You don't keep that surplus for youself, it's for the company profit and company profits have 3 very important functions in economy (we can talk about them also). About the risks. If the company fails you get bankrupt, but the worker is not, they got paid as was negotiated all the way. You as an employer need to also do work to find a suitable worker, a work that doesn't pay unless you find a worker that is willing to work for you and will succeed at the job. If the job is dangerous, you would need to pay higher wage and do more work to find a worker with suitable skills and willingness to work for you. The worker can always start a business and work for themselves, but there's definitely many reasons why many workers decided to work for someome else. You have interesting way to look at this, I almost thought the same before I started studying austrian economic theory. Do you believe that every company should be non-profit?

Yes, that's why i said that this is a very good approach, and healthy approach as much as it takes, i add now. Still your company though, not the workers company, aka your benefit. About the risks, a worker can even lose his life due to the job. Is there a bigger risk? Risk, in general, is not an excuse for stealing the workers by keeping the surplus. I am telling this, because this is why risk is involved in such conversations, it was invented as an excuse during the cold war as an effort to justify the theft. No, it is not possible in many cases and for many reasons, for a worker to start it's own business, but yes , on the other hand there are many cases that workers can make their own business or cooperate with others, but they don't do it usually for the exact same reasons you already mentioned. So, it depends on the case, you can be well right with your criticism on this, i certainly can agree too, but not a general rule. Far from that.