Oh, sure. That'll go over real well with current and future employees and customers alike.
Besides, one obvious way to mitigate the risk would be to take responsibility for one's own retirement benefits, rather than putting oneself at the mercy of one's employer.
To inject a little reason here, the prohibition on demographic firing of older workers to avoid the payment of retirement benefits can be viewed as an issue of bad-faith bargaining on the contract (for the pension) drawn between the company and the individual. When there is a pattern of such behavior on the company's part, it indicates they have been making the commitment (in writing) for a pension for the workers without the intention to fulfill their commitments.
If an individual older worker is fired or layed off, there is not necessarily pattern-based evidence of breach of contract.
With respect to this specific case, I think the gentleman should not have been fired. It think it was wrong, especially if there was no known rule against this behavior. But that doesn't mean it was illegal, or should be.
The most effective way to counter this is to have AllState products be shunned by those who believe this action was wrong - voluntarily shunned.
Just my opinion, of course.