In these examples, no change in meaning is made by substituting in order to in place of to. That is not always the case.
Sometimes a to-infinitive is an adjunct that expresses purpose. The role is essentially equivalent to that of an adverbial of purposes using in order to. But sometimes it isn't.
Verbs like to ask, to attempt, to consent, to swear, to decide, to threaten - these are all catenative verbs, verbs that (can) take other verb expressions as objects. I might ask you to be clearer, or threaten to flag your post. There, the to-infinitive phrases are not modifying an otherwise complete verb, but rather they are defining precisely what the main verb means, just like any other object or complement. Some catenative verbs take a to-infinitive, some take a bare infinitive, and some take a gerund - and in all of those cases it may be an infinitive or gerund phrase, rather than just those verb forms.
Verbs can take a lot of things as objects, depending on the verb. Nouns and noun phrases are the usual objects, but we also get adjectival or verb phrases as complements, for certain verbs (such as linking verbs and catenative verbs, respectively). That's not what's happening in your examples, though.
In your examples, work is intransitive, and both the with-phrase and the infinitive phrase are acting as adverbials - one indicating the who and the other indicating the why. Infinitives can act as adverbials, though it's not a structure that people often think about in my experience. Thus, in order to would lead to the same meaning as to, though arguably it gives rise to a different structure - but only because they are different sorts of adverbial.