Circa 1987' I went to my wife's law office and had to wait a few minutes while she finished up. I waited in the law library and found myself looking at these vast shelves filled with a law encyclopedia entitled American Jurisprudence 1st edition. I reached up and grabbed a volume which happened to be for the letter "M" and started flipping through the pages, killing time, when by chance I hit upon the subject, "Master and Slave." Under this heading was the following text.
Off to volume "E" I went and under the article for it stated that the terms "master and slave" were now considered bad terms and thus have been replaced with the term "employer and employee." Then the article went on to describe those terms in broader details along with the legal history and precedence but the foundational premise of the terms are nothing more than as replacement for the previous terms, "master and slave."
I've yet to see or read anything that contradicts what I read in Am. Juris. 1st edition. Also I remained unconvinced that everything aside and under the new terms we call them, that what we have now is nothing more than a type feudalism under a new name and terms. Whether a King or the Barons at Runnymede, the interests actually served are always the ones of the ruling class, one way or the other.