Forget the intended meaning, and focus on facts and consequences. When people have to chose between servitude and death, for whatever reason, whoever chooses servitude is effectively a slave. Good old slavery or modern sweatshop, it doesn't matter: the situation is the same.
Coercion (or lack thereof) is immaterial. And even if it's not, we could argue that there is a coercion of sorts: how come the employers don't offer better choices? Are they even talking to the government to help them offer better choices? Or do they just want to maximise profits, using whatever means necessary? Sure, their responsibility is much more diffuse and less clear cut than that of a slaver who would personally kill unwilling slaves. But from the point of view of the slave/employee, the result is the same: servitude or death.
Note that the sweatshop situation is dire enough that some people do chose death over the sweat shop. Enough of them that some shops have nets around them to prevent their employees from jumping off.
Coercion (or lack thereof) is immaterial. And even if it's not, we could argue that there is a coercion of sorts: how come the employers don't offer better choices? Are they even talking to the government to help them offer better choices? Or do they just want to maximise profits, using whatever means necessary? Sure, their responsibility is much more diffuse and less clear cut than that of a slaver who would personally kill unwilling slaves. But from the point of view of the slave/employee, the result is the same: servitude or death.
Note that the sweatshop situation is dire enough that some people do chose death over the sweat shop. Enough of them that some shops have nets around them to prevent their employees from jumping off.