You’re responding to a phenomenon which neither the article is advocating for, not what I defended. The article rightly, I think, questions the pervasiveness of such extreme do-nothingness. Most workers engaged in whatever is being observed do what they were hired to do and don’t oblige themselves beyond their stated responsibilities. That’s more than fine, it’s good and healthy in the vast majority of circumstances. It’s not (again challenging the article here) an organizing principle with much merit for improving workers lives broadly, but it’s at least a good balance for most workers to strike for their own wellbeing.

I don’t know if you’re conflating these things because the article poorly laid out its premise, or because you’re sympathetic to the demanding expectations you’ve participated in, or because it was so traumatic you see in your own right laziness where people are merely enjoying the fruits of their labor without toiling for other people’s fruits. In any case, I sincerely wish you recovery from any remaining burnout. And I sincerely invite you to have solidarity with others who don’t want to experience the severity of overwork we have, and to defend them in rejecting cultures of overwork rather than defending caricatures of workers who would be just as harmed if they were in our position.

If you don’t want to be overworked, don’t drive excessive work for those who’d benefit at your expense.