First of all. We must admit that there are situations where a company's methods could be considered exploitative towards the workers. A good example of this is 3rd world countries where the power balance is way off, people's opportunities are pretty much nonexistent and they need to surrender themselves to exploitation in order to survive. But that being the case with every company as a principle, I don't agree with that.
The points that the market defines labors worth and mutual agreement to trade workers resources (physical/mental/time) for currency (or whatever the compensation might be) in form of a contract have already been made.
The (possible) extra profit that the company gains, can be considered as a reward for the risks and responsibility that falls on the company. Taking loans, investing in machinery, pr, marketing etc. are all risks that the company is willing to take in the hope that they will start making a profit at some point. The workers have no part in those risks.
Even if the company is not profitable yet and runs on debt, workers still need to be paid no matter what.
If we would want the situation to be more "fair", the workers should also take part of the risks onto themselves. For example. Would the workers be willing to lower their pay in times when the company is in financial trouble? Also, if the company fails and files bankruptcy, part of the possible debt would fall to the workers also. Of course, all this would need to lead to higher wages for the workers.
Although, If the company is in a state where it's stabilized and even a bankruptcy wouldn't screw the life of the owners, sharing risks is not that necessary anymore. This is a variable.
This is an interesting concept. Upvoted and followed.
Cheers~
I like your argument especially how you provide a possible alternative solution through worker participation.