Workers' compensation law does not require that the employment at the time of injury be permanent or even long-term.

If the prostitute-john relationship could rarely be characterized as regular employment (notwithstanding the term "hire" in this thread title), is that necessarily true of the relationship between prostitutes and pimps? I'm not sure. What about phone sex workers or dancers, and their employers (versus clients)? Some of those are certainly in regular employment.

If workers' compensation can be established as an area of social benefits entitlement for some sex workers, would that provide an impetus for others working in prostitution to organize into collectives, eg to ensure that their legal employment structure allows for statutory coverage in the event of injury on the job? Advocacy groups already exist. This would give them a really substantial way to try to help some of their most vulnerable members. It would bring them more money, increased legitimacy and exposure, leverage to demand legal changes that their members decide are important.

Of course, the idea of enfranchising sex workers in this way runs contrary to the vision of criminalizing all those who buy sex, martin. I'm guessing that's why you are opposed to it?