By GIL VICENTE REIS DE FIGUEIREDO*
There is no plausible narrative that could justify the extension of the strike to this day
In the last two months they were published on the website the earth is round several articles about the recent negotiations between federal teachers and the government, which resulted in the signing of an agreement with PROIFES-Fedação, on May 27, 2024 – an agreement that will still be signed, in the near future, by other union entities. Once again, it is essential to praise this opening of space for the publication of the most different opinions and arguments, opening up the possibility of debate and guaranteeing freedom of expression – fundamental elements to stimulate and guarantee democracy.
The 2016 coup and its consequences
A full assessment of the development of events in recent months, regarding the negotiations between federal teachers and the government, is not possible without a precise detail, with the appropriate timeline, of proposals and counter-proposals presented by the different actors in the process. And not without analyzing the more general context that, in Brazil, underlines the present moment.
It is necessary, first of all, to put into perspective what is happening now, a consequence of a dark period in which, after the coup that overthrew President Dilma Roussef in 2016, it hit social areas hard, especially health and education, generating , over the years 2016-2022, a terrible liability for federal educational institutions, for their teachers, and for all mechanisms for promoting and supporting the production of knowledge in our country. A setback that will take years to recover, and that we – who defend public, universal and quality education – have the obligation, with all our strength, to prevent it from being established again; This is a contour precondition, which, if ignored, can lead to mistaken assessments and actions, underestimating the risk of a return to the policies practiced at that time.
It was for no other reason that I published, in the always open courageous space of A Terra é Redonda, at the height of that period of sad memory (on May 20, 2021), the article 'The dismantling of public higher education', which demonstrated, with abundant numbers and graphs, the catastrophic reality that befell universities and federal institutes, CAPES, CNPq, FNED and FNDCT – among others. There I tried to make it clear that the same people who plotted the 2016 coup, generating Michel Temer's ascension to the presidency, were the ones who, with their project very well detailed in a document called “A bridge to the future”, led to the frightening situation of accelerated destruction of our institutions.
(Almost) back to the past
Exactly the same group that led us to the legacy left in 2022 was regrettably returned, in large batches, to the National Congress. Today they seek to influence the national scenario, from defending execrable customs to exerting all types of pressure so that the logic of plunder, practiced here fiercely by big financial capital, continues to prevail. Therefore, the equation that today has the current situation as its background cannot be translated into a simplistic phrase that naively states: the federal government has surrendered to neoliberalism.
It must be recognized, however, that, in the budgetary sphere, those who defend a less unfair and unequal Brazil have suffered, in recent times, heavy defeats. The approval of the Fiscal Framework, which replaced the old 'Expenditure Ceiling' (Constitutional Amendment 95), was one of them. Its original design, drawn up, in this adverse situation, by the federal government, linked the growth of primary expenses to the growth of revenues. However, after its passage through the National Congress, the project worsened considerably.
In summary, the approved Fiscal Framework contains three main constraints: (i) The primary expenditure growth limit cannot exceed 70% of the revenue variation; (ii) there are punishments: if the targets established for the 'adjustment' are below the minimum band limit, the percentage above cannot exceed 50%; and (iii) expenditure cannot increase each year by more than 2,5% (above inflation) nor less than 0,6% (idem).
The last lock, in particular, dramatically restricts the increase in primary spending. In other words, even with the approval of heavy taxes on stock dividends, the collection of taxes on large fortunes, or the increase in revenue through any other mechanism, the ceiling of 2,5% growth in primary expenses is a limit insurmountable. As projections for primary expenditure in 2024 point to around R$2.200 billion, the increase in primary expenditure will have a ceiling in 2025, at best, around R$55 billion.
As a consequence, any salary negotiations for public servants will be directly impacted by these new rules. Therefore, although fair, proposals to demand the total recovery of losses incurred under previous governments, even if divided over the next three years, are unachievable, as they conflict with current legislation. In this context, negotiations by federal public servants will hardly be able to achieve the success achieved in previous years in 2024.
To illustrate this situation more precisely, we present a graph that shows the growth of primary expenditure during the period of the Lula and Dilma governments (in blue), on the one hand, and, on the other (in red) the growth that would have been possible if the Fiscal Framework was in force at that time. It can be seen that the expansion possible under the current legislation would not have reached even a quarter of what actually occurred.
| Source: National Treasury and PLOA. |
| Tax Framework: Disregarding the use of surplus surplus (which is only for investments) |
We analyze further the recent negotiation process in which entities representing federal teachers and the government debated, under the rigid budget restrictions currently in force, issues relating to their careers, their salaries and the financing of their institutions, among others.
Initial proposals from ANDES and PROIFES (careers and salaries)
Also in October 2023, the Specific and Temporary Education Table was installed by the MGI (Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services) to discuss salary issues and the restructuring of teaching careers: MS (Higher Teaching) and EBTT (Basic, Technical Education and Technological). The entities representing the category were called: PROIFES, ANDES and SINASEFE. At this first meeting, the government did not present anything – it just listened and collected the proposals from the entities.
It is worth mentioning that it was a unanimous demand from the entities, throughout the entire process, to reconstitute the IFES budget and repeal legislation that was harmful to teachers.
ANDES proposal
ANDES’ initial proposal, with which SINASEFE also agreed, was called “ANDES Single Career”. It demanded, among other points: (1) Adjustment of 53,05% on the career minimum, distributed in three equal installments, in 2024, 2025 and 2026; (2) Reduction of Degree Remunerations (RTs) – that for a doctorate, which is currently 115%, would be 75%; the master's degree would fall to 37,5%, the specialization degree would fall to 18% and the advanced training degree would fall to 7,5%.
