Technically, yes :) Of course, my employer would never see it that way. If I worked for a smaller company with reasonable people (e.g. nobody screaming "comply or face disciplinary action!" in daily emails), then I'm sure I would have some leverage, either before or after cutting my hours.

As it stands however, I work for a megacorp that offers nice projects to work on, but with a "system" that's like a dystopian nightmare, and a rulebook and HR staff that exist to waste your time, use you up and spit you out.

Technically, if they work 20% less with the same output, productivity has increased by 25%, not 20%. They are underpaid by 25%.

It's weird that owners are paid proportional to aggregate productivity (units produced and sold), but those delivering the results are most often paid proportional to costs (hours worked).

I get why the system is this way, but it's not a "good" system in my opinion.

If you're looking at the money, yes. But how much is the potential happiness and stress reduction worth? 5%? 10%? 20%?