On the one hand, it's a labour subsidy, so employers theoretically don't need to pay as much to offer a decent quality of life as an incentive. But on other hand, people no longer need a job to survive, which reduces the incentive to work.
I think the end result here might be a notable improvement in job quality. When you're not struggling to survive, it's much easier to weigh job quality in your decisions, and take less money in exchange for a more pleasant job. In particular, I think a lot of service jobs, could be more enjoyable if companies actually had to care about work environment.
One of the points is to give power back to those who on the labor market are almost powerless. Both forms would do that. What would the impact be? Likely price for labor goes up.
Describing only one of the options as a subsidy is not likely correct.