(3) The salaries of teachers on the 40-hour regime would receive 100% more than those on the 20-hour regime, instead of the current 40% more, while those on the DE (Exclusive Dedication) regime would receive 210 % more than 20pm; (4) A single line on the paycheck; (5) Extinction of all classes, with the creation of 13 levels, with a 5% salary difference between each one; and (6) Completeness and parity of salaries between active and retired employees.
This proposal, with an impact of R$34,2 billion (86% of the current payroll), would produce the following tables, valid for 2026:
Nominal salary values (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | ||||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | |||
| DI | A | 1 | R$11.565,27 | R$12.432,66 | R$13.647,02 | R$15.902,24 | R$20.239,22 | 1 Level | |
| 2 | R$12.143,53 | R$13.054,30 | R$14.329,37 | R$16.697,36 | R$21.251,18 | 2 Level | |||
| D II | B | 1 | R$12.750,71 | R$13.707,01 | R$15.045,83 | R$17.532,22 | R$22.313,74 | 3 Level | |
| 2 | R$13.388,24 | R$14.392,36 | R$15.798,13 | R$18.408,83 | R$23.429,43 | 4 Level | |||
| D III | C | 1 | R$14.057,66 | R$15.111,98 | R$16.588,03 | R$19.329,28 | R$24.600,90 | 5 Level | |
| (adjunct) | 2 | R$14.760,54 | R$15.867,58 | R$17.417,43 | R$20.295,74 | R$25.830,94 | 6 Level | ||
| 3 | R$15.498,56 | R$16.660,96 | R$18.288,31 | R$21.310,53 | R$27.122,49 | 7 Level | |||
| 4 | R$16.273,49 | R$17.494,00 | R$19.202,72 | R$22.376,05 | R$28.478,61 | 8 Level | |||
| D IV | D | 1 | R$17.087,17 | R$18.368,71 | R$20.162,86 | R$23.494,86 | R$29.902,54 | 9 Level | |
| (associate) | 2 | R$17.941,53 | R$19.287,14 | R$21.171,00 | R$24.669,60 | R$31.397,67 | 10 Level | ||
| 3 | R$18.838,60 | R$20.251,50 | R$22.229,55 | R$25.903,08 | R$32.967,55 | 11 Level | |||
| 4 | R$19.780,53 | R$21.264,07 | R$23.341,03 | R$27.198,23 | R$34.615,93 | 12 Level | |||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | R$20.769,56 | R$22.327,28 | R$24.508,08 | R$28.558,14 | R$36.346,73 | 13 Level | |
Adjustment percentages on the current salary (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | ||||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | Average: | ||
| DI | A | 1 | 137% | 132% | 133% | 117% | 93% | 1 Level | 123% |
| 2 | 137% | 132% | 133% | 117% | 93% | 2 Level | 123% | ||
| D II | B | 1 | 136% | 131% | 132% | 116% | 92% | 3 Level | 122% |
| 2 | 136% | 131% | 132% | 116% | 92% | 4 Level | 122% | ||
| D III | C | 1 | 135% | 130% | 131% | 115% | 91% | 5 Level | 120% |
| (adjunct) | 2 | 137% | 132% | 133% | 117% | 93% | 6 Level | 123% | |
| 3 | 140% | 134% | 136% | 120% | 95% | 7 Level | 125% | ||
| 4 | 142% | 136% | 138% | 122% | 97% | 8 Level | 127% | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | 103% | 99% | 100% | 86% | 65% | 9 Level | 91% |
| (associate) | 2 | 105% | 100% | 102% | 88% | 67% | 10 Level | 92% | |
| 3 | 107% | 102% | 104% | 90% | 69% | 11 Level | 94% | ||
| 4 | 109% | 104% | 106% | 92% | 70% | 12 Level | 96% | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | 100% | 95% | 96% | 83% | 62% | 13 Level | 87% |
| Average: | 125% | 120% | 121% | 106% | 83% | ||||
An analysis of the proposal shows some worrying characteristics.
The second item defends the reduction of RT, and, therefore, proposes the reduction of the incentive for degrees, which goes against teacher improvement policies. The fifth claim of the proposal is questionable, from an academic point of view, because when defending the extinction of classes it does not dialogue with other Brazilian universities or with those in the rest of the world. In addition, the creation of 13 levels, in place of these classes, extends the time to reach the top of the career ladder, from the current 19 years to 24 years, harming active and retired employees.
The sixth claim draws even more attention. Even though the demand for completeness and parity between active and retired employees is fair, that is, that both receive the same salaries and have their salaries readjusted according to the same indices, the matter is entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the installed table – which could not define issues of this nature .
The impact of the proposal is not compatible with the budgetary reality dictated, regrettably, by a logic that does not privilege, as we have seen, the return to adequate investments in universities and federal institutes.
Finally, an analysis of the proposed average adjustment percentages shows that the highest percentages would go to graduates, to the detriment of doctors (average of 125%, against 83%); and that teachers at the highest levels of their career would have smaller repositions (initial levels, 123%, and tenured levels, 87%).
PROIFES proposal
The initial PROIFES proposal presented, among others, the following items: (i) Linear adjustment to replace inflation, at a percentage of 35%, in three installments (2024/25/26);(ii) Guarantee that every federal teacher graduate, 40h, receive at least the National Professional Floor for Teaching in basic education (defined by law); (iii) Maintenance of the current career structure, with classes and levels; (iv) Increase in the PhD RT from 115% to 120%, aiming to encourage obtaining this title; (v) Raising the steps between the levels of class C (deputies) / DIII and D (associate) DIV from the current 4% to 5%, reducing the step of C/DIII – D/DIV from 25% to 20% .
