There are two important differences between the two stories, which may well explain the different endings.
First, the post is about taking unpaid leave, rather than (as in your example) effectively demanding a raise by reducing work.
Second, the poster never threatened to leave, which is in my experience always a poor tactic. Instead he effectively did leave and then engaged the company in considering bringing him back onboard after the time he needed, which flipped the power balance in the negotiation. The company was no longer in a position of strength because he had eliminated it's power to fire him - they had already lost and could only realize a gain by negotiating to retain a proven employee and save the cost of recruiting a replacement.
I've successfully used the same approach in the past. However, you must be committed to the outcome and be willing to leave (or have already left). I'd never consider trying it as a bluff.
First, the post is about taking unpaid leave, rather than (as in your example) effectively demanding a raise by reducing work.
Second, the poster never threatened to leave, which is in my experience always a poor tactic. Instead he effectively did leave and then engaged the company in considering bringing him back onboard after the time he needed, which flipped the power balance in the negotiation. The company was no longer in a position of strength because he had eliminated it's power to fire him - they had already lost and could only realize a gain by negotiating to retain a proven employee and save the cost of recruiting a replacement.
I've successfully used the same approach in the past. However, you must be committed to the outcome and be willing to leave (or have already left). I'd never consider trying it as a bluff.