Employed over time, and reading between the lines, lots of part-time and probably temporary workers given how they were hiring and the pressures on those women's time. Normally even co-ownership structures have earn-in periods, so this isn't a huge surprise. In a time where only capital-rich folks could invest in businesses (still the norm outside our contemporary VC tech bubble where vesting and cliffs etc are commonplace terms in employment negotiations) this was pretty radical.
Had the author presented her as, say, a socialist who started a workers cooperative, that criticism would be justified. But the author did not. It's perfectly valid to talk about "profit-sharing and company co-ownership" even if she didn't share the ownership evenly.
That's less than 1%. So much for “profit-sharing and company co-ownership”. I don't think the author knows what those words mean...