This proposal, with an impact of R$14,5 billion (39% of the current payroll), would produce the following tables, valid for 2026:
Nominal salary values (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | ||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | |
| DI | A | 1 | R$6.581,49 | R$7.239,64 | R$7.897,79 | R$9.872,24 | R$14.479,28 |
| 2 | R$6.910,57 | R$7.601,62 | R$8.292,68 | R$10.365,85 | R$15.203,25 | ||
| D II | B | 1 | R$7.290,65 | R$8.019,71 | R$8.748,78 | R$10.935,97 | R$16.039,43 |
| 2 | R$7.655,18 | R$8.420,70 | R$9.186,22 | R$11.482,77 | R$16.841,40 | ||
| D III | C | 1 | R$8.076,22 | R$8.883,84 | R$9.691,46 | R$12.114,32 | R$17.767,68 |
| (adjunct) | 2 | R$8.480,03 | R$9.328,03 | R$10.176,03 | R$12.720,04 | R$18.656,06 | |
| 3 | R$8.904,03 | R$9.794,43 | R$10.684,83 | R$13.356,04 | R$19.588,86 | ||
| 4 | R$9.349,23 | R$10.284,15 | R$11.219,08 | R$14.023,84 | R$20.568,31 | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | R$11.219,08 | R$12.340,98 | R$13.462,89 | R$16.828,61 | R$24.681,97 |
| (associate) | 2 | R$11.780,03 | R$12.958,03 | R$14.136,04 | R$17.670,04 | R$25.916,07 | |
| 3 | R$12.369,03 | R$13.605,93 | R$14.842,84 | R$18.553,55 | R$27.211,87 | ||
| 4 | R$12.987,48 | R$14.286,23 | R$15.584,98 | R$19.481,22 | R$28.572,46 | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | R$14.286,23 | R$15.714,85 | R$17.143,48 | R$21.429,35 | R$31.429,71 |
Adjustment percentages on the current salary (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | |||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | Average: | |
| DI | A | 1 | 35% | 35% | 35% | 35% | 38% | 36% |
| 2 | 35% | 35% | 35% | 35% | 38% | 36% | ||
| D II | B | 1 | 35% | 35% | 35% | 35% | 38% | 36% |
| 2 | 35% | 35% | 35% | 35% | 38% | 36% | ||
| D III | C | 1 | 35% | 35% | 35% | 35% | 38% | 36% |
| (adjunct) | 2 | 36% | 36% | 36% | 36% | 39% | 37% | |
| 3 | 38% | 38% | 38% | 38% | 41% | 38% | ||
| 4 | 39% | 39% | 39% | 39% | 42% | 40% | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | 33% | 33% | 33% | 33% | 36% | 34% |
| (associate) | 2 | 35% | 35% | 35% | 35% | 38% | 35% | |
| 3 | 36% | 36% | 36% | 36% | 39% | 37% | ||
| 4 | 37% | 37% | 37% | 37% | 40% | 38% | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | 37% | 37% | 37% | 37% | 40% | 38% |
| Average: | 36% | 36% | 36% | 36% | 39% | |||
There is a strong contrast between the PROIFES proposal and the ANDES proposal. These are striking differences, already visible at the beginning of negotiations.
Firstly, although this is not the most important issue, the impact of the PROIFES proposal, although high (more than R$14 billion), is much less unrealistic than that of the ANDES proposal.
Secondly, it is necessary to emphasize that there is no item in the PROIFES proposal that would completely make its acceptance unfeasible, falling outside the scope of what would be possible to address at this table.
Thirdly, the PROIFES proposal, unlike the other, maintains the universally accepted class structure, in order to contemplate the teacher's accumulated academic trajectory.
Fourthly, the PROIFES proposal is balanced, and generates similar adjustments for classes and levels, oscillating between 35% and 39%. At the same time, it expands the so-called 'range' of the career, that is, the ratio between the highest and lowest salary, stimulating the progression and promotion of teachers, based on merit (ANDES' proposal reduces the range).
And, finally, PROIFES suggests expanding the doctor's RT, which would go from 115% to 120%, while ANDES wants to reduce it to 75%. One encourages obtaining a doctorate degree, while the other discourages it.
They are, therefore, very different proposals.
A question that soon arises is: how is it possible that teachers have, through their different representations, created such disparate conceptions?
The answer involves the form of representation in force at PROIFES and ANDES.
At PROIFES, debates on these themes are held in 'National Meetings'. According to the Federation's statute, 'delegates' to the 'Meetings' must be voted on in each union, and at least 50 votes are needed to be elected. At ANDES, 'delegates' to events (CONADs and Congresses), where careers and salaries are discussed, are appointed in assemblies. In a university that has the right to 15 'delegates', they can be elected in an assembly with 20 people, as there is no requirement for a minimum number of votes per 'delegate'. Therefore, the universe of participants in PROIFES and ANDES events is profoundly diverse, as a result of the equally distinct structural organization that regulates the functioning of each entity. These differences thus impact the quality and character of the proposals generated.
In the case at hand, it is clear that, from the beginning of the negotiation process, one of the proposals stands out as a plausible alternative, while the other appears to have a dubious role.
Negotiations, therefore, tend to be influenced – as was effectively the case, as we will see – by the factors above, such as the quality and feasibility of the proposals. This is the real genesis of this negotiation process; digressions and conspiracy theories that see it as an alleged 'arranged game', therefore, have no basis in reality.
Before proceeding, it is worth mentioning, for the sake of truth, that from the beginning all entities representing teachers insisted on several consensual points: the repeal of Ordinance 983/2020, which increases the workload of the EBTT career and, thus, the completely distorts; the end of point charging for colleagues in this career, as stated in the agreement signed between PROIFES and the government in 2015, but not yet implemented; and other important issues without budgetary impact.
Round of counter-proposals (careers and salaries)
On February 22, 2024, another meeting of the Specific and Temporary Career Table was held at MGI.
It is worth mentioning that at this point PROIFES had already made an additional proposal, demanding the elimination of classes A/DI and B/DII, with the placement of its teachers in class C/DIII, level 1. This proposal aimed to guarantee that every teacher graduate, 40h, would receive salaries equal to or greater than the National Professional Floor for Teaching in basic education.
