There are laws requiring workplaces to be as safe as reasonably possible. None the less, some jobs just are dangerous and can't be made entirely safe. To take an obvious example, a soldier on active military duty faces some risks, and they're inherent in the job.
I don't know exactly how employment law applies to the armed services, but I expect the upshot is something like this: the army has an obligation to do things in a way that e.g. doesn't make accidents needlessly likely, but if you are a soldier fighting a war then you might get shot and that's just part of what they pay you for.
Employment laws may or may not already be drafted in a way that makes them suitable for applying to sex workers, but in principle the situation seems to me very similar to the one I just described. If you are (say) a pornographic actor or a prostitute, then you are going to be having some sex that you wouldn't otherwise have chosen to have, and that's just part of what they pay you for; but your employers are still obliged to protect you from (for instance) being sexually harrassed by your boss.
So, sure, it's a special case and the laws might need to be written carefully to deal with it, but that's not unprecedented. (In particular, if your intended subtext was something like "... so sex work should be illegal because it's fundamentally abusive" then I think you need to explain why we don't have to outlaw the military, police, and other groups that are necessarily exposed to substantial physical danger in the course of their work.)
I think it's a little hyperbolic to draw military service into the equation - as that is almost universally seen as exceptional.
Now for fire and police work - I would argue the difference is one of necessity - even the most fundamental libertarians would probably agree that sex work is a luxury good or service - not something fundamental for survival or law and order; it is closer to working at a restaurant: providing a convenient, but ultimately redundant service (people can and do buy food and prepare it at home).
We don't expect restaurant workers to risk their life; while we accept that firefighters sometimes do (although, they try very hard not to).
As for the more fundamental aspect; should we allow prostitution - or; is there a difference between other uncomfortable jobs and the sex industry - I suppose I land on the side that the idea that prostitution is OK derives from the fact that we live in a society that's not equal.
It may be puritan of me to say that I'd never (unless circumstances changed significantly for worse, I suppose) consider making a living sucking cocks - and I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. But if we do say that prostitution is just work - I don't see why we'd pay social security to people who refuse sex work?
I just think there's a fundamental difference between say, cleaning floors and having sex for money.
As an example, there Discovery channel has a documentary show called deadliest Catch, during with they follow fishermen during crab fishing seasons in alaska. Those crabs are a luxury product, and yet according to discovery the death rate during the main crab seasons averages out to nearly one fisherman per week, while the injury rate for crews on most crab boats is nearly 100%. Compared to fire and police work, I would guess it is much safer to spend a day in their line of work compared to go on one of those boats.
If we look at the top 10 most dangerous jobs we also see a fairly common pattern where safety is a balance between costs and efficiency. Most of those jobs could be made relative safe, but then the cost would go up. While we don't expect restaurant workers to risk their life, we do expect that the roofer to not spend more money on safety that is strictly necessary, making roofers one of the most dangerous jobs.
That certainly is a difference across countries; not taking proper safety measures as a fisherman or roofer is a qymuick way too lose relevant licenses, get fined or even jail time in Norway.
That said, fishing can never be entirely safe - a storm is a storm, and the ocean is cold and deep (off the Norwegian coast, for example).
Still,while I wildly disagree on the premise that fishing and prostitution could be compared (that is, mostly on an emotional level) - I think I'll have to concede that in some ways it might make for a an interesting comparison point.
I'd guess coal mining could fit too.
But in the context of a sound and well regulated job market, I don't think fishing in general is a luxury goods provider. Neither is mining (in general).
My general view is that you can not make prostitution illegal without a explicit moral stand regarding people who have sex for money (or pay for sex).
Any regulation that tries to go the route and forbid jobs based on health risk would need to make a larger portion of the worked force in order to also cover legal prostitution.
We could also take a stand against wage slavery. The article articulate quite well how much of her life was punctuated on the need to raise money for rent and food. Countries like Norway and Sweden have social safety nets in place to prevent that, but even here people will accept risky jobs that they do not want to do in order to escape bare minimum living standard.
I don't know exactly how employment law applies to the armed services, but I expect the upshot is something like this: the army has an obligation to do things in a way that e.g. doesn't make accidents needlessly likely, but if you are a soldier fighting a war then you might get shot and that's just part of what they pay you for.
Employment laws may or may not already be drafted in a way that makes them suitable for applying to sex workers, but in principle the situation seems to me very similar to the one I just described. If you are (say) a pornographic actor or a prostitute, then you are going to be having some sex that you wouldn't otherwise have chosen to have, and that's just part of what they pay you for; but your employers are still obliged to protect you from (for instance) being sexually harrassed by your boss.
So, sure, it's a special case and the laws might need to be written carefully to deal with it, but that's not unprecedented. (In particular, if your intended subtext was something like "... so sex work should be illegal because it's fundamentally abusive" then I think you need to explain why we don't have to outlaw the military, police, and other groups that are necessarily exposed to substantial physical danger in the course of their work.)