I'd agree with this assessment. This type of configuration is just a waste of time and the company's money because now you have two spare switches (for some reason) just sitting there collecting dust on the off-chance that the first one dies.
If your boss really cared about resiliency, he would have you put the switches into a VC and evenly distribute user connections across all three switches. Doing this spreads your risk amongst the three switches so that if you lose one, your entire userbase is not down - just a group of them.
One might even go as far as putting users into a port scheme such as on the first switch, users would go into ports 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, etc., users on the second switch would go into 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, etc., and the third would go 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, etc. If your port usage remains relatively static, and one of your switches goes down, it would be really easy to move configurations from one switch to the next with a simple copy-paste. Then you go and move them physically if your "dead" switch is not going to recover soon.