Not the poster you're replying to, but what I read it as was: many employers posts lists like this, but they are not necessarily "clear boundaries", because often they don't mean what you think the plain-English bullet point would mean. The most common one is that "safety is our #1 priority" type rules often have a very nuanced interpretation, with an unwritten subtext of, "but don't cause trouble by pointing out safety problems".

On the other hand, if the goal is to cover your ass, then broad rules that are somewhat ignored at management's discretion may be a feature rather than a bug.

Someone could use the article as a guide for what not to do in an attempt to increase job security. I was trying to illustrate that may not be always applicable. Some discretion gauging your work environment trumps the article.

(And it was a cathartic counterpoint. This guy sounds like a great employer.)

I think your employer was probably an exception, and most employers are more similar to the NYTimes author.

If most employers were making the outrageous demands the article author does, I'd perpetually be out of work.

Fairly obviously, he's complaining that he followed some of the rules listed on the linked page out of his own accord, and was penalized for that.