I can't really respond to this without restating the arguments already made earlier, but ask yourself this: isn't it an odd coincidence that this appraisal of t

I can't really respond to this without restating the arguments already made earlier, but ask yourself this: isn't it an odd coincidence that this appraisal of the situation on your end is absolutely ideal for the employer? - It leaves little possibility of advocating for better conditions, even if these might be straightforward to obtain - Makes it more likely to expend additional energy for the employer due to a moral abstraction as opposed to a material or social/societal need - Assigns high moral worth to the employer by virtue of their ownership and higher class. The employee can't merely sign a contract, but must also practice additional gratefulness in favor of the employer - Could potentially lead to monitoring and reporting other workers based on the abstraction of dishonesty, at no material or social gain to either worker involved or any clearly identifiable societal improvement The employer makes far more money, their relationship to work is completely different, they own at least a significant part of the company, belong to a higher social class, and yet both your worldviews regarding work coincide neatly, and do so specifically in favor of only one person in the equation. We could transpose this to a hypothetical Victorian worker. They could say that they are privileged to work 12 hour days because they could also work as a literal slave. That they should show extra diligence for the employer because that God-given hierarchy is natural and wholesome. From our vantage point, this mindset sounds absurd and the result of internalized oppression, but a hypothetical worker of the future could very well look at us now rejecting the 4 day workweek the same way we look at our predecessors justifying child labor and black lung.