Productivity is typically measured in GDP, a metric which can be gamed.

If I spend a day doing my garden and my neighbour spends a day painting his kitchen, nothing is added to GDP

If I pay my neighbour to do my garden and he pays me to do my kitchen then GDP increases.

If I work longer and spend that money on child care that increases GDP but not quality of life.

The metrics as they are make sense. What perhaps should be fought over is whether or not employees should more commonly have an equity stake in the operation of the company, such that those overall gains do get realized by those doing the labor.

There are tiers of attachment when it comes to labor. I think most would agree that a freelancer has no claim to share in the profits of a company they do some work for, and most would also agree that someone who has put forward capital that allows the company to exist in the first place also deserves a return on it. The point of disagreement seems to be at what point an employee is an integral enough part of the operation such that their compensation should be linked with the overall performance of the company.

Some companies handle this well enough, others abysmally.