In my experience, one size fits-all 'rules' generally do little to improve safety, they provide somewhere for the jobsworth to hide behind: "Not my fault mate, them's the rules". Those who are not 'hurt' by the rule say "seems like a good idea to me, safety's good mm'kay?", those who are receive accusatory finger pointing: "what price safety?" I'd suggest there's a case to argue that it might be detrimental to safety. It might just engender a mindset of "I've done a check so I must be OK", rather than an objective assessment of whether you are OK. On the other hand, perhaps some people aren't too objective(!)
For example, most of the flying clubs I spoke to when I was looking for a new home require 28 day currency on *their* aircraft, or even individual types in the fleet. So, I can fly 30 consecutive days on someone else's aircraft, then come back and have to do a check? Perhaps I fly a pitts several times in those 28 days, then need a checkout to fly a PA28? And apparently it's not blatant profiteering!
Fortunately there are some more enlightened operators out there, if you keep looking. Oh, and just for the record, this 28 day business isn't (in my experience), common in Aus, or NZ. Don't know about the rest of the world, but the UK is the first place I've seen it.