EXPERIMENT FAILS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 783, 5 April 1910, Page 5

EXPERIMENT FAILS.

MEN WITHDRAW FROM FURNESS SCHEME. . INFLUENCE OF UNIONISM. Dy Telecraph-Prcss Association-Copyriirht. London, April ;). The employee co-partners in Sir Christopher Furness's Hartlepool shipbuilding firm have, by 598 to 492, voted against n continuance of the co-partnership scheme, though tho meu as co-partners received 9 per cent, upon their money, in addition to their wages.' Sir C. Furness states that the firm's workmen were favourable to the scheme if the trades unions had left them alone. Mr. G. N. Barnes, Labour M.P., ■interviewed, said lie appreciated Sir Christopher Furness's motives, but hail always been against co-operation, because it breaks up trades unions. He was glad the Hartlepool experiment was not likely to be carried further.

STIMULUS TO WORK NOT WANTED. (Eec. April 5, 0.5 a.m.) London, April 4. With regard to the cessation of the Hartlepool co-partnership, the malcontents complain that employment was not continuous. They also dislike "speeding up," which they declare was due to somo workers . desiring to obtain the best results from the co-partnership.

FINANCIAL SUCCESS.

GOOD RESULTS INTERRUPTED. Unionism seems to have definitely arraigned itsolf against co-partnery; and yet all accounts eeem to agree that the Furness experiment was shaping excellently and was economically sound. On December 15 "The Times" wrote:— Nine Per Cent, on Workers' Shares. "It will be remembered that rather more than a year ago Sir Christopher Furhess laid before the workmen in the shipbuilding yards of Furness Withy, and Co. a scheme of co-partnery under which the men were to become shareholders in the f company, receiving four per cent, certain upon their holdings and sharing equally in surplus profits after the ordinary shareholders had received nvo per cent. The men accepted the scheme provisionally for twelve months, the work of tlio yards has actually been carried on upon that basis. We publish to-day a letter addressed to the employee shareholders by the secretary of the company, in which the directors express satisfaction with the working of the scheme as ascertained up to September 30, and as estimated up to the 'present date. The yards have been fully employed, 'the work has been executed to time, and amiable and agreeable relations have subsisted amohf; all concerned m the; business. Finanoially the results liavebeen so satisfactory that the board feel justified in declaring a dividend of i.w V* v ., eent , to ft? ordinary shareholders, tho employee shares receiving four Pf,., c . 8a t- «* agreed, and in paying an additional .five per cent, upon all tho shares without distinction. Tims the ordinary shareholders receive ten per cent, per annum and the employee shareholders nine per cent, upon their hold-ings-tor the nine months ending on De-

Strikes and Time Penalties,

It is pointed out.that by the naturo ?n & "i? d'rectora are compelled o look well ahead in the matter.of obnTlliffiU ■ But they find tWmselves . ma difficulty on account of the approaching close of the period for which kL W U th ?f' < he co-partnership should be tried. Much of the work procurable, has to be done under strict contraot conditions a 9 to time of completion and delivery, and the company has sufIfn \l a ° Mmry that *» directors KVt responsibility for contracts of that kind without some,assurance that is part-of the present, agreement v 'that there : shall. b 3 neither strikes nor . lockouts but, unless tho co-partnery is to be, tee-tnat the old interruptions to business will not. recur. . Four steamers built before the .agreement came into force were respectively 152. days, 273. days, 301 days, and 2,3 days late, owing to unfortunate trade quarrels. The loss in fines for delay must have been ' exceedingly heavy, and the direotors do not intend ; to run the. risk of further ruinous experiences of the same kind. On the other hand, if they, wait.tho other-three.months for the expiry of the present agreement, it is obvious that-they-.will miss lucrative work and that the yards may be very indiffertSSlvTl.' eTen if the aKreement be

The Importance of Renewal,

Therefore, the directors ask the men to decide as promply as may be upon the basis of nine months' experience whether they will make the co-partnery perman-' ent, or at least whether they will renew it tor a_ fiied period. The directors, on turn side, are convinced that, under the conditions now existing, the business can : pe carried on in a manner very gjeatly >n the interests of all concerned. It would seem that the men have' equally good reasons for desiring the continuance of tlie co-partnory. They have had steady and assured employment at the best current rates of.wages, they have beon inuuced to save money, they are partners in the concern, with a consultative voice in its management, they ' get nine per cent, upon the money they have put into it,, with a good prospect of. more, and ttar shares are probably worth in the market considerably more than they paid [or them. We do not know of any drawback, unless it bo that they forgo tho disastrous satisfaction of going on strike and wasting their substance. It may be hoped, therefore, that they will shortly make known their intention to adhere to tho co-partnery, and thus not only to improve their own position financially and morally, but also to offer an objeot-lesson to their fellow-men in the art of industrial organisation." ■ : The non-renewal' of the agreement by the employees, acting under unionist influence; apparently restores the old evil status quo.