Although much of this resonates, the factoid here is that taylorism is a thing, and since before Marx economists have debated the extent to which piecework over time-rate alters the equation for paying for the labour inputs in capital.

Being required to be present, and being required to be productive are two different dimensions of control over being in work, and paid for work outputs.

WFH shifted the balance. Intrusive monitoring of the soft-desk is just another instance of a guy in a white coat with a clock standing behind you on the production line.

Neither time-and-motion nor extended overtime nor night shift move the dial positively on work outputs except in the case of people being performance managed out. If you are productive, doing LESS is usually more productive per unit time on work, than trying to do more, trying to work longer, or trying to work out of phase with your bodyclock. When ww2 required extreme measures, this was plotted out fully both sides of the atlantic and death in the workplace aside (it happened) the overall productivity and quality dropped.

You cannot get blood from a stone.

AI replacement was of course massively mythologised to justify short term salary savings and boards achieved KPI and shareholders rejoiced. IBM amongst others has quietly gone back into the market to pick up the junior staff everyone said they wouldn't want to have, because of course you want cheaper young productive minds, and the real victims of AI hype will be the old, mature, productive labour units who resist new ways of thinking.