento das estatais e promover a renovação geracional. O projeto segue agora para o Senado.
A exceção vale para atividades de pesquisa, desenvolvimento tecnológico e inovação — áreas em que a perda de profissionais experientes pode comprometer projetos em andamento, a transmissão de conhecimento e a capacidade técnica das instituições. O texto também autoriza a recontratação de trabalhadores já aposentados, inclusive pelo mesmo empregador que os dispensou.
A proposta surgiu como resposta a uma demanda específica dos pesquisadores da Embrapa, a agência brasileira de pesquisa agropecuária. A deputada Bia Kicis, relatora do projeto, expandiu seu alcance para todas as estatais, ampliando consideravelmente o número de trabalhadores potencialmente beneficiados.
O regime previdenciário em si não muda: a aposentadoria compulsória aos 75 anos permanece. O que se altera é a consequência prática dessa aposentadoria — ela deixa de significar, necessariamente, o fim do vínculo empregatício para quem atua em funções especializadas. É um ajuste cirúrgico que busca equilibrar a disciplina fiscal da reforma original com o reconhecimento de que certos saberes não se substituem com facilidade.
Brazil's lower house of Congress voted Thursday to carve out an exception to one of the country's most rigid retirement rules. Under a 2019 pension overhaul, employees of state-owned companies face mandatory retirement at 75—a hard stop that severs their employment entirely. The new bill, now headed to the Senate, would allow those workers to keep their jobs past that threshold, at least in certain roles.
The exception applies specifically to work in research, technological development, and innovation—the kinds of specialized, knowledge-intensive roles where losing experienced people can damage an organization's capacity. The bill language is broad enough to cover not just the initial conception of a project but its continuation, the transfer of expertise to younger staff, and the preservation of technical knowledge that might otherwise walk out the door. Crucially, it also permits state companies to rehire workers after they've been forced into retirement, even by the same employer they just left.
The measure originated as a targeted request from researchers at Embrapa, Brazil's agricultural research agency, which generates technologies and innovations for the country's farming sector. Deputy Bia Kicis, who shepherded the bill through the chamber, expanded its scope considerably. What began as relief for a single institution now extends to all state enterprises, potentially affecting thousands of workers across the public sector.
The 2019 pension reform that established the 75-year cutoff was designed with two goals in mind: reducing the payroll burden on state companies and forcing through generational turnover in the workforce. Some state employers, like the postal service, have been aggressively pursuing voluntary departure packages, offering buyouts to workers who've already collected their government pensions but remain on the active payroll. The mandatory retirement age was meant to accelerate that process. This bill, in effect, gives those companies a pressure valve—they can now retain or rehire the people they need most, even as they push others toward the exit.
State company employees operate under Brazil's standard labor code, the CLT, which governs most of the private sector as well. The pension system itself remains unchanged; workers still face mandatory retirement at 75. What changes is whether that retirement must mean the end of employment. The bill makes clear that being retired and being employed are no longer mutually exclusive for these workers, at least in specialized fields.
The Senate has not yet taken up the measure. If it passes, the practical effect will likely be selective: companies will retain their most valuable researchers and innovators while still cycling out other workers. It's a compromise between the fiscal discipline that drove the original reform and the recognition that some expertise cannot be easily replaced.
Notable Quotes
The measure was designed to reduce payroll burden on state companies and force generational turnover in the workforce— Legislative intent from 2019 pension reform
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did they need to make this exception at all? If the 2019 reform was working as intended, why change it now?
Because Embrapa and other research institutions discovered they were losing irreplaceable people. You can replace a mid-level administrator, but losing a researcher who spent 30 years developing a specific technology is a real loss. The reform was blunt—it didn't distinguish between roles.
So this is really about protecting institutional knowledge?
Partly that. But it's also about the fact that research doesn't move on a generational schedule. A breakthrough might take decades. You can't just hand it off at 75 and expect continuity.
Does this undermine the original reform's goal of reducing payroll costs?
It could, but only for the workers they actually want to keep. The bill doesn't prevent companies from pushing other employees out at 75. It just gives them flexibility where it matters most.
And the rehiring part—that seems like it could be abused, doesn't it?
Potentially. A company could retire someone, then immediately rehire them at a lower salary. The bill doesn't address that. It just says it's now legally possible.