> "What is a job if not exchanging "slavery" for money?"

that's a very perverse perspective, and is exactly the sentiment a multi-national corporation like IBM would want you to have.

a job is an opportunity for two parties on equal footing to make a favorable exchange: my labor for your cash. it's a classic example of a capitalistic win-win. it's an opportunity for me to ply my trade, to further develop my expertise so that my offerings are more attractive to others and i can make more money. it's an opportunity for you to further your business objectives, widen your offerings, and widen your reach.

slavery is ownership. it's callous and flippant to make such a correlation to work for hire.

> slavery is ownership.

Chattel slavery is ownership, but slavery extends beyond just chattel slavery.

i'd like to see legislation that holds companies accountable to anything they list in their recruiting/marketing pitches ( unlimited vacation, work/life balance, hip and cool, etc. )

That's my point. A voluntary job can't be slavery, by definition.

You've just terminated my employment, removing my ability to pay for food and shelter for myself and my family. There is no way you can tell me that any such agreement waiving rights for severance was not done under duress.

Actually being a slave might be preferable. Slaves had guaranteed room and board and medical care...

No they did not.