There are plenty of employee-owned companies to join if that's your opinion. Trying to shoehorn that ownership into companies that often got to where they are by not being employee-owned seems really entitled.

There was a time when nobility was complaining about peasants who wanted to have a say in how the country is run.

There's a little bit of a difference between the social structure of governance in a place you have to live and an opt-in corporate structure for people who can choose where they want to work.

> Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company.

Exactly, so what is stopping them from using their salary to buy shares? If you believe you are doing such a good job that the company will sustain or do better, it would almost be silly not to. You have domain expertise by virtue of working there. You may even have a solid insider feel for the pulse of the organization.

Nothing is stopping them from buying shares. What’s your point?

> Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company.

At a restaurant, a chef is not allowed to have a bite of your meal because s/he is the one who prepared it. That meal is owned by you in its entirety because that is what you paid for.

If a group of employees want a say in the how a business is run, they are free to purchase ownership, whether directly or through shares.

Chef gets to set the menu.

This is why every tech company worth its salt has some sort of RSU or stock option compensation.