Para a Ana, é injusto trabalharmos tanto sem uma pausa de lazer.

In European Portuguese, it’s very common (and usually more natural) to use the definite article with people’s names after prepositions:

• para a Ana = for Ana / in Ana’s view
• para o João = for João / in João’s view

So:

• Para a Ana, … roughly means In Ana’s opinion, …

You can sometimes hear para Ana, especially in more formal or written contexts, but in everyday European Portuguese para a Ana sounds more natural and is what you’ll mostly hear.

You would not use the article in direct address (vocative):

• Ana, vem cá. = Ana, come here.
  (No a here, because you are talking to her, not about her.)

Literally it is “for Ana”, but in this sentence it has the idiomatic meaning:

• Para a Ana, é injusto…
  = In Ana’s view, it’s unfair…
  = As far as Ana is concerned, it’s unfair…

So para + person can introduce someone’s personal point of view:

• Para mim, isto é fácil. = To me / In my opinion, this is easy.
• Para eles, é caro. = For them / In their opinion, it’s expensive.

Para a Ana is a fronted phrase giving the viewpoint (Ana’s opinion). In writing, Portuguese normally separates such an introductory element with a comma:

• Para a Ana, é injusto…
  In Ana’s opinion, it’s unfair…

You could also put the phrase at the end:

• É injusto trabalharmos tanto sem uma pausa de lazer, para a Ana.

That still means “In Ana’s opinion, it’s unfair…”, but when you move para a Ana to the end, it can sound slightly heavier and, in some contexts, a bit more ambiguous (it might be read as “this situation is unfair to Ana” rather than “according to Ana”). At the beginning with a comma, the “according to Ana” meaning is very clear.

Portuguese uses ser (é) with adjectives that express:

• a general evaluation
• a characteristic, permanent or not
• an opinion about a situation

Here, the sentence expresses Ana’s judgement of the situation:

• É injusto… = It’s unfair… (general evaluation)

Estar (estar injusto) is not used in this sense. You might say está mal or está errado about something temporary, but injusto with estar is not idiomatic.

So for moral or value judgements like fair/unfair, right/wrong, good/bad, use ser:

• É justo. = It is fair.
• É errado. = It is wrong.
• É bom. = It is good.

Trabalharmos is the personal infinitive (infinitivo pessoal), 1st person plural:

• Infinitive: trabalhar
• Personal infinitive:
  eu trabalhar
  tu trabalhares
  ele / ela / você trabalhar
  nós trabalharmos
  vós trabalhardes
  eles / elas / vocês trabalharem

So:

• trabalhar = to work (no specific subject)
• trabalharmos = for us to work / that we work

Personal infinitive lets you show who is doing the action, without using que + subjunctive.

Trabalhamos would be present indicative (we work / we are working), which doesn’t fit after é injusto in this structure.

No. Trabalharmos can look like a subjunctive form to learners, but it’s actually personal infinitive, not subjunctive.

Compare:

• Personal infinitive: trabalharmos
• Present subjunctive (1st person plural): trabalhemos

So the two alternative structures are:

1. É injusto trabalharmos tanto…
   It’s unfair for us to work so much… (personal infinitive)

2. É injusto que trabalhemos tanto…
   It’s unfair that we work so much… (que

   • present subjunctive)

Both are correct and common. The meaning is essentially the same; the second feels slightly more formal/explicit because of que trabalhemos.

Portuguese usually drops subject pronouns when the verb ending already makes the subject clear. The -mos in trabalharmos clearly signals “we”:

• trabalharmos → must be nós (“we”)

So nós is optional and would normally be omitted here:

• É injusto nós trabalharmos tanto… (possible, but sounds heavier)
• É injusto trabalharmos tanto… (natural, preferred)

You generally only add nós for emphasis or contrast:

• É injusto nós trabalharmos tanto e eles não fazerem nada.
  It’s unfair that *we work so much and they do nothing.*

Here tanto is an adverb meaning “so much”:

• trabalharmos tanto = to work so much

With verbs, tanto usually comes after the verb:

• trabalhar tanto = to work so much
• comer tanto = to eat so much
• chorar tanto = to cry so much

Putting tanto before the verb (tanto trabalharmos) is not idiomatic in this structure.

Lazer is closer to “leisure” than just “rest”:

• lazer = free time spent on enjoyable activities, hobbies, relaxation
• descanso = rest (recovering from tiredness)

So:

• uma pausa de lazer ≈ a leisure break / a break for leisure activities

It suggests not only stopping work, but stopping to do something pleasant (relax, have fun, pursue a hobby), not just to sleep or sit.

Both are possible, with a small nuance:

• pausa de lazer

  • de often shows type/kind: a leisure-type break
  • sounds like “a break that counts as leisure”

• pausa para lazer

  • para suggests purpose: a break for the purpose of leisure
  • “a break in order to have leisure/free time”

In practice, the difference is subtle here. Pausa de lazer is natural and idiomatic; pausa para lazer is also understandable and acceptable.

Yes, you can say:

• …sem uma pausa de lazer. = without a leisure break (not even one).
• …sem pausa de lazer. = without leisure break(s) / without leisure breaks.

The version with uma makes you picture a specific instance: a single break.
Without uma, it feels more general and abstract, like without leisure breaks at all.

Both are grammatically correct; the original with uma is very natural in everyday speech.

They can say it the same way; the sentence is grammatically fine in Brazilian Portuguese. But a very typical Brazilian version might be:

• Pra Ana, é injusto a gente trabalhar tanto sem uma pausa para lazer.

Differences you might notice:

• Pra instead of para (common in speech and informal writing).
• a gente trabalhar instead of trabalharmos
  → a gente is widely used in Brazil for “we”, with the verb in 3rd singular.
• pausa para lazer is also very natural in Brazilian usage.

Your original sentence is more typical of European Portuguese in its style and choice of forms.