If it’s a better strategy then companies that do adopt it will out-compete those that don’t. Social safety nets are a fine idea generally but I don’t think they would specifically encourage this practice. You don’t really want people feeling free to leave the workforce entirely. (This is an unpopular conclusion of capitalism but if nobody has to work then nothing happens and then nobody gets to eat.) The better structure is for people to be able to move to better places that make them feel empowered and rewarded etc. Safety nets are useful in that people can try things and fail, which is another desirable quality in a society, but I don’t think you can rely on them to make employers improve their offerings.

A pretty huge issue in modern capitalist economies is that people are locked into underpaid jobs with no prospects and no investment in their future other than to hold on for dear life. That’s a massive waste of our potential and a terrible experience for those workers. (And because failing these people is part of the complex of interconnected root causes that lead to anti-democratic sentiment, it is an existential problem.) You want companies to compete to use people better than that, and sharing in the rewards and the decision-making makes for a much better plight for a worker at the lower end of the pay scale. Heck, there are companies today that pay everyone the same salary, determined by the company’s profit divided by N. Their people post on HN sometimes.