> I can't imagine going from lunch to lock-in and then going to work the next day.
For a very long time in history, the pace of work was more tolerable: most in the "upper chain" were people who worked the shit jobs at the beginning of their careers themselves instead of by clueless MBAs who joined management right after university, had utterly no idea what the worker base was doing and only were able to crunch numbers and rule by fear. Also, there usually was no computerized database or other way on which to track efficiency of workers, which means that the expected pace was effectively set by the workers themselves - and they accounted for having had a couple beers the night before, since that was was everyone did, and no one wanted to be the one arsehole that ratted out everyone else to management.
The first change was anything that could be industrialized, where the pace of work was dictated by the machines, which obviously led to (sometimes extremely violent) strikes and literal labor fights. Classic trades and office jobs still ran under the "old order of things" for decades. And then, maybe a decade ago, the age of IT began - now everyone and their dog employs efficiency-gaming at all parts of the chain, and here we have a problem for the mentioned old guard.
Obviously, a part of the "efficiency gains" of the last decades was cutting down on actual laziness or on mind-blowingly complex processes. But the way things are going, I think people will want an "out" to better times in the past - basically, capitalism is once again going to discover it the hard way that people are humans, not machines, and as such need frequent downtime to mentally relax, even if it's just a beer or cigarette breaks.