This reminds me of the idea "the corruption driven employment". The idea that one gets paid while one is clocked in independent of the value one produces for the employer. Like should that 5min coffee or smoke break be billed? Or endlessly scrolling through social media waiting for a client to reply back?
There are many situations in which one could question if the value/billing strategy is the best it could be. This in return creates a notion of lack of fairness, which can be deemed as corruption. Like why should I be paid equivalently to a colleague who is slacking off?
These ideas would glorify the gig economy aka being paid per project aka being a freelancer. This model would work well as long as the project are frequent and small enough. Otherwise monthly income would be quite volatile and lots of banking institutions do not favor this and thereby can cause additional charges (shifting of funds is a strategy to overcome such charges).
This model in return would incorporate the time tracking system Vertrauenarbeitszeit (German "trust flex time") and delegates that burden as well to the employee. This all works as long as the employee is informed of the local laws.
Now this does not mean that each employee should use this model or even like this model. It is perfectly accepted to be paid on a flex time or on a traditional time basis. One should acknowledge as long as one cannot concretely objectively define knowledge work, it will always be hard to put value to abstract units of a completed service.
That's why attempts have been created to objectively define such situations e.g. in the tech world either by product manager's shirt sizes or SCRUM complexity points which in return would be assimilated to an expected amount of time.
In summary, corruption can exist in employment if the value the employee produces does not reflect the effort placed. This corruption is either through under performance or exploitation of the employee and only exists if the cost is rejected.
