If 6 hours is very reasonable for the average employee but you manage to do it in 3 to the same degree of quality and aren't being compensated anything extra ab

If 6 hours is very reasonable for the average employee but you manage to do it in 3 to the same degree of quality and aren't being compensated anything extra above that average then I think the more pressing and larger unethical issue is the method by which compensation is determined. I think there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance being experienced here. The idea of a 40 hour work week is so deeply ingrained that there's a deep seated feeling of obligation toward working that time. In reality? The company has defined a scope of work according the 40 hour socially constructed time and assigned a value of $X for the work they think should be done during that time. If someone can do the expected work in 20 hours what are they supposed to do, be punished by getting even more work than colleagues compensated at the same level? No, in practice-- and you'll see this all the time if you look for it-- many people lengthen the time they take to complete their work to fill a full 40 hours. Breaks, casual extended conversations with co workers over non-work related things, heck walking to meetings and waiting for others to arrive and then walking back-- that dead time is eliminated with remote work.