A HOUSE DIVIDED.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 356, 6 April 1910, Page 4

A HOUSE DIVIDED.

Unity is strength, which may be used for good or evil. Co-operation and profitsharing between master and man, in the few cases where it exists, has been the outcome of the work of industrial unions of workers. The worker holds that as he produces goods for the master, he should share the master's .profits. A master puts his capital into a business; the man his labor. Without the master's money the man would not have work unless he could create it by his own initiative. In the majority of cases he is unable to do this. Master and man are interdependent. Each without the other is impotent. The worker sometimes fails. to recognise the fact that the master creates the man's chance. In a co-operative scheme where the worker supplies brawn and skill and the master cash and a chance, the arrangement is businesslike, economic, and philanthropic. This is real unity us utterly distinct from unionism, which fights unity of man and master. Trades unionism is only good while it fights for justice, higher skill in its rants, and the best wages to the most oompetent. Trades unionism is bad when it prevents unity, foments disturbance between employer and employed, and objects to thrift and hard work. In the case of the co-operative scheme existing in Furness' shipbuilding works at Hartlepool, England, and of which ; we have lately been hearing something by cable, the scheme has been dropped at the instance of trades unionists. The scheme apparently permitted thrifty men to put their savings into the business. It paid these particular men nine per cent, on the capital invested, in addition to their wages. The percentage would be regarded by a capitalist as excellent. Bv a hundred majority the men employed voted against a. continuance of this scheme, the principal stating that the workmen would be favorable "if the trades unionists left the men alone." It seems to be apparent that not all the men employed in these large works were cops rtners. The co-pnrtners who had put money into the business would naturally work as hard as possible to gain a large percentage on their monev. This is unquestionably the point of disagree.ment. The non-partners would probably not ftpre* that it was their own fault for ■ot being thrifty, tnd the trades union agitators would be careful not to men-1 tjon it. Here, suppositiously, w the union argument in dealing with fl non-

partner: ''You have no money in the I scheme. Bill Jones has. and he gets nine per cent, on it. lie works very hard to make ten per cent.: and you have to work just as hard or you will get the sack. You don't get any nine per cent. Why should you work as hard ns Bill? You pull out." The suppositious answer of the employer to this is: ''Charles Smith is not so good a worker ns Bill Jones. Ho is not. thrifty. Therefore he has no money in the concern. His real objection i« a jealousy of Jones. If he worn as good a. man lie would lie a co-partnor, too. He has growled so much at Jones and (it the instigation of outside unionists who have no concern with my business or the men's that disaffection 'has spread." A prominent unionist said lie objected to co-opera-tion, as it broke up the unions. The only point to ']* considered in this regard is, Docs co-operation pay the men and the master? If it pays all hands better than unioniim, why should not 00-operation succeed unionism by local I option?