Sounds like you live in a world of incredible privilege. Not everyone is so lucky.

Nope - A large portion of the world works like this. If you work for a place which demands you work all of the time, you either work for an abusive employer, or you get paid a lot of money to be at their beck and call.

If the employer is abusive, find another job. If you are paid a large salary to be a slave to company, consider finding a job with a better work/life balance.

I think you have a poor understanding of what most of the world looks like. Most people on the planet exist in tenuous circumstances which do not allow them to simply go find another job, let alone an employer that isn't abusive, etc. The luxury of being able to worry about these things and take meaningful action to achieve them is truly a recent phenomenon that is not widely distributed.

> Nope - A large portion of the world works like this. If you work for a place which demands you work all of the time, you either work for an abusive employer, or you get paid a lot of money to be at their beck and call.

If you mean that most employers are abusive then yes. That’s why there are laws like this one. Non-abusive employers can ignore it because they were already doing the right thing.

> find another job

See the problem is that if labour laws didn't protect people, then everyone would be constantly under the stress of having one foot out the door and having to look for another job at the drop of a hat. Workplace productivity would plummet and the economy be quickly be tanked

There were no weekends before labor movement fought and got it..

You may do well because you’re lucky; luck does not scale.

> What stops my employer from potentially disciplining or firing me is first of all, that I am good at what I do, and second that I negotiate from a position of strength.

In other words, you are at the tender mercies of your employer, and you rely on them to uphold the implicit contract that they will not cross those unspoken boundaries. I'm glad this strategy works for you, but you are literally placing your livelihood, a roof over your head, and the food on your table at risk to keep it this way. If that's an acceptable risk for you, then sure.

>> In other words, you are at the tender mercies of your employer

There are no tender mercies involved.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" -- Adam Smith

Mr. Smith is talking about the sell side rather than the buy side in that passage, but the same principle applies.

Obviously employers would prefer not to employ employees if there are more profitable alternatives. If my employer decides not to employ me any longer (which is expected, my team was 50 people this time last year, it is 10 people now), neither the roof over my head nor the food on my table is at risk. My life, financially, will go on exactly as it does now.

You can get the same type of thing, but you have to give something up in order to get it. Most people won't and that's their choice and that's fine.

> My life, financially, will go on exactly as it does now.

Then your situation has zero relevance to almost every human being on earth