I feel like I'm reading half of an argument here. Is this a response to something? Who in the world works for free when they're doing contract work?
The development scope is feature X with A,B,C. Customer asks for D and E. Technically D and E will add maybe 3 hours and Y cost to the total.
Your choices:
a) Bring it up which almost always leads to some haggling. Emails turn into calls, calls turn into meetings. Meetings turn into negotiations, negotiations lead to some compromise, in the end you have spent 3 hours just reaching an agreement, which nobody will reimburse you for. If you don't reach an agreement you stand your ground in numerous ways, most of which result in getting stiffed or losing business.
b) Spend the extra 3 hours.
A lot of times it's just simpler to choose (b), and like the author says, give in to tyranny. It's a genuine problem.
Of course that only works with time-based billing, and a lot of people would advise against it, but it's one of the reasons why I love it.
I am an hourly contractor, and I prefer it to 'full time' employment. As with everything, there are pros and cons, but overall it is a net-positive for me and the way I wish to spend my time.
I sort of follow the point about respecting productive time. I do try to cut the bullshit. I do spend a lot of time thinking about the emails I'm going to send my clients (that I don't bill them for) so that my information is as efficient as possible. I've found an hourly rate that works for me and if I'm offered below that I just say 'no'. I don't consider that working for free. I don't find myself competing against 'full-time' employees in the way the article suggests. My experience is the opposite. I still think it might be satire...maybe?