CO-PARTNERSHIP.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1043, 14 May 1912, Page 4

CO-PARTNERSHIP.

INTERESTING INTERVIEW,

On being interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette, Mr Theodore C. Taylor, M.P., summarised the position as follows : “There are two stages—profitsharing and co-partnership. Pro-fit-sharing, as its name indicates, is the sharing of profits by a capitalist employer with his workpeople, not in giving them dividends on shares for which they pay, but giving them some of the money that would otherwise be his own. This may be done either by giving the people money or shares in a business, at which stage it becomes co-partnership. But the initial difficulty, of course, is to induce the employer-capitalist to part with some of what he legitimately regards as his own income. I am sure, however, that the majority of employers are not the grasping, hard hearted tyrants they are often represented to be. Just as lam sure that the average working man, it properly handled, is not the selfish, inconsiderate mortal that he is frequently painted. “Profit-sharing and labour copartnership combined are the methods best known to me to bring together the best employers and the best workmen. They do not involve, on the one hand, the abandonment by the employer of his freedom of action in management, or the banishment of the force of initiative. On the contrary, they bring into relief what is the true relationship of employer and employed, namely, co-opera-tion and not enmity. A mutually hostile attitude is a mutually destructive one, and will not bear calm consideration. For example ; Imagine an employer saying, “I employ 500 enemies” ; or imagine a workman saying, “I am working every day tor my greatest enemy.” Why, the very use of such words is a palpable contradiction in terms.

■ “Speaking from experience, I can say emphatically that our own profit-sharing scheme has had the effect of consolidating the interests of both employers and employed. Our good men are better men for it; those who are indifferent take much more interest in their work. In other words, it adds the joy of living to both. “When I was in Australia and New Zealand recently I came into close relationship with a large number of leading employers, and found that, in spite of their elaborate legislation for the reconciliation of capital and labour, very strained relations existed, and the desire there for a remedy for the present state of things was even more marked than it is here.”

In the Plouse of Commons on Tuesday last Mr K. CrawshayWilliams (.Liberal Leicester) moved a resolution asking the Government to set up an investigation into the industrial unrest prevailing in Britain. Lord Robert Cecil (Unionist —■ Hitchin) stated that the factory and company system had destroyed the human element in industry. He advocated the extension of the co-partnership system. Mr Keir Hardie (LabourMerthyr Tydvil) said the inquiry would cause delay, and the Labour party objected to a special commission of inquiry into these questions. He added, “We ate a special commission.” He then moved an amendment in favour of a Right to Work Bill, providing lor an eight hour day, a minimised living wage, and nationalisation of industries.

Mr Lloyd - George,, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said agricultural labour was much underpaid, many men earning only 15s a week. Nationalisation of the railways was worth examining as a business proposition. Unlimited competition was costing the country millions sterling, it was a fact that workmen were suspicious of interference by the State.

Mr J. H. Thomas (Labour — Derby) interjected : Out of thirty appeals to the Board ol Trade only one had been decided in xavour of the men.

Mr Lloyd George replied: But the Board of Trade represents the State. Surely nationalisation is State control. The Chancellor added that Lord Robert Cecil had been invited, and Iran. consented to put the case for co - partnership before the Cabinet Committee which is to inquire into the present unrest. The debate was adjourned.