The whole point of the article was that, at this particular company, the employees only have to clock 32 hours a week at the place of business.

My speculation had to do with believing that most IT employees, given this situation, would "work", at job related tasks, for over 40 hours anyway.

Personally, if a job that paid me for 40 hours a week expected me to work 60 for more then perhaps once or twice a year, I would quit instantly, so I've never understood the "mandatory 60-hour" meme.

Perhaps this is where our wires were crossing.