Ultimately, it's just one more point of negotiation.

In a market where labor is scarce, clocking out at <= 40 hours might be no problem, because you're not readily replaced.

But when the balance shifts and your skills are in less demand, the screws are turned, and management is going to start asking questions about who is providing the best value. To a corporation, employees are just fungible cogs, ready to be replaced if they aren't delivering.

Unless you really are a 10x developer (and by definition we all sure aren't) your head could be on the chopping block. If you're a 1x developer, an easy way to get more done than another 1x developer is to put in 1.5x the hours that they do.

What led me to self-employment was that the 1.2x developer who works reasonable hours is often perceived as less productive as the 0.7x developer who is ass in chair more often. Maybe things have gotten better since covid but I doubt it.

I think employers exaggerate their willingness to fire you. It’s risky for them. For example, they can’t fire everybody, so after they fire one person, the next one should be proportionally less afraid of working less.

You’re also not limited to one job. Even people in economically disadvantaged positions can usually get another one if needed.

In other words, it’s precisely this fear that employers are counting on. Speaking from experience, once you face it, it tends to evaporate.

As you can see from the article you're commenting on, it does not protect you from being fired, so I don't see your point.

The point is that some people just don't have a choice.

You are right, as described in the article, it will not protect you from being fired. But choosing not to work overtime may directly cause the firing.

I think the implied solution is to find another position if possible. You can always work for a bad company while attempting to be hired by a better one.