Unfortunately, the word "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Better for the employees is a world of difference compared to "better at getting funding to start a business", "better at getting Venture Capitalists or Angel Investors or Banks" interested.
It takes working two jobs, being independently wealthy or getting outside help to start a company, and most of that outside help very likely doesn't want employee owned.
Well, if you ask me, when it comes to a for profit company there is only one "better", and that's "more profitable".
"Better for workers" only shows up in for profit companies if doing things that are better for workers is also better for the profitability of the company.
Trying to make for profit companies have a social conscious is, IMHO, pretty dumb. They're for profit.
Making things better is what governments are for. A guaranteed job at a socially inclusive minimum wage and set of conditions that the private sector needs to exceed in order to hire people would go a hell of a long way towards resolving many of the problematic workplace tactics used by for profit companies (and is a LOT easier than the patchwork of industrial relations regulations the governemnt currently plays whack-a-mole with).
I think that governments are really good at setting boundary conditions and for delivering things that are too important to be left to the whimsy of the private sector (and for natural monopolies like aiports and roads and fiber optic networks and so on), and that most importantly includes the floor price/conditions for labour.
> It takes working two jobs, being independently wealthy or getting outside help to start a company, and most of that outside help very likely doesn't want employee owned.
Hell I'm working 2 jobs to start a company and I sure as shit don't want to be obliged to give a chunk of my company to everyone that comes and goes along the way. If ESOPs or co-ops or whatever make sense it'll be because they help me attract and retain the best talent who are the most profitable. If that's not the case, then why should I share the returns with people who have taken none of the risks?
Unfortunately, the word "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Better for the employees is a world of difference compared to "better at getting funding to start a business", "better at getting Venture Capitalists or Angel Investors or Banks" interested.
It takes working two jobs, being independently wealthy or getting outside help to start a company, and most of that outside help very likely doesn't want employee owned.