1. They are still paying your salary, and
2. They are still granting you stock, but
3. They have suspended dividends on the shares you were granted
seems like a reach. I'd definitely be interested in reading about it if someone actually tries it, though!
But I don't think it's an obligation. Not sure where you're reading that from what I said.
Sock compensation is often discretionary, and dividend payments as well. Not an obligation.
But I'm never argued it was a salary or an obligation. Literally never used either of those two words. I think you're arguing against something nobody said.
It's money you'd be paying a person. It doesn't matter if it was 'like a salary' or an 'obligation' or not. What difference do you think that would make? Preventing companies paying dividends is prevent them paying people. Real people!