I think there needs to be some middle ground. What is completely ignored by such an "all or nothing" law is the trade-offs required in order to create a high quality of life for individuals while also thinking of our society overall.
It is in society's interest for some industries to be protected - in order to avoid low-cost competitors and worse employers. We are over-reacting.
Middle ground in inherently non-equal relationships (employer-employee, landlord-tenant, etc) doesn't usually work because the areas close to the line need courts to sort them out, and courts cost money, which one side of the relationship doesn't have, so what happens instead is that the line inches slowly but surely in favor of the powerful side of the relationship because no individual can afford to challenge it.
There are some ways to combat those effects - for instance, large statutory damages make the reward larger, and unionization makes the individual risk lower - but by far the simplest and most direct is to sacrifice nuance to at least avoid a worst-case option.
Trade offs don't work with fundamental rights. You should be able to practice your profession anywhere, and FUD surrounding the ability to hire top talent yay depresses wages across industries.
It is not in societies interest to bond employee to employer, ever.
It is in society's interest for some industries to be protected - in order to avoid low-cost competitors and worse employers. We are over-reacting.