[666lumberjack]

This reads to me like it's written to evangelize the concept of worker co-ops more than to earnestly investigate the question posed in the title - which is fine, but this doesn't seem like a very good example to choose to make that point.

They say they have ten employees, and the buy-in for ownership is a thousand dollars. But there's no way the start up capital for a quality restaurant in Seattle was only $10k, so either the original founders absorbed those costs or some later employees paid in extra to cover them - either way with no expectation of increased control or return. That's more charity than alternative economic organization.

They also mention that the business has been around for ten years, but isn't profitable - and it's implied probably never has been on any consistent basis, or they would certainly have called that out. Somebody is covering that shortfall, and they're not getting anything in exchange for doing so - very noble, but again that's a reliance on charity for the business to continue existing.

Can a worker-owned restaurant work? Sure, I think there are plenty of examples that prove it. Does this one work? Not as a business, by any reasonable standard.