I'll concede rudeness as it's perceptive and not intrinsic in this case; I apologize for the timbre of my approach.
My stance is more of one rooted in individualism and self-advocation, i.e. if you're dedicated to a job that's considered a full time commitment, that's the social construct. We're not in a society post-labor, idealistic techtopia yet, and that transition if it occurs will be painful and bloated.
The reality is if you want the future of work when, how, where you want, then you have to recognize, admit and accept that your mental model of "employee/employer" relationship has to shift. You must not be the one exchanging what you are claiming to be your most precious asset - unburdened time - to the employer. There is no sense in continuing to enslave yourself to the constructs of yore. It is, ostensibly, within your control and power to become the master of your domain. Of course, this is going to look very catered to your particular requirements and value-adding skillsets.... do you have a set of diverse skills that can be leveraged into one-to-many income streams?
Why should the organization, that which agrees to give you quite a generous offer by any standard on a global measure, be responsible for ensuring the rest of your life is as you desire? You are the captain of the ship on this journey, only you are in control of the choices you make.
Truth is if your employer wanted to you be happy they would give you a full pension and send you on your way.
They want your labor, intelligence, work product, but it's all the same. They want your TIME.
Build businesses. Choose lifestyles that reduce dependency on extrinsic systemic operational uptime. Expose your raw value to the world as you decide and don't undermine your only static asset in life - time. It's incredible how variable the dollar-amount people set on their hours. . .