No, don't do this. If you threaten someone with a higher level of violence than you can deliver, it's more likely they try to pre-emptively attack you (i.e. shoot you first) and you will have no defense against this. If you cannot win a violent encounter then compliance is generally the safest strategy.
Droplets would be number one on my list of transmission vectors for people other than the hand hygiene intensive cases I mentioned, yes.
I don't want to come down against good hygiene practices, exactly, but my prior is that this is a completely unimportant change for most people to make. The waterline of sanitary practices in Western nations is high enough that increasing the frequency and thoroughness of the average person's handwashing seems likely to be subject to serious diminishing returns.
Consider that we're starting from a status quo where most people's hands are washed 3-5 times a day, even if lazily. Yeah it's not 100% effective, but I don't think it has to be in most circumstances.
Is there good epidemiological data that estimates how many disease transmissions have insufficient hand hygiene as an important/necessary vector? Because I would bet that outside of unusual cases like food service and medical workers, the number is low.
I'll agree that "they couldn't pay you enough" is technically hyperbole but I can't imagine taking that sin seriously enough that it damages the credibility of the argument.
As for the message, here's how I interpret the thesis: "immoral maze work environments have large hedonic costs of a type that are not well offset by monetary compensation (or other promised rewards)". Which is distinct from, although related to, "money doesn't buy happiness".
I also disagree that all advice has to be positive to be actionable. Most people are aware of a variety of career paths they might pursue depending on their situation and talents; it's perfectly adequate to say "don't pursue middle management at a large corporation" because the reader can just update towards their other options.