This seems like more of the kind I was advocating against, though it certainly is more common. I suppose there is a distinction between worker co-ops and just profit-sharing, which is what OP actually asked about. My mistake for sort-of answering the wrong question. But back to my point:

Instead of retaining a flat 50% for "growth", it should be decided each quarter consensually. Infinite growth is not a good thing, it's the global problem. Needs should be met and the expected/needed growth should be funded if profits are good enough for growth, but there shouldn't be this looming expectation of always expanding. It doesn't have to be an infection.

For sure the 25% to shareholders is off the table anywhere I'm going to work. That's the one thing that makes or breaks the whole worker-owned thing. Unless you consider the workers with their 1 share each to be "the shareholders", in which case I think it could be a good idea to set aside a flat 25% to distribute evenly before all those other calculations take place.

It must be noted that worker-ownership does make one form of investment impossible: selling shares of the company. With that being a major form of investment in the modern world it might sound crazy, but it's what's right, and there are other ways for investors to make their cut; they just won't be able to milk the company for every drop or have decision-making power anymore (unless they get a job at said company and exercise their 1 share of voting power).