I see where you're coming from and I understand where you're coming from, but I think this is one of those matters of "theoretic objectivism/capitalist theory" versus "subjective application."
The business owner would probably love to take actions that drastically reduce costs in order to improve profits, but he can't take that action because of competition. If business A wants to hire people for $9/hour and business B wants to hire people for $10/hour, then business A must either provide a new incentive for people to work for him, or raise his wages assuming a labor deficit or break-even point. The price point tends to stabilize towards a middle ground between what the business wants to pay and what the employee wants to make, assuming there's no arbitrary laws on the book that give the business a cultural bargaining power to demand a certain price point E.G. minimum wage. Similarly if you considered distributed costs and concentrated benefits, sometimes the porky benefits don't add up to virtually anything for the worker even if the worker did go after him. Dunkin' Donughts' CEO was recently in deep shit because people found out he made the equivalent of $4,886/hour in salary. The flip side of that is as salary he was putting in about 70-90+ hours per week going to various locations and making sure things were running efficiently, and that if you divided his labor between the ~11,000 stores he was in charge of, he was making approximately 44 cents per store per hour. Similarly there are chefs working for restaurants for shit pay, but they'd be making the equivalent after costs, and working three times as many hours if they opened their own store- the desire of porkies to minimize costs is actually saving the worker about 3,000-3,500 hours per year that they can now use for themselves.
In the case of oversupply of labor, an issue we're currently running into in first world countries and the reason so many people want walls, you can think of every consumer as being a "private business." In this case, the worker is the private business of "work as few hours for as much money as possible." Some businesses are smart and invest money early on (education, trade skills, investments, etc.), some businesses poorly manage their money in the hopes of getting rich, and some businesses choose an inferior line of business in order to break even unskilled labor. As supply of workers increase allowing businesses to pay their workers less, incentives to become skilled labor increase for the worker. The only question is if the worker is willing to invest their time and energy into these more skilled forms of labor (to which I'd say no, they have no desire to do that). There are plenty of skills that will have set "fees" but you don't have to pay them until you start making money in the industry, so lack of money tends to only be an excuse if a worker has to go for the next-best instead of their ideal (which, frankly, is an issue that a business must overcome on a daily basis when hiring applicants whether worker-owned or singularly-owned, and which even they fail at in a lot of cases).
I think the theory of textbook capitalism is inherently materialist as all fuck and would agree with you, but the spirit of capitalism in its application is not. It builds community, and the "thank yous" between the consumer and a business are a sign of good faith in one another as they benefit one another and grow closer. There's nothing quite like going into a business you frequent and being greeted kindly by the staff as the two of you talk about far more than the products on the shelf.
I'd say WinCo is a good example of how this is wrong. The bigger issue is that worker-owned groups get into arguments more frequently, and suffer from the same issues most bottom-up groups face. I prefer networks/webs over specific top-down or bottom-up structures.
It's mostly some definitional differences and the like. I get along with Distributists far more than most American Conservatives, but I have some issues with the Distributist views on profit as being something immoral, and I think anti-trust tends to be abused more heavily by monopolies for monopolies than any other group.