The government, on the 22nd, presented a counterproposal for the first time.
He refused PROIFES' demand to eliminate the first two classes, claiming that if this were done, the time to reach the top of the career ladder would be reduced to 16 years, which would be unacceptable. And as for adjustments, he proposed 4,5% in 2025 and another 4,5% in 2026.
The proposal, as expected, was rejected by all representative entities.
PROIFES positioned itself as follows: "There was no positive response from the government to the restructuring agenda presented by the Federation, much less in matters relating to salary aspects. Therefore, there is no true negotiation process, but rather the government’s reaffirmation of its economic policy, based on budgetary and fiscal restrictions (…)”.
PROIFES counterproposal
Faced with this situation, PROIFES began to debate internally a new counter-proposal for restructuring and salaries and, on March 25th, filed it with the MGI, in the following terms: (a) Linear adjustment of 9,39% in 2024, 6,82 .2025% in 6,82 and 2026% in 24,8 – totaling 40%; (b) Guarantee that every graduated federal teacher, 2026 hours, receives, from 2, at least the National Professional Floor for Teaching in basic education (defined by law); (c) Maintenance of the current career structure, with classes and levels; (d) Elimination of classes A/DI and B/DII, placing all current teachers in a new 'Entry Class', with a single salary level equal to that of the current B/DII teacher, level 4; (e) Raising the steps between the levels of classes C/DIII and D/DIV from 5% to XNUMX%.
Technical note: The 9,39% adjustment aimed to ensure that all 40-hour teachers, graduates, post probationary internship, would start to receive, in 2024, at least the National Professional Floor for Teaching, because that was exactly the gap between the value of their salaries today and that of the current floor – R$ 4.954,34; The percentages predicted for 2025 and 2026, both 6,82%, aimed to ensure that all teachers, including those on probation, would receive the Teaching Floor in 2026. The projection made was that the readjustment of the The floor in 2025 and 2026 would be close to the estimated inflation for those years – something around 4%. Thus, the difference between 6,82% and 4%, in these two years (doing the math), would cover the 'gap' of exactly 5,5%, until 2026. Remembering that 5,5% is precisely the step between salaries teacher B/DII, level 2, and teacher C/DIII, level 1; and, also, that the proposal was that all teachers on probation would start receiving the salary of this B/DII teacher, level 2.
On April 3, 2024, PROIFES was received by the MEC, and there it again presented its counterproposal. In the end, Secretary Alexandre Fonseca signaled that he had warmly welcomed the Federation's demands.
ANDES files new document
On April 11, 2024, ANDES made a new move: it sent Letter No. 28/2024 to Minister Camilo Santana. It presented 22 demands, which it called 'Basic Commitments'. I won't list them all. I will only say that the first of them demanded “That the MEC, in its bill for the new National Education Plan, establish 10% of GDP for public education, now, and that public funds be allocated exclusively to the public sector”.
New government counterproposal
On April 19, at a meeting of the Specific and Temporary Board of Education, at MGI, the government presented yet another proposal: (i) Partially accepted PROIFES' demand to raise the levels of classes C/DIII and D/DIV , which would go from 4% to 4,5%, in January 2025; (ii) increased the linear adjustment for January 2025 from 4,5% to 9,0%, and reduced the adjustment for May 2026 from 4,5% to 3,5%.
PROIFES and ANDES take a stance on the government's new counter-proposal
PROIFES, after evaluating that the government's proposal, although containing progress, was still not acceptable, sent a new counter-proposal. Here is a summary of the main items of the document: (1) Salary adjustments: 3,5% in September/2024; 9,5% in January/2025 and 4,0% in January/2026; (2) Guarantee that every federal teacher graduated, 40 hours, approved in a probationary period receives, from 2025, at least the National Professional Floor for Teaching in basic education – this will be ensured with the acceptance of the readjustment proposed in item 1) above ; (3) Maintenance of the current career structure, with classes and levels; (4) Elimination of classes A/DI and B/DII, placing all current teachers in a new 'Entry Class', with a single salary level equal to that of the current B/DII teacher, level 2; (5) Raising the steps between the levels of classes C/DIII and D/DIV from 4% to 5%.
Here it is necessary to clarify that all the PROIFES proposals – this one and the previous ones – in order to guarantee the equivalence between the National Professional Floor for Teaching and the salary of the 40h graduate teacher, aimed to establish a permanent link, so that, the each year, both salary grids – MS and EBTT – would be automatically readjusted when this Floor is redefined, which is updated, by law, in January of each year.
Let us emphasize that PROIFES, at all tables, emphasized the importance of the 2026 readjustment being in January, considering that waiting until May for the adjustment would be harmful to teachers.
