PROFIT SHARING.
MUST EXACTAITXT IX WOULD. Wellington, October 28. The (lon. Sir Francis Bell gave an interesting explanation to-day of i lie Companies’ Empowering Bilk lie s;ii,| it was a measure in en .tbit* companies, i! they think fu. b\ amendment of.l heir articles of jis-tM-ialion, to provide for profitsharing with their employees. He believed there was no similar Bill in operation in any part of the Empire. though a somewhat similar, but i,i,i idealit-al Bill promoted by Lord Kolteri Cecil, bad been before the Imperial Parliament tins year. A difficult v in legislating arose i;inn the no! mi natural jealousy of united Labour as regarded proposal,which might have rite efie>-[ of imliieing workmen to labour eithet
it.nger hours or ai a less rate of Hiatt that prescribed by tiic avat‘l. He bad reason to believe that t!i: New Zealand Labour Party was content that this experiment should be tried. pto\ iding a provision ( cla i -.e -It was inserted requiring that no scheme of profit sharing should be conducted by a company except v. it ii the precedent approval of the \ i iiit ra I ion Court, and, further, that ihe subsequent working of' such a -I'heine. if approved, should be the .abject of review at the instance of ; j;her the company or employees be--I'i re the Arbitration Court.
Termination of the arrangement miuli! he effected if the Court con-
sidered that it was necessary. That however, was a provision that stood hy itself and.need noK he taken into consideration with the rest ol the Bill, which could sfantl apart from clause 1.
The company was 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, the company might provide a division of the share of protits appropriated to labour. It a worker died or ceased to work for the company, bis labour shares coaled to exist, but. he or his exowould receive from the eompanv the value of the shares. The scheme was not compulsory, but empowering. Restrictions imposed were imposed entirely in the interests of the employees. The result would he to give an employee a definite interest in the profit he had earned.
The effect could be ascertained onlv be experiment. There seemed to lie reason to believe that such a scheme would have a part in dissipating the apparent separation of the interest of capital and employees. It was a mthod, perhaps the only method, by which capital and labour could be brought together and united in a single effort to show due profit to capital and profit as well as wage to employees. The Bill was passed by the Legislative Council.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19241030.2.10
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2804, 30 October 1924, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
452PROFIT SHARING. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2804, 30 October 1924, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Manawatu Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.