[typicalset]

The employees can democratically decide how they want to run things. They can choose to issue stock, they can choose other people to make decisions about the business e.g. appoint a manager to make decisions for them. They cannot do these things in a general employment situation.

At the most bloody-minded level a food-service worker must wash their hands after going to the toilet and this is a restriction on their rights, but at the same time this infringes upon the rights of customers to not get sick eating food. Denying employees democratic control of their workplaces is a much greater restriction of their rights. And as a matter of practice, employees get the short end of the stick when they have a boss.

[zby]

Well if you don't allow the traditional company governance and everything must be a cooperative - then these employees cannot choose a traditional company governance.

But my comment really was about restricting the choice of a potential employee - someone who has not yet decided what company to join.

[typicalset]

This is similar to arguing in favour of the existence of dictatorships, as not having them restricts the choices of what kind of society people can choose to move to. The point is that in a democracy, at least in principle, people can choose their "boss", and discarding this has bigger implications for everyday freedoms.

[zby]

The difference between a state and a company is that it is much more difficult to change the first.