This proposal, with an impact of R$8,5 billion (23% of the current payroll), would produce the following tables, valid for 2026:
Nominal salary values (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | ||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | |
| DI | A | 1 | R$6.683,59 | R$7.351,94 | R$8.020,30 | R$10.025,38 | R$14.369,71 |
| 2 | R$6.683,59 | R$7.351,94 | R$8.020,30 | R$10.025,38 | R$14.369,71 | ||
| D II | B | 1 | R$6.683,59 | R$7.351,94 | R$8.020,30 | R$10.025,38 | R$14.369,71 |
| 2 | R$6.683,59 | R$7.351,94 | R$8.020,30 | R$10.025,38 | R$14.369,71 | ||
| D III | C | 1 | R$7.051,18 | R$7.756,30 | R$8.461,42 | R$10.576,77 | R$15.160,04 |
| (adjunct) | 2 | R$7.403,74 | R$8.144,12 | R$8.884,49 | R$11.105,61 | R$15.918,05 | |
| 3 | R$7.773,93 | R$8.551,32 | R$9.328,71 | R$11.660,89 | R$16.713,95 | ||
| 4 | R$8.162,63 | R$8.978,89 | R$9.795,15 | R$12.243,94 | R$17.549,65 | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | R$10.203,28 | R$11.223,61 | R$12.243,94 | R$15.304,92 | R$21.937,06 |
| (associate) | 2 | R$10.713,45 | R$11.784,79 | R$12.856,14 | R$16.070,17 | R$23.033,91 | |
| 3 | R$11.249,12 | R$12.374,03 | R$13.498,94 | R$16.873,68 | R$24.185,60 | ||
| 4 | R$11.811,57 | R$12.992,73 | R$14.173,89 | R$17.717,36 | R$25.394,88 | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | R$12.992,73 | R$14.292,00 | R$15.591,28 | R$19.489,10 | R$27.934,37 |
Adjustment percentages on the current salary (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | |||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | Average: | |
| DI | A | 1 | 37% | 37% | 37% | 37% | 37% | 37% |
| 2 | 31% | 31% | 31% | 31% | 31% | 31% | ||
| D II | B | 1 | 24% | 24% | 24% | 24% | 24% | 24% |
| 2 | 18% | 18% | 18% | 18% | 18% | 18% | ||
| D III | C | 1 | 18% | 18% | 18% | 18% | 18% | 18% |
| (adjunct) | 2 | 19% | 19% | 19% | 19% | 19% | 19% | |
| 3 | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | ||
| 4 | 21% | 21% | 21% | 21% | 21% | 21% | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | 21% | 21% | 21% | 21% | 21% | 21% |
| (associate) | 2 | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% | |
| 3 | 24% | 24% | 24% | 24% | 24% | 24% | ||
| 4 | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% |
| Average: | 23% | 23% | 23% | 23% | 23% | |||
May 13th – with much delay, ANDES presented yet another counter-proposal (careers and salaries)
ANDES, in the same way as PROIFES, did not accept the government's counterproposal of April 19, even though it “recognized the budget opening” that had taken place. On May 13th – almost a month later – he forwarded his new position: (i) Salary adjustments: 7,06% in 2024; 9% in January/2025 and 5,16% in May/2026 (Note: thus accepting the May date for the last adjustment – unlike PROIFES, which proposed January); (ii) equality of benefits (food, health and daycare assistance), until 2026, among employees of the three branches of the Union; (iii) Maintenance of the career restructuring proposal based on points unified with SINASEFE (i.e., 13 levels with 5% between each, and other considerations), rejecting the increase in steps by 0,5% (from 4% to 4,5%).
This proposal, with an impact of R$18,5 billion (45% of the current payroll), would produce the following tables, valid for 2026:
Nominal salary values (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | ANDES | ||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | ||
| DI | A | 1 | R$9.273,14 | R$9.968,62 | R$10.942,30 | R$12.750,56 | R$16.227,99 | 1 Level |
| 2 | R$9.736,79 | R$10.467,05 | R$11.489,42 | R$13.388,09 | R$17.039,39 | 2 Level | ||
| D II | B | 1 | R$10.223,63 | R$10.990,41 | R$12.063,89 | R$14.057,50 | R$17.891,36 | 3 Level |
| 2 | R$10.734,82 | R$11.539,93 | R$12.667,08 | R$14.760,37 | R$18.785,93 | 4 Level | ||
| D III | C | 1 | R$11.271,56 | R$12.116,92 | R$13.300,44 | R$15.498,39 | R$19.725,22 | 5 Level |
| (adjunct) | 2 | R$11.835,13 | R$12.722,77 | R$13.965,46 | R$16.273,31 | R$20.711,48 | 6 Level | |
| 3 | R$12.426,89 | R$13.358,91 | R$14.663,73 | R$17.086,97 | R$21.747,06 | 7 Level | ||
| 4 | R$13.048,23 | R$14.026,85 | R$15.396,92 | R$17.941,32 | R$22.834,41 | 8 Level | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | R$13.700,65 | R$14.728,19 | R$16.166,76 | R$18.838,39 | R$23.976,13 | 9 Level |
| (associate) | 2 | R$14.385,68 | R$15.464,60 | R$16.975,10 | R$19.780,31 | R$25.174,94 | 10 Level | |
| 3 | R$15.104,96 | R$16.237,83 | R$17.823,86 | R$20.769,32 | R$26.433,68 | 11 Level | ||
| 4 | R$15.860,21 | R$17.049,73 | R$18.715,05 | R$21.807,79 | R$27.755,37 | 12 Level | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | R$16.653,22 | R$17.902,21 | R$19.650,80 | R$22.898,18 | R$29.143,14 | 13 Level |
Adjustment percentages on the current salary (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | ||||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | Average: | ||
| DI | A | 1 | 90% | 86% | 87% | 74% | 55% | 1 Level | 78% |
| 2 | 90% | 86% | 87% | 74% | 55% | 2 Level | 78% | ||
| D II | B | 1 | 89% | 85% | 86% | 74% | 54% | 3 Level | 78% |
| 2 | 89% | 85% | 86% | 74% | 54% | 4 Level | 78% | ||
| D III | C | 1 | 88% | 84% | 85% | 73% | 53% | 5 Level | 77% |
| (adjunct) | 2 | 90% | 86% | 87% | 74% | 55% | 6 Level | 78% | |
| 3 | 92% | 88% | 89% | 76% | 56% | 7 Level | 80% | ||
| 4 | 94% | 89% | 91% | 78% | 58% | 8 Level | 82% | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | 63% | 59% | 60% | 49% | 33% | 9 Level | 53% |
| (associate) | 2 | 64% | 61% | 62% | 51% | 34% | 10 Level | 54% | |
| 3 | 66% | 62% | 63% | 52% | 35% | 11 Level | 56% | ||
| 4 | 68% | 64% | 65% | 54% | 36% | 12 Level | 57% | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | 60% | 56% | 57% | 47% | 30% | 13 Level | 50% |
| Average: | 80% | 76% | 77% | 65% | 47% | ||||
ANDES' decision was, therefore, not to give in to anything in relation to the restructuring previously advocated.
