Like others here, I am somewhat skeptical of the accuracy of these accounts, but ofc like anyone who's been working for some time I've seen the kinds of situations that inspire them. To me, framing this as being about the workers as opposed to the situation the workers find themselves in is entirely wrongheaded.

Working for 10 hours a week can either be embarrassingly bad or heroically productive depending on the situation you find yourself in. People can avoid work, of course, but generally avoiding work looks very different if you could be doing 30+ hours of real work each week. I recall (but cannot find) an article about the many months and meetings it took to add a single option to the windows shutdown menu. Depending on your organizational constraints, doing very little work each week may be optimal. Doing more work in the wrong direction would be a net-negative.

I just think it's very odd to say "no one is working" instead of "companies can't organize people to be able to work." If you are in an environment where you could actually do a lot of work and you do a little, you will not last long. The only way you last is if you're in the ballpark.