Probably the biggest difference is there's no "representatives" (aka company officers) that make the final decision on how the funds are spent
Nothing about the "worker" system prevents it, if stakeholders want to organize things that way.
An "officer" can offer their service to the stakeholders as manager of a revenue stream and get voted in as a "worker". This, in practice, is how much of the Dash budget gets allocated (it goes to one item which funds a for-profit company with permanent management to carry on long-term development). However, importantly: a) the company can get defunded if it doesn't perform to the satisfaction of the stakeholders, and b) other smaller items such as sponsorships, app developers, etc. can get funded independently of the company.
In part this is why I am not a favor of the "worker" label as it tends to encourage a certain expectation around usage and structure vs. something a bit more conceptually neutral such as "budget item"
Yes, nothing about the system prevents it from being done. And in fact, one such company exists today in BitShares that pays a lot of the core programmers. I just meant that in it's "basic state" that stakeholders can vote for individual budget items, unlike in traditional corporations where that would be considered quite strange. I was trying to clarify where my analogy to standard shareholder voting tends to break down as part of my argument for why I think it's unreasonable to call it socializing the costs. Costs shared by an organizational members shouldn't be necessarily be considered socialized costs in the stigmatized sense.