The proposal thus remained with the weaknesses already highlighted. The entity lost the opportunity to review the defense of his career, which reduced the RT, harming the most qualified, and which, with its 13 levels, extended the time needed to become a starter to 24 years.
At the same time, the progress made by the government by increasing the steps between levels, benefiting teachers close to the top of their careers, was disregarded and rejected.
Furthermore, the new proposal, once again, had a high financial impact, more than three times greater than what the government signaled as possible.
The combined effect of these factors was that ANDES became increasingly distant from a real leading role in the negotiations.
May 15: the government presents its final counterproposal (careers and salaries)
The proposal, presented as being the last, to be signed on May 27th by the entities that agreed with it, was as follows: (1) Linear adjustment of 9% in January 2025 and 3,5% in May 2026; (2) Merger of the current classes A/DI and B/DII into a single class, at a single level, with remuneration equal to that of teachers in B/DII, level 2; (3) Raising the steps between the levels of classes C(deputy)/DIII and D(associate)/DIV from 4% to 4,5% in January 2025 and to 5,0% in May 2026; (4) Reduction of the step from C(deputy)/DIII, level 4 to D(associate)/DIV from 25% to 23,5% in 2025 and to 22,5% in 2026; (5) Increase in the step from B/DII, level 2 (probationary stage) to C/DIII, level 1 (first class and level after the probationary stage) from 5,5%¨to 6,0%; (6) Release of attendance control for Basic, Technical and Technological Education Teaching.
The new proposal had the following negative points: the insistence on zero adjustment in 2024 – a point rejected unanimously by all participating entities, PROIFES, ANDES and SINASEFE; the total recovery rate over the three years, which did not even replace half of the losses incurred under Jair Bolsonaro's government; the reduction of the step between class C(adjunct)/DIII and class D(associate)/DIV.
On the other hand, items 2) and 3) fully complied with restructuring proposals made by PROIFES and produced the following effects: newly hired teachers (probationary internship), whose salaries are today those of classes A(Higher Teaching)/DI(Teaching Basic, Technical and Technological, EBTT), level 1, would start receiving the salaries of teachers in class B/DII, level 2; this would mean that, in addition to the linear adjustments granted, there would be an additional increase of 16,3%; New hires would therefore, in 2026, have a starting salary 31,2% higher than the current one – this would not be an achievement just for newly joined teachers, but for all future hires, adding value to our careers.
Raising the initial career step (5,5% to 6,0%) would benefit all teachers who have already passed the probationary stage; Raising the steps between class C(adjunct)/DIII and class D(associate)/DIV would benefit teachers in higher career positions, compensating, with surplus, the reduction in the step between class C/DIII, level 4 and D/DIV, level 1; The achievement of the end of the 'point' requirement for EBTT teachers would consolidate what was already included in the item of agreement signed by PROIFES with the Dilma government in December 2015, although not yet implemented, partly due to the coup in 2016 ; Total impact of the proposal presented: R$6,2 billion, greater than the previous ones.
This final government counter-proposal, with an impact of R$6,2 billion (16,5% of the current payroll), would produce the following tables, valid for 2026:
Nominal salary values (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | ||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | |
| DI | A | 1 | R$6.397,18 | R$7.036,90 | R$7.676,62 | R$9.595,77 | R$13.753,94 |
| 2 | R$6.397,18 | R$7.036,90 | R$7.676,62 | R$9.595,77 | R$13.753,94 | ||
| D II | B | 1 | R$6.397,18 | R$7.036,90 | R$7.676,62 | R$9.595,77 | R$13.753,94 |
| 2 | R$6.397,18 | R$7.036,90 | R$7.676,62 | R$9.595,77 | R$13.753,94 | ||
| D III | C | 1 | R$6.781,01 | R$7.459,11 | R$8.137,21 | R$10.171,52 | R$14.579,17 |
| (adjunct) | 2 | R$7.120,06 | R$7.832,07 | R$8.544,07 | R$10.680,09 | R$15.308,13 | |
| 3 | R$7.476,06 | R$8.223,67 | R$8.971,28 | R$11.214,10 | R$16.073,54 | ||
| 4 | R$7.849,87 | R$8.634,85 | R$9.419,84 | R$11.774,80 | R$16.877,22 | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | R$9.616,09 | R$10.577,70 | R$11.539,31 | R$14.424,13 | R$20.674,59 |
| (associate) | 2 | R$10.096,89 | R$11.106,58 | R$12.116,27 | R$15.145,34 | R$21.708,32 | |
| 3 | R$10.601,74 | R$11.661,91 | R$12.722,08 | R$15.902,60 | R$22.793,73 | ||
| 4 | R$11.131,82 | R$12.245,01 | R$13.358,19 | R$16.697,74 | R$23.933,42 | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | R$12.245,01 | R$13.469,51 | R$14.694,01 | R$18.367,51 | R$26.326,76 |
Adjustment percentages on the current salary (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | |||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | Average: | |
| DI | A | 1 | 31,2% | 31,2% | 31,2% | 31,2% | 31,2% | 31,2% |
| 2 | 25,0% | 25,0% | 25,0% | 25,0% | 25,0% | 25,0% | ||
| D II | B | 1 | 18,5% | 18,5% | 18,5% | 18,5% | 18,5% | 18,5% |
| 2 | 12,8% | 12,8% | 12,8% | 12,8% | 12,8% | 12,8% | ||
| D III | C | 1 | 13,3% | 13,3% | 13,3% | 13,3% | 13,3% | 13,3% |
| (adjunct) | 2 | 14,4% | 14,4% | 14,4% | 14,4% | 14,4% | 14,4% | |
| 3 | 15,5% | 15,5% | 15,5% | 15,5% | 15,5% | 15,5% | ||
| 4 | 16,7% | 16,7% | 16,7% | 16,7% | 16,7% | 16,7% | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | 14,3% | 14,3% | 14,3% | 14,3% | 14,3% | 14,3% |
| (associate) | 2 | 15,4% | 15,4% | 15,4% | 15,4% | 15,4% | 15,4% | |
| 3 | 16,5% | 16,5% | 16,5% | 16,5% | 16,5% | 16,5% | ||
| 4 | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% |
| Average: | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | 17,6% | |||
May 27: PROIFES signs agreement
The government's final counterproposal of May 15 had contradictory aspects. If, on the one hand, it advanced in the restructuring intended by PROIFES, on the other, although it recovered part of the losses, it did so timidly and maintained the zero adjustment in 2024.
