The point I was making is that someone else's job isn't being nice to them, because you aren't doing something nice FOR THEM you are instead doing something nice FOR THEIR EMPLOYER as the amount of money they are paid or the load of tasks they are being given will adjust behind the scenes. It isn't intuitive, but once pointed out I hope it becomes obvious? If you do enough of their job for them, they get fired :(. If you cause then enough work, maybe you can get them a raise. (And yes: capitalism sucks like this if this makes you feel bad somehow, but you are moving in the wrong direction if you are trying to work on it: you should strive to have solidarity with workers!)

>you should strive to have solidarity with workers

Kind of weird to make this point at the end, right after you apparently say you intentionally make the cleaning jobs harder. As a cleaner if people make more of a mess of things, you'll just get overwhelmed with too much work and then things will look messy and you'll get fired. Cleaners usually don't get raises, and especially not raises for doing more work. You maybe get token raises when you threaten to leave due to low pay and the managers can't find a replacement straight away.

Nobody ever saw a clean office and came to the conclusion, "Our cleaning staff must be lazing about because someone else is cleaning for them, we should fire them all!"

Again, where did this meme about 'doing someone elses job'? The point made was, be respectful of them when they're doing their job, by cooperating and not winging about it.

This has become a tortuous argument which on the surface seems to be for justifying being disrespectful or lazy.

I see your point. There's no reason to hire a janitor if there's nothing to clean. I don't think there's a simple answer.