Couldn't agree more... all this work/labor hairsplitting makes no sense.
This is arguing that there is no difference between being a slave and being a free human because both have to prepare food, chop wood, wash dishes.
"I own a house, I will put the bins out because I want my house to be rat-free and smell nice" is fundamentally different from "my master orders me to put the bins out and if I don't I will be punished" and from "my employer orders me to put the bins out and if I don't I will become unemployed, homeless, unable to get food, so I am coerced to do it and have no choice".
You are arguing that the choice is meaningless because labour and work and employment are all the same, and the author is arguing that the choice is everything.
But in terms of steps, yes the problem of capitalist exploitation is solvable. Of course the 1% don't really want that solution which is why they try so hard to perpetuate the myths the author takes on.
Which is to say I can't quote their definition, but it was clearly leading to the sexist one. (elsewhere people are using a labor vs work distinction which I'm going to contend comes from the same sexism and isn't a useful distinction)
This article is dishonest in using a definition of work that excludes the vast majority of work people have done over history. The sexist view that women never work because watching kids, making clothing, washing clothing, preparing meals (all traditional things women did in various societies) was not real work, while the things men did (hunting, fishing) was real work.