The representative entities evaluated the proposal and took a position. ANDES (and also SINASEFE) rejected the proposal, by a 'large majority', as reported. However, it is known that some of its 'Union Sections' accepted the agreement.
At PROIFES, there was intense debate. It should be noted that PROIFES is a Federation, in which affiliated unions have complete autonomy to conduct their own policies. The majority of the Federation's unions accepted the proposal. Others don't. Several remained on strike, with the PROIFES proposal as their agenda. This situation is perfectly normal in a truly democratic entity, and has happened on previous occasions. In PROIFES, there is no 'cattle' mentality, very common on the extreme right, although it also exists in equally authoritarian and sectarian sectors of the left.
At a meeting of the CD (Deliberative Council) of PROIFES, in which the vote is proportional to the size of each union, the acceptance of the counter-proposal made was won. Thus, at the meeting with the MGI on May 27, 2024, PROIFES signed an agreement with the government.
May 27: ANDES' untimely 'counterproposal'
May 27, 2024 was the date on which the MGI counter-proposal of May 15, 2024 should be signed by the representative entities that had approved it. The Ministry had informed that this was the final counter-proposal, and that it would no longer be changed by the government.
PROIFES affixed its signature, following a majority decision of the affiliated unions.
ANDES (and also SINASEFE) not only did not sign the agreement but also decided to submit a new 'counter-proposal' to the government, requesting that negotiations continue – which was denied by the government.
In this counter-proposal, ANDES removed, for the first time, albeit belatedly, the requirement that the restructuring of careers had to take place along the lines of what was previously required; In the text presented, it is simply requested that this be discussed later, at a “permanent negotiation table”, to be installed.
The points that were defended by ANDES were the following: Rejection of the “0% adjustment” in 2024, and recomposition of losses, being: 3,69% in 2024, 9% in January 2025 and 5,16% in May of 2026. Guarantee of parity between active and retired people and reintegration of retirees into their career in the relative position at the time of their retirement; Rejection of 'step' adjustments, with the establishment of a “permanent negotiation table for broad career discussion”; Creation of a permanent national education table to discuss the budget, with budget recomposition for IFEs at a minimum level of R$2,5 billion in 2024; and Confirmation of “Revocation”: IN 66/2022, Ordinance 983 and others.
The impact of this proposal was not unfeasible. On the other hand, the demands – more than fair – that are in item (2) make it completely unattainable, because, as is evident, there is no way to overcome an issue of this magnitude at a table between the MGI and federal teachers.
It should be noted that the 'reframing' requested in the same item (2) is very correct, and was defended by PROIFES at the time of the creation of the associate class; however, it is important to remember that the rejection of this request by the government, in 2006, was precisely based on the argument of its high impact – an obvious obstacle to the success of the current negotiations.
That said, a very serious problem must be highlighted in ANDES' counterproposal.
It foresees, for all teachers, a homogeneous linear adjustment, which totals, in 2026, the amount of 18,8%.
It turns out that the proposal already signed between the government and PROIFES provides colleagues at the beginning of their careers with a replacement of 31,2% (also in 2026).
As a consequence, there would be a monthly loss of R$1.300,00 for all colleagues who have just entered the career.
Is ANDES proposing that these colleagues, during the probationary period (three years), lose around R$50.000,00 during this period, in relation to what was already offered?
Let's face it, such an initiative is unbelievable, coming from an entity that has an obligation to defend the interests of all its members.
ANDES' counterproposal, with an impact of R$7,1 billion (19% of the current payroll), would produce the following tables, valid for 2026:
Nominal salary values (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | ANDES | |||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | |
| DI | A | 1 | R$5.794,35 | R$6.373,78 | R$6.953,22 | R$8.691,52 | R$12.457,85 |
| 2 | R$6.084,07 | R$6.692,47 | R$7.300,88 | R$9.126,10 | R$13.080,74 | ||
| D II | B | 1 | R$6.418,69 | R$7.060,56 | R$7.702,43 | R$9.628,03 | R$13.800,18 |
| 2 | R$6.739,62 | R$7.413,59 | R$8.087,55 | R$10.109,44 | R$14.490,19 | ||
| D III | C | 1 | R$7.110,30 | R$7.821,33 | R$8.532,36 | R$10.665,45 | R$15.287,15 |
| (adjunct) | 2 | R$7.394,72 | R$8.134,19 | R$8.873,66 | R$11.092,07 | R$15.898,64 | |
| 3 | R$7.690,50 | R$8.459,55 | R$9.228,60 | R$11.535,76 | R$16.534,58 | ||
| 4 | R$7.998,12 | R$8.797,94 | R$9.597,75 | R$11.997,19 | R$17.195,97 | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | R$9.997,66 | R$10.997,42 | R$11.997,19 | R$14.996,48 | R$21.494,96 |
| (associate) | 2 | R$10.397,56 | R$11.437,32 | R$12.477,07 | R$15.596,34 | R$22.354,76 | |
| 3 | R$10.813,46 | R$11.894,81 | R$12.976,16 | R$16.220,20 | R$23.248,95 | ||
| 4 | R$11.246,00 | R$12.370,60 | R$13.495,20 | R$16.869,00 | R$24.178,91 | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | R$12.370,60 | R$13.607,66 | R$14.844,72 | R$18.555,90 | R$26.596,80 |
Adjustment percentages on the current salary (DE), by class, level and title (in 2026):
| EBTT | MS | |||||||
| Class | level | Graduate | Perfect | Specialist | Mestre | Doctor | Average: | |
| DI | A | 1 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% |
| 2 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | ||
| D II | B | 1 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% |
| 2 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | ||
| D III | C | 1 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% |
| (adjunct) | 2 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | |
| 3 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | ||
| 4 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | ||
| D IV | D | 1 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% |
| (associate) | 2 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | |
| 3 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | ||
| 4 | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | ||
| Sensitive Personal Data | E | U | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% |
| Average: | 18,85% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | 18,9% | |||
Term of Commitment: increase in benefits.
