It rears its head regardless of what sociopolitical environment you place us in.
You’re either competing to offer better products or services to customers…or you’re competing for your position in the breadline or politburo via black markets.
And, since there is no global super-state, the world economy is a market economy, so even if every state were a state-owned planned economy, North Korea style, still there would exist this type of competition between states.
So yeah it basically comes down to your definition of "worker-owned". What fraction of worker ownership is necessary? Do C-level execs count as workers? Can it be "worker-owned" if the "workers" are people working elsewhere?
Beyond the "worker-owned" terminology, why is this distinction supposed to matter exactly? Supposing there was an SV startup that was relatively generous with equity compensation, so over 50% of equity is owned by non-C-level employees. What would you expect to change, if anything, if that threshold was passed?
If the workers are majority owners, then they can, for example, fire a CEO that is leading the company in the wrong direction, or trying to cut their salaries, or anything like that.
Why wouldn't the board fire said CEO?
The most common reason to cut salaries is if the company is in dire financial straits regardless. Co-ops are more likely to cut salary and less likely to do layoffs.
Also, lots of companies reduce salaries or headcount if they feel they can get away with it. They don't need to be in dire financial straights, it's enough to have a few quarters of no or low growth and to want to show a positive change.
What changes is democracy in the work place.
You are confusing owning minority equity with what actual control gives you —- actual ownership of capital/MoP/assets/profits
Remember, if employees own 49%, if they can persuade just 2% of the other shareholders that a change will be positive for the business, they can make that change. So minority vs majority is not as significant as it may seem.