My problem with his solution is that it lacks two key components of an implementable design, better incentives and a competitive advantage. As a result, you'd seemingly need an authoritarian government to force these types of changes, which has the potential to cause greater harm than the problem it's fixing.

Incentives - While such a system seems better for workers, it doesn't show any benefit for entrepreneurs or investors. Why would anyone start such a business if they lose control almost immediately? What is the incentive for investment if it doesn't come with the potential for a return?

Competitive Advantage - The reason you'd need an authoritarian government is because anyone using a traditional ownership model would have an advantage against these types of companies. As we've seen in cooperatives, one-person-one-vote creates freerider and horizon problems, and the pressure to form smaller firms would eliminate the economies of scale that many firms today enjoy.

This feels more like a political solution, and seems liable to succumb to predictable economic behaviors.