Reading the article again, it's suddenly pretty obvious that Graeber is only taking the employee's point of view on this. I wonder if he'll do the same in his book. That said, I agree with Odder: if for every bullshit job there's a bullshit rule that should have an exception, it's still problematic in my book.
What's the platitude? If both sides are unhappy with the contract it's a good one? My jewelry lab has an oxy/propane torch at every bench. There must be 30 of them in the room. We've got concentrated peroxide and other chemicals to etch metal. We've got a 200-ton press, we've got a bandsaw, we've got all sorts of shit. But if you want to heat up your piece before you dip it in liver of sulfur you have to run it under hot water because OSHA deemed a blow dryer to be a fire hazard. Know who governs those chemicals? The EPA. MSDS for everybody. Know who governs the torches and gasses? OSHA. Standards for all of it. Know who governs the use of a hair dryer in an industrial production environment? Nobody. Stupid on the face of it? Absolutely. The compromise necessary in order to make everything else work? Absolutely.
I have about this -----> <------- much experience with jewelry making. That experience involves two instructors. In my n of 2, I can say with confidence that "do what works" is the prime motivator. At least one of those instructors prefers blow dryers.