rather "sex work the worker doesn't like" - but who cares about such subtleties when money can be made...
Most of the major "human trafficking" stings that have been executed in the US in recent years haven't targeted people who are being compelled to be on the street or in the brothel, but rather people who are choosing the best of a bad set of options, by and large.
I don't particularly want to be sitting behind a desk working for someone else 40 hours a week but no one would refer to that as "engineer trafficking" just because I don't particularly like it but do it because the money is good and I like the things that money can buy me.
But maybe they should!
If we really want to broaden the idea of "human trafficking" to mean "sex work the worker doesn't like", it probably would be a good idea to change the law so that they're not the ones who are being punished. Unless you mean to imply that people who do jobs that they don't like should be punished by the coercive power of the State for making that decision.
To be very clear – that is not what I think that you mean to say, it's only what you can be interpreted to be saying.
Of course it's different when the person chooses the job. The general definition for trafficking requires a trafficker.
| Human trafficking is the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labour, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others.
Which is a vanishingly small slice of the sex worker pie (pun intended), and very, very few of those prosecuted are actually engaged in coerced activity.
Now, it's a great claim to make if you get caught because it's very hard for your pimp or coordinator to prove they weren't coercing you. You can angle for leniency from the system and stick it to your boss, and who doesn't like that?
At present, prosecution only requires the suspicion of trafficking, and that's an actual problem.