> I believe that an employer should make a substantial margin on an employee's labor. That provides a stable situation, covers for the employer's risk (if an employee's project/work fails to create value, they still get paid), and covers the overhead.
A workers' cooperative can do the same job. What justifies the privatization of the cooperative's profits to a single individual?
The profits go to the owner, whatever that is. The employees chose the company (and implicitly the ownership structure) when they began employment. It's not like citizenship where one is born into the situation and the contract is mythical; they had to sign one.
Do you not believe in the sanctity of property rights?
Where in sokoloff's answer did they specify that the margin went to an individual? I interpret "employer" to mean the employing company, composed of many individuals who, like sokoloff, also want stability.
I'll address the ownership angle as that's simple (at least in my mind): because someone (or several someones) put up the capital to start the business. They own it.
If they want to exchange some ownership for some cash, they can sell all or part of their ownership stake. If they want to exchange some ownership for labor or other services, they can create a stock or option grant program, typically with vesting. There doesn't seem to be anything unnatural to me about someone putting capital at risk to form a business owning the resulting business. No different than putting my capital at risk/committed to buy a house or a car. I pay for them and I own them.
If you want to avoid that situation that you find exploitive, you are free to start your own (individually or as a collective) and keep/share as you judge best.
A workers' cooperative can do the same job. What justifies the privatization of the cooperative's profits to a single individual?