There surely are laws whose sole purpose is to protect property from people who could damage it simply by existing. With no concern whatsoever for the hardship and even medical damage that following the law could do.
But I wouldn't advocate for them.
The only way to turn a person who normally grows hair into one who does not is with a very serious systemic treatment such as chemotherapy. Enforce that as a counter to the hair and you'll be dealing with puke in all your delicate pieces of equipment. Not really an improvement.
You could also create scar tissue on all skin surfaces but that's not guaranteed to stop the hair and you'd run into little problems like kidney shutdown.
Products like Nair supposedly dissolve the hair that has exited the skin, but they don't really work that well and they leave a mess. It's the mess (the hair that is no longer attached to the body) that you're trying to avoid in the first place.
Waxing (or sugaring or tweezing) require hair that has at least an 1/8th or 1/4th inch of growing and pulls it out. A fair bit comes out that was not visible before, so it takes longer for the hair to grow back than if it were simply shaved. Wax and sugar also hold the hair bits so they're not very likely to create a mess.
There is no such thing as permanent waxing and it needs to be repeated every 6 weeks or so.
Electrolysis is a permanent hair removal method. You zap each hair with a special device. Most hairs require multiple treatments. You need to leave a few weeks in-between treatments to heal. Treatment plans can take a year or more.
But let's say it's the future and, along with space travel, we've invented safe, quick, and effective methods of removing hair either permanently or for an extended period of time. Then it certainly might be a company's prerogative to require employees or customers to be hair-free. But a law? To whose benefit is a law? The companies that own the delicate equipment?