There's a fourth option to encourage longer-term employment which this article doesn't mention (and which seems to get little notice in the USA at least) -- worker-owned cooperatives.
The biggest problem is not that a worker-owned coop doesn't work. They do. The problem is one of primate social hierarchy. That is, "someone has to be the boss".
The differences between that and management-owned companies are the political tools all workers have to influence decisions, and the shared social contract which says all owners have a stake in the company's decision making (not all employees have to be owners from day one).
My experience is that cooperation is nice but it doesn't scale. As soon as you reach a significant size (a few hundred people), hierarchy is established; leadership will then progressively solidify around a specific network of people, which becomes a de-facto separate class; eventually, you end up in a situation that is cooperative in name only, with a traditional managerial class dominating an exploited workforce; in the best case, the organization will share a culture of respecting workers slightly more than regular companies, but that's about it.
Note that I'm not discarding the model entirely, it can work extremely well on a small scale. There are also "hybrid" examples (like the John Lewis Partnership) which seem to better embody the cooperative ethos than "pure" coops at scale.
I think this is an important thing to think about, because labor has been fighting for rules to get companies to reduce turnover for a long time, and I'm not sure that is in the interest of laborers as a whole.
I certainly agree that employment is very important (especially under our current economic system... but personally, I think that having a job might be important even when you don't need to fear for your food.) - I think that lowering the unemployment rate is one of the most important things we can do for the happiness and health of our society, certainly as long as we use our current economic system.
but... I don't see why that means you should work at the same place forever. As is common in my industry, I jump around rather a lot; I don't think I've worked at a company I didn't own for more than five years (and five years was about the max I worked full time at my own company, rather than contracting myself out for venture capital)
In fact, I'd argue that greater job mobility gives the worker more power not less... the coercive power of the capitalist boss only exists if you think that after getting fired from this job you can't get another job. I would argue that workers as a whole would be better off at a same total level of unemployment, if changing jobs was easier, not harder.