Originally Posted by
Endus
For the sake of argument, Amazon has like 800k employees. And a worker collective wouldn't have to be equally-distributed. The basic idea is that the only way to own voting shares is to be an employee, where even the lowest employee has at least one share. Maybe that's 1-2 shares for nearly all the 800k employees. Maybe Jeff Bezos as CEO has 200,000 shares (to exaggerate beyond what's likely reasonable). He's making WAY more in dividends, and has a WAY bigger say than anyone else, but trying to implement abusive policies for staff like peeing in bottles to keep up with quotas, that stuff is gonna get outvoted (in theory) by the much larger staff component.
More complex issues are where you'd engage in some messaging to convince your staff to vote with you, or rely on their disagreement to leave you the big swing vote anyway, but the worst abuses should (in theory) no longer be possible. If the company explodes in value, so do those employee shares; everyone gains. Not equally, but proportionally. You've still got rich CEOs, they're just maybe not as rich, and maybe the best way to wealth is empowering your workers so they push harder, and they all share in the incentive to perform because they all enjoy the benefits of increased share value.
You'd need some elements for non-voting shares in there too, particularly for staff who retire, but those don't necessarily have to be transferrable.