Actually universal income has been endorsed by very conservative economic thinkers like Hayek.
It is actually an interesting argument. With a basic income provided for, the hysteresis for the worker is minimized, so the worker can change jobs easily. This automatically puts balance between the employer and employee. Many of the laws and regulatory agencies we have are to attempt to address the balance between employer and employee (avoiding servitude).
From the second link:
Quote: "But even if market competition is often a good check against private dominance, there is no good economic reason to believe that it will always be sufficient. Can we really dismiss the possibility that hard economic times, combined with an excess supply of labor and a small number of employers, will leave some employers with considerable market power over their workers?"
Isn't this exactly what is being questioned by the OP?
As for government, with a basic income, OSHA could go away. If the employer is exposing you to chemicals and not telling you, you can up and leave cause you can still pay your bills. Same with hours worked or other employee grievances like sexual harassment. All of those agencies and laws can be abandoned. So the argument is basic income would be way cheaper and facilitate the natural market forces.
https://medium.com/bull-market/friedrich-hayek-supported-a-guaranteed-minimum-income-ad321f54f8b2
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/