I also suggest stay to keep a good eye on operation, rules and definitions when considering mapping that or any experience to the US. It's become very apparent to me that discussion on concepts (for example unions or healthcare stuff) in the US often reference apparent success or failure in other countries without ever looking deeper into the workings and such. Thus implementations often end up flawed or just not equivalent.
Someone who's attacking or defending unions for example should not consider my country an example for the style and workings of unions I often see described across the pond and if they do talk about the style of unions here they should to the environment and law constraints in which they exist all of which has a big impact.
But in principle it makes enough sense that when I see an article in Slate or similar[0] that's championing them, I don't dismiss it out of hand. I want to see more evidence that any working examples that do exist aren't just very rare, temporary exceptions to the rule that hierarchy is necessary. But the idea seems worth looking at.
This principle is the same reason I'm also very cautiously optimistic about ideas like UBI. I'm cautious of anything that sounds great in theory but that has comparatively little practical data behind it. My understanding is collectives are more common in Europe, but it's not clear to me how that experience will map to the US.
[0]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pa75a8/worker-owned-apps-...