It should be noted that, in the midst of this entire process, a Term of Commitment was signed by many entities, endorsing an increase in benefits (food, health and daycare assistance), for immediate implementation. Thus, at the beginning of June, all federal teachers benefited. Among those who signed this agreement are PROIFES, SINASEFE and FASUBRA. ANDES did not sign.
The financing of IFES was another very important topic discussed. All representative entities vehemently demanded more funding for universities and federal institutes. Here it is necessary once again to emphasize and insist: policies such as the 'Fiscal Framework' impose, in this case, strong and impeding restrictions, and need to be reviewed and overcome. With this as the background scenario, the government announced the 'Education PAC', increasing funding and investment funds – a movement that requires vigorous expansion.
Developments after May 27th
On May 27th, negotiations between MGI and teachers ended, with the agreement being signed by the entities that approved it – only PROIFES signed it. It was agreed that, in 2026, the adjustment will be brought forward from May to April; A GT will be created to discuss the restructuring of retirees, among other topics.
June 14th – table with the MEC: progress on agendas without budgetary impact. Therefore, a meeting of this table at the MEC was scheduled for June 14, 2024. PROIFES, ANDES and SINASEFE were present. The Ministry of Education committed to: Revoking Ordinance 983/2020 and creating a Working Group to evaluate related issues; Articulate, with the MGI, a favorable position not to appeal against the granting of CSR to inactive employees; Articulate, with the MGI, national rules for teacher progression; Reestablish the Permanent CSR Recognition Council.
Judicial harassment
In an unprecedented episode, this year's negotiations were marked by the practice of what is known as 'judicial harassment', characterized as 'Coordinated action of legal proceedings, transforming them into an instrument of persecution and intimidation. It is a resource used by groups with prominence from a bureaucratic, political and economic point of view, with the aim of embarrassing and silencing opponents'. This is precisely what was done: ANDES instructed its 'Union Sections' to simultaneously go to court, in a coordinated manner, with the same objective: to try to invalidate the agreement signed between the government and PROIFES.
In the meantime, the Union Register of the Federation was released, which has affiliated unions, with union registration, in at least five States of the Union, as required by law. It is something that the entity has long had a clear and certain right to. The delay was due to the Bolsonaro government stopping the process; however, perhaps to the displeasure of some, we are no longer in this government.
What resulted from these actions? In only two of them was there manifestation and continuity. According to a report from the PROIFES legal advisor: “In the appeal of Sergipe's action, judge Elio Siqueira decided that he could not assess the request, as it would require prior analysis by the court of origin, in view of the granting of the Federation's registration. ; In the Appeal of the Alagoas action, the situation is similar.” Conclusion: “The two decisions do not analyze the merits of the appeal and expressly speak of the need for a statement by the first degree court. At no time did they deny the right of the Federation, they never disregarded the granting of registration nor did they confirm the right of the Appellees (which are two Union Sections of ANDES)”. The Federation filed petitions, in both processes, informing about the granting of union registration and asking for recognition of the “loss of the object”.
On June 16th, the 'National Strike Command' published a 'Conjuncture Text'.
'Achievements of the strike' are referred to there. I will mention just three (several others could be mentioned): (1) 'Increase in steps from 4% to 5% in 2006' [PROIFES proposal, rejected by ANDES]; (2) 'Increase in the salary value for those entering the teaching career' [PROIFES Proposal]; and (3) 'Isonomy between MS and EBTT, with regard to frequency control' [Signed by PROIFES with the Dilma government in the December 2015 Agreement, and now consolidated].
These are indeed important achievements. As for what these statements reveal, from the point of view of the political honesty of those who formulate them, the conclusion is left to the reader.
outcome
News circulating today, June 23rd, indicates that ANDES and SINASEFE propose the end of the strike, and will sign with the government the term of agreement already signed by PROIFES, with the obvious additions relating to the consensual points agreed at the table held with the MEC , on June 14th. It is important to remember that this table, with the presence of PROIFES, ANDES and SINASEFE, dealt with matters not related to careers or salaries, that is, its focus was solely on issues 'without financial impact'.
The entire process ends, therefore, with the signing, by the entities that had not yet done so, of the agreement signed between MGI and PROIFES on May 27, 2024, which will be accepted and signed by them - although previously it was target of disqualification and denunciation campaigns.
Given this, there is no plausible narrative that can justify why, for an additional long month, many universities and federal institutes were closed, and their students were without classes.
*Gil Vicente Reis de Figueiredo is a retired professor from the Department of Mathematics at the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar). He was the first president of PROIFES.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
