PROFIT-SHARING.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18216, 29 October 1924, Page 8

PROFIT-SHARING.

AN EMPOWERING BILL. DISCUSSION IN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (sracxAi. to "tot miss.") WELLINGTON, October 28. The Companies Empowering Bill, which was discussed iu the Legislative Council to-day, proposes to enable companies, if they think fit, by the amendment of their articles of association to provide for profit-sharing with their employees. The Hon. Sir Francis Bell (Leader of the Council), moving the second reading of the Bill, said he believed that there was no similar measure in operation in any other part of tho Empire, but a similar, though not identical, Bill promoted by Lord Robert Cecil had been before the British Parliament this year. A difficulty in legislating arose from the attitude of Labour towards the proposals, which might, have the effect of inducing workmen to labour either beyond the hours or at- a lower rate of pay than prescribed by the award. He had reason to believe that, the New Zealand Labour Party was content that this experiment should be tried, provided that a provision (Clause 4) was inserted requiring that no scheme of profit-sharing should be conducted by a company except with the approval of the Arbitration Court, and further that the subsequent working of such a scheme, if approved, should be the subject of review at the instance of either the company or the employees before the Arbitration Court. Tho termination of the arrangement might be effected if the Court considered that necessary. That, however, was a provision that stood by itself, and need not be taken into consideration with the rest of the Bill. Procedure Explained. Companies would be authorised to issue labour shares, numbered consecutively, but having no nominal value. The wage paid would still be the Arbitration Court wage, but in addition a company might provide for a division of the share of the profits appropriated to labour. If a worker died or ceased to work for the company his labour shares ceased to exist, but he or his executors received from the company the value of the shares. The scheme was not compulsory; it was empowering. Tho restrictions imposed were imposed entirely in the interests of the employees. The result, would be to give the employee a definito interest in the profit he had earned. Tho Government desired that the experiment should bo open to those bodies who cared to make it. The effect could bo asecr? tained only by'the experiment. There seemed reason to believe that such a scheme "would help in ending the apparent separation of the interests of employers and employees. It was a method, perhaps the only method, by which Capital and Labour could bo brought together and united in a single effort to show due profit to capital and profit as well as wages to the employees. The Hon. J. P. Campbell said that though he was not in favour of Clause 4, lie did not intend to oppose the Bill, He did not think that Clause 4 was necessary, and thought that it might be productive of litigation. The copartnership scheme of the Auckland Gas Company had worked well, and there had been no mention of a strike in .the last ten years.

The Hon. W. Eornshaw welcomed the Bill. Unless a worker could be assured that lie would bo rewarded for extra diligence, there could be no progress. While it was true that 110 State as a State had taken this matter up, such schemes had been in operation for some time. In the United States they had resulted in increased production, sometimes up to 300 and 400 per cent. Some workers would say that the result would be to put men out of work, but that was nonsense. He thought that the Bill would improve the relations of employer and employee. He welcomed anything that ivould do away with strikes, and that wicked thing—shirking a fair day's work. Labour and the Treaty.

The Hon. >X. Barr drew attention to a clause in the Versailles Treaty which said that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce. The negation of this principle had been the cause of much industrial strife. Various schemes had been tried because they had been recognised as a means of increasing the pace; as a sop or a bribe. He looked upon Clause 4 as essential to the rank and file and as a compliment to the Arbitration Court. Under this Bill the Court had to see that no- agreement was made contrary to auy award of the Court. The Hon. J. McGregor congratulated the Government on introducing tho Bill. He was not sure, however, that the Bill was necessary, and the story of what the Auckland Gas Company had done seemed to bear out his opinion, tie thought that the Bill should be designed to encourage Trade Unions to come into tho scheme, but he was afraid that this was impossible, as there were no genuine Trade Unions in New Zealand. There were companies desirous of improving the relations between themselves and their workers, but tho whole system at present 'made that nearly impossible because of the danger of some Extremist wanting to take a hand in the management of the concern. Although he was not very confident of the success of the scheme, he was glad to have an opportunity to assist in placing the Bill on the Statute Book. The Hon. G. J. Garland said ho thought the Bill was a good beginning. He did not think it impossible to bring employees and employers together. Such schemes were working successfully in America. The scheme cut into the preserves of the agitator who would have to go to work. The Hon. C. H. Izard said he welcomed the Bill. The Hon. A. S. Malcolm said that what had been said on tho subject during the discussion had greatly impressed him. The second reading was agreed to. Minor amendments were made in Committee, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.