Well, "made by the workers" and "run by the workers" are not the same thing. The people who run unions today are fat and happy on the backs of those workers, and there is no check on their power. Our government is supposed to be "made by the citizens", but it sure as hell isn't "run by the citizens", and is bloated, corrupt, and cannot eat enough wealth to sate itself, and that is in spite of being a system *with* checks and balances.
This is what I am pointing out as the core problem with this idea; the "Law of unintended consequences", and the fundamental failure to account for base human nature. Humans are inherently greedy and lazy, they crave power, in any/all forms. Only a system that takes that into account and de-incentivizes that behavior, is going to be sustainable. You cannot create a corruption proof system if humans are involved in it, you can only decide how to deal with the corruption when (not 'if') it occurs. You're basically suggesting we should hand over a portion of our earnings to 'Snidely Whiplash' to save for a rainy day.
You wanted a free-market conservative's opinion. I'm just a regular dude, not an economist. But I hope I have been at least thought-provoking.