Equity stands on equal footing with law in the Constitution, and is often more efficient. Specific performance in paying the back wages and and injunction against further shenanigans is an equally viable approach.
It's worth reflecting on the fact that people on the more powerful side of asymmetrical contract relationships are often motivated to do whatever they can get away with, and the absence of a sufficiently specific law is often treated as a license to shift a cost burden onto the weaker party. The problem with your approach is endless multiplication, specification, and complexity of law, which drives up the cost of getting into a legal dispute for everyone.
The problem with the opposite approach is "legislating from the bench", which leads to legal uncertainty and comes with plenty of its own problems. That complexity you mentioned doesn't go away, it just gets shifted into case law instead of statutory law.
Law isn't complex just for the benefit of lawyers.
It's worth reflecting on the fact that people on the more powerful side of asymmetrical contract relationships are often motivated to do whatever they can get away with, and the absence of a sufficiently specific law is often treated as a license to shift a cost burden onto the weaker party. The problem with your approach is endless multiplication, specification, and complexity of law, which drives up the cost of getting into a legal dispute for everyone.