That is a perfectly rational, in the economic sense, response of people who do not own the product of their labour. It is classic example of the maximization of our returns to your effort or cost - and it is a highly desirable behavior among capital owners. Ironically, it becomes "shirking" when labour power owners engage in it.
This is yet another example how business propaganda clouds and obscures our clear thinking. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but the owners of capital managed to convince the general public that one set of rules applies to them and another one to labour. As Johns Kenneth Galbraith aptly observed (quoting from memory) that in this story the rich will not work until handsomely compensated, while the poor will not work if paid too much.
The genius of Karl Marx was to use the central myth of the bourgeoisie - the classical economic theory - and draw logical implications that contradicted the goals that this myth was supposed to accomplish - i.e. the claim to superior rationality of institutional system that formed the basis of power of the bourgeoisie. In other words, he hijacked the bourgeois ideology and turned it against its original owners - and advocated that others do the same. However, very few listened and instead they preferred peddling their own alternative myths (aka identity politics). The outcome is quite sad, as the bourgeois central myth - the free market, rat choice mantra - flourishes among alternative myths that became but a butt of jokes.
One way to reverse this sad "alternativist" trend on the left is to use the central myth of the monied class - the neo-classical theory- and apply it to labour in the same way that its mouthpieces apply it to capital. The argument treating unions as public goods is one such attempt - which sadly went unnoticed by the US-ers on this list.
Wojtek