A cost that cuts into what would otherwise be profits. It's all fungible so you're quibbling about an accounting issue here. If an owner made a contract with an employee that they will pay them a $0 salary but will pay them a fixed annual dividend of $100,000 (broken up into convenient bi-weekly payments) would that fix your concern? I'm getting the impression that it wouldn't.
Fixing the problem would mean that instead of the 'owner' hiring an 'employee,' they instead form an equal partnership as co-owners. Because the business serves the interest of the owners, it will seek to maximize their compensation as the ultimate goal, rather than to minimize their salary as a way of reducing expenses.
This is disingenuous. Money is fungible but the flow of money is not. My buying weekly groceries is not the same as my putting a down payment on a new car: they're two different activities that use the same fungible source as a medium of exchange. Likewise, if I run a business, paying a fixed wage to an employee is not the same as distributing profit in the form of dividends to shareholders: the fungible medium of exchange is weighted differently, comes from different sources, and is used for different purposes.
That would be illegal in my country. Dividend is considered an unearned income and is taxed differently as well.
They could perhaps give the worker a minimum wage and the rest pay in dividends, but mind that dividends need to be distributed among all the shareholders equally, so you can't say you would pay $100,000 unless you allocate shares so that when dividend pay out is decided, worker's shares will yield that exact amount.
