At that point we're begging the question by going too deep into the analogy and finding the original situation again. The point has still been made that working on something without ownership can be enough to justify a say.
And the framers might have a say, it depends on the company.
The owner has a bunch of space and equipment they can grant power over, but that's only half a company. They don't naturally start with power over the employees.
Working on things owned by others is the basic idea of employment - and is a relationship that has existed forever.