I’m not sure I follow that logic. Written, signed contracts where the agreeing parties are not being coerced is presently our gold standard for opt-in consent.
Except that you can't later withdraw your consent. You said that was "a violation of consent".
Which is it?
Employment contracts in the US (if they exist at all and aren’t simply an implicit agreement, so-called “at will” in most states) don’t generally provide for severance. Almost every one I’ve ever read allows for either party to opt out at any time without penalty, or explicitly states what the remaining liabilities would be in the instance that one of the parties did end the transaction.
If you don’t have a written, signed contract, you cannot assume future consent to perpetuating or extending a transaction. There wasn’t any explicit future-consent.
The existence of a written, signed contract changes that.
I'm sorry but there's plenty of both liabilities and obligations in the event of early termination. Have a look at your telco contract if you don't believe me
This is just a bad-faith attempt at using the language for sexual and interpersonal consent to pretend that businesses and workers are on an equal footing and have no obligations to their staff.