"Workers are exploited by the managers and corporations that hire them! They do not receive the full product of their labor!"
Absent any coercion, all market transactions are beneficial to both parties involved. In the case of an employee/employer relationship, the employee agrees to perform an assigned task in exchange for a given wage, while the employer bears full responsibility for providing the tools and materials necessary for the job, and the customers or distribution network for the product. The risk of business is not the responsibility of the employee, nor is the investment necessary to build the business. Is the employee not also thus exploiting the employer? The worker has no stake in the business beyond receiving his pay. The employer must pay the employee regardless of the fluctuations of the business. If the business should fail, the employee is not liable for any debts. The employee is free to leave a job at any time for any reason without any loss aside from foregoing his pay, and may immediately offer his labor to someone else who also has immediate work and immediate pay to offer without any sacrifice or investment on the worker's part.(LT)
And what is the "full product of labor"? The machines, tools, resources, customer base, distribution network, and facilities provided by the entrepreneur vastly multiply the capabilities of the individual. If I can make one widget per day and sell it for $10 profit, that would be a reasonable baseline for my labor would it not? Now suppose an entrepreneur develops a machine that can produce 4 widgets per day, and hires me to provide quality control while operating the machine. He sells those widgets for the same $10 profit each, and pays me $20 while keeping $20 for himself. The employer profits by his investment in the machine, and I profit by gaining more than I could on my own. To claim that the full $40 is the "product of my labor" is to ignore both my capabilities on my own and the past labor of the entrepreneur. Source