Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:27:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
FlavioHRC_DISSERT.pdf: 1732376 bytes, checksum: 8c792fe0f38262c190c5973d6c22abdd (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2012-09-28 / The paper investigates the legal mechanisms used by the Legislature and the Executive to
implement the constitutional principle of the teacher s minimum wage, which is proclaimed
in the Constitution as a strategy of professional appreciation for this category. The text
demonstrates that the legal mechanisms used to value the teacher were: the 1988 Constitution,
the constitutional amendments to this Charter updated and modified the original text in
relation to the matter, and finally, the Minimum Wage Law . Article n? 206 of 1988 s
Federal Constitution established that basic education teachers, who work in public schools,
would be entitled to a national minimum wage. Law n? 11.738/2008 ( Minimum Wage Law )
regulated the matter and made other determinations on the relationship between the State and
the teachers such as the establishment of parameters for the distribution of the workload of
teachers. Based on this law, since 2009 the minimum wage has been set annually by the
Federal Government. However, state governments and municipalities throughout Brazil
protested prescriptions contained in the Minimum Wage Law . In this context, some
governors and mayors led the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of this law. The
complainants considered that there was unconstitutional by the following: definition of the
teacher s workday, which in the complainants point of view was competence of local
governments; ensuring that teachers receive salaries tied to the minimum wage with
retroactive effect; transformation of the minimum wage in basic salary, lack of sufficient
budget in the states and municipalities to honor with the new values to be paid to teachers
and, finally, determining workload for the teacher to perform other activities besides
classroom activities. At the trial held at the STF the majority of Ministers rejected the claim
and considered that the Minimum Wage Law , taken together, was constitutional. However,
this decision did not alter the position of the managers or the interpretation of the ministers
who agreed with the unconstitutionality of some aspects of the law. This means that one law
can present differences in interpretation between ordinary people and among members of the
Judiciary. The search showed the following conclusions: the law is not a definitive parameter
of justice, because it is deeply linked to various interests; the development, implementation,
and judgment of laws dealing with minimum wage of teaching are linked to historical and
cultural aspects of society; the demand for enhancement of teacher and setting a minimum
wage has only emerged in the late twentieth century, a fact explained in this work based on
data that indicate the recent concern of Brazilian State with schooling a phenomenon
typically Republican and with the professionalization of teaching emerging concern from
the knowledge society; the Legislative and Executive search mechanism to implement the
minimum wage of the teachers because of the contemporary need for professionalization of
teaching / O trabalho investiga os mecanismos jur?dicos usados pelo Legislativo e pelo Executivo para concretizar o princ?pio constitucional do piso salarial do professor, princ?pio esse proclamado na Constitui??o como uma estrat?gia de valoriza??o profissional dessa categoria. O texto demonstra que os mecanismos jur?dicos usados para a valoriza??o do professor foram os seguintes: a Constitui??o de 1988; as emendas constitucionais que atualizaram essa Carta e modificaram o texto original no tocante ? mat?ria; e, finalmente, a Lei do Piso . O Artigo n? 206 da Constitui??o Federal de 1988 estabeleceu que os professores do ensino b?sico, que atuam em escolas da rede p?blica, teriam direito a um piso salarial nacional. A Lei n? 11.738/2008 ( Lei do Piso ) regulamentou a mat?ria e apresentou outras determina??es sobre a rela??o que o Estado deveria manter com o magist?rio como, por exemplo, a cria??o de par?metros para a distribui??o da carga hor?ria de trabalho do docente. Com base nessa Lei, desde 2009 o piso vem sendo definido anualmente pelo Governo Federal. Todavia, governos estaduais e prefeituras municipais de todo o Brasil protestaram contra prescri??es contidas na Lei do Piso . Nesse clima de protesto, alguns governadores e prefeitos provocaram a Suprema Corte acerca da constitucionalidade dessa Lei. Os reclamantes consideravam que a inconstitucionalidade existia em raz?o dos seguintes aspectos: defini??o da jornada de trabalho do professor, que na vis?o dos reclamantes era atribui??o dos estados e prefeituras; garantia de que os professores receberiam sal?rios vinculados ao piso com efeito retroativo; transforma??o do piso salarial em vencimento b?sico; aus?ncia de or?amento suficiente nos estados e munic?pios para honrar com os novos valores a serem pagos aos professores; finalmente, determina??o de carga hor?ria para o professor realizar outras atividades al?m de ministrar aulas. No julgamento realizado no STF a maioria dos Ministros julgou improcedente o pleito dos gestores p?blicos reclamantes e considerou que a Lei do Piso no seu conjunto era constitucional. Entretanto, essa decis?o n?o alterou a posi??o dos gestores nem a interpreta??o dos ministros que concordaram com a inconstitucionalidade de alguns aspectos da lei. Isso significa que uma mesma lei pode apresentar diverg?ncias interpretativas entre pessoas comuns e entre membros do pr?prio Poder Judici?rio. A pesquisa apontou as seguintes conclus?es: a lei n?o ? par?metro definitivo de justi?a, pois ela est? profundamente vinculada a interesses diversos; a elabora??o, a implanta??o e o julgamento das leis que tratam do piso salarial do magist?rio se vinculam aos aspectos hist?ricos e culturais da sociedade; a demanda por valoriza??o do professor e fixa??o de um piso salarial s? surgiu no final do s?culo XX, fato explicitado no trabalho a partir de dados que indicam a recente preocupa??o do estado brasileiro com a educa??o escolar fen?meno tipicamente republicano e com a profissionaliza??o do professor preocupa??o emergente a partir da sociedade do conhecimento; os poderes Legislativo e Executivo procuram mecanismos para implantar o piso salarial do professor em raz?o da necessidade contempor?nea de profissionaliza??o do magist?rio.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.ufrn.br:123456789/13936 |
| Date | 28 September 2012 |
| Creators | Carneiro, Fl?vio Henrique Rodrigues |
| Contributors | CPF:94196834434, http://lattes.cnpq.br/3456431841933671, Saraiva, Paulo Lopo, CPF:01182528449, http://lattes.cnpq.br/6450878641547863, Silveira Neto, Otac?lio dos Santos, CPF:60210060468, http://lattes.cnpq.br/0028350291435071, Mendon?a, Fabiano Andr? de Souza |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Direito, UFRN, BR, Constitui??o e Garantias de Direitos |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRN, instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, instacron:UFRN |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds