Without opening too big a philosophical door, Camus certainly disagreed with this statement. He found freedom in the Sisyphean tasks that were so numbing and so controlling that they liberated their victims from the necessity of thought. All one's life was ordained, thus, no volition was necessary. In some sense, it is the ultimate freedom. Not freedom of being, but freedom FROM being.
Of course, Camus could have been full of crap; most existentialists are.
Love your dry wit!
What was the secret in Britain that kept them safe from infatuation with an all-encompassing edifice of thought, unlike the "continentals"?
Obviously, freedom is a wildcard.
Camus wasn't. He just didn't get a chance to keep going, that's all.
(Don't bother disagreeing with me ... I've always been partial to Camus and that won't change. As far as I'm concerned, he is to the existentialists what Reagan is to post-war Republican Presidents.)
Eventually it might have dawned on him that labor was made for man, not man for labor, and that sometimes it's the most repetive and laborious sorts of jobs which lend real satisfaction, allow time for contemplation and engender real human regard ... not only for the humans with whom you "sling hash" but also for beauty and order. The garden you tend, the bread you bake, the animals you feed, the wood you sand, the iron you forge, the children you rear.
I can't think of any more (and less) Sisyphean task than rearing a family. Paradoxical, that.