Uncompensated Work

To voluntarily work outside of normal hours, even without additional compensation, for the sake of benefitting a just employer is not obligatory, but it could be way to express gratefulness or affection for someone who does not misuse their power as an employer.  To demand or expect this kind of, at most, supererogatory behavior (good but not morally mandatory), and even moreso to enforce it by punishing those who do not go above their job duties, is itself unjust, the exploitative manipulation of people into working when there is no personal benefit or moral obligation in doing so.  A selfish, irrationalistic manager will think they are entitled to other people's surplus time and effort, and at any resistance to their tyrannical whims, they might asininely feel like they are actually the ones being mistreated.

A very misleading phrase that has in recent times been used to refer to not doing more than one's core job duties is "quiet quitting," which makes it sound like someone is resigning from their job without providing any notice.  As inept at communicating as many people are, it is unsurprising that some non-rationalist devised the phrase quiet quitting to mean the practice of simply doing what one is supposed to do for a role and nothing more.  In other words, a person who quiet quits (what a fucking stupid phrase it is!) does the bare minimum for their jobs.  This is not the same as being intentionally incompetent at one's work or being lazy.  No, it is to refrain from providing free labor when one is unwilling to do so.

Again, it is not necessarily irrational, unjust, or naive to perform additional tasks or to genuinely want to help a specific kind of employer succeed.  It should still eventually be rewarded in some form, whether with a monetary bonus or some professional favor that roughly corresponds to its impact.  At a minimum, it would deserve some sort of direct recognition and acknowledgement although some employers would despise the idea of this.  Unfortunately, many workplaces in countries like America or India are places where emotional manipulation or threats are instead used to "persuade" workers to do more than they need to, or where those who do only what their job specifically entails, even if they do it well, are overlooked for raises or promotions.

To persistently complete more work than is called for by a job's actual nature, either by the nature of the tasks themselves or the amount of time one is set to work, remains a sacrifice of time and energy that a worker is free to make if they hope to be rewarded.  Despite this, not only is refusing to do more than is necessary assumed by some irrational employers to be an excuse to dismiss someone from consideration for better pay or career opportunities, but working above and beyond what one's role requires is not a guarantee that one will be better compensated or even noticed.  In fact, some managers/employers might just complain or react with greater irrationality if such a worker suddenly begins to quiet quit.

Just as one could freely pay a vendor more than their wares are sold for as a tip or to show appreciation for the service or the vendor himself/herself, one could go above one's specific professional responsibilities in order to convey goodwill.  Since this is not owed by the employee to the employer, it cannot rationally and justly be demanded by the latter, but this can be legitimately offered by the former under certain circumstances.  So many workplaces do not offer the circumstances where rational workers, who neither think highly of themselves in an emotionalistically arrogant way nor eagerly submit themselves for exploitation, would have a reason to do more than their job truly calls for.