The obvious solution to this is that the person who uses the machine should also own it. Which means that people who think of themselves as "labor" should be looking for industries where they can own the technology that multiplies their productivity. Such as, just an example off the top of my head, programming. :-)

So, I write programs, but I neither own them nor the systems that are required to run them. Taken collectively, the employees at my job have created a very profitable machine, in that it brings in revenue that greatly exceeds the market cost of building the machine. This profit goes to shareholders, not employees, and an employee by virtue of an employee will not receive any share of the revenue created by their work after they leave their company.

Yes, I am partially paid in stock, and this means I am at times part-owner. But this can be seen as a coincidence and doesn't really significantly alter the power dynamic. I say this because it is ultimately part of our compensation, and the fact that they choose to pay us some shares (and correspondingly less cash) is more of an accounting trick then a fundamental shift in the employee-employer relation.

I also agree with your remarks about being "paid" in stock instead of cash. I worked for a company (not an IT company) that "paid" us in stock options, and insisted that the "cash value" was equivalent, which was of course their excuse for not just giving us the cash. Of course, those options turned out to be worthless when the company's stock tanked. So yes, it was just an accounting trick.

What about the worker that is employed and doesn't spend more than he earns? That which he accumulates is his profit.

The worker sells their labor. There's no reasonable way of valuing what their labor "costs" to them, as it's ultimately the opportunity cost of being able to do anything else, so it's not really sensible to talk about selling your time as "profit" or not.

You can approximate what it's worth to them by the market, in which case the only people who clearly can be said to profit from their labor are those who are being paid above market rate. I suggest to you, that's relatively rare (note if you're outsourcing out your work at market and then doing some sort of QA, the delta between market and what you're paid is probably around market for the QA, else the employer would have outsourced the work themselves).

The profit I'm referring to is revenue minus costs for the corporation. All wages and salaries here fall under operating costs. The profit goes to the corporation, which is owned by the shareholders, not the employees.

It's misleading to re-characterize wages as profits, because the wages are what's purchasing the labor which is used to create the revenue. If I charge someone $10 (assume that's market rate) for a car wash and in turn pay someone $10 to wash the car, I have paid $10 in wages, have $10 in revenue, and have no profit. The person who washed the car sold a service worth $10 for $10, so they have broken even. Note that if what I'm doing is finding customers, I am adding my labor as well, and can and should earn a wage for that. If I'm doing nothing but letting the business run itself, I am not selling any of my labor, but I am still legally entitled to the delta between revenue and costs.