THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1912. PROFIT-SHARING AND COPARTNERSHIP.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10698, 20 August 1912, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1912. PROFIT-SHARING AND COPARTNERSHIP.

This subject is being seriously discuavsd in Xew Zealand, and in other parte of the British Empire, just now. It is contended by not a few writtrs that profit-sharing and co-partner-ship are the rational solutions of the social problem which is at present agitating the industrial world. MiTheodore Cook Taylor devotes a thoughtful article to'the question in the Contemporary Review. He says'that pronPsha-ring i.s the giving by the employor to his employees of a share of any profit he makes beyond bare on caprtil. For half a century the term has had this definite meaning. But it is variously misused. Low-class tradesmen and buc-ket-shop stockbrokers misuse the term in order to catch unwary customers. Tt is misused if applied to profits arising from paying lower thu.n standard or normal rates of wages, or from a part of wages held back for the purpose. Tt is ah.'o a misuse of the term s« applied to dividends accruing from .shares for which a workman has paid full value. We have no more 'right to apply the term "profit •sharing" to dividends on such shares than to tlioso on any other•shares'." Under labour co-partner-ship, which is a natural .outgrowth of profit-sharing, the worker's bonus is usually allotted to him in shares in the employer compa.ny. These shares will either be new share?, being profits capitalised, or they will bo al-ready-existing -shares probably parted with by the previous holder for the purpose. They entitle to future dividends in casJi. Henceforth the workman shares profits and capital with this employer: this-i« th e type of profit-sharing which, if, distinctively called the "system." Tut every industry two distinct questions emerge.

Tlie one usually attracting tho greater attention is, Of the wealth prodv.ccd, how nv.;ch shall go to tho employer and Ivy:: much to the employee? But the other question ie of .really ' greater importance—viz., What quantity of wer.lth shall he produced, much or little? N?:"-hor to tho general public nor to either employer or workman is the question as to what share .should go to one and what to the other half so important as that theire should be as much as possible, or at all events, something to divide. Half f;f something is better than all of nothing. Why, then, do workers strike, or employer*. lo.!k-out? Not, of ccurso, because they immediately gain by so doing, but aimply as a means of getting what they consider thei'r fair share of the wealth produced. Men stop the production of wealth, in fact, because they w.mt more of it. Each side that takes action, thinks that by stopping production for the present it c.vn get a greater share for ! itself in future. But look at the risk. The loss, is certain, the gain i.s uncertain, even to the side which ma\ appear to win. Mr Norman Angell has convinced many people that in j war between nations even the winning | side loses more th'i'.i it gaino. To industrial warfare that certainly applies. In industrial as in interna- \ tional affairs, warfare may sometimes bo a dire necessity. That is the only casein which,it is justifiable. But the very necessity of the strike or lockout, as a last resort, is a strong argument in favour of some change rendering such weapons obsolete. The "system" is a long step in this direction. Production depends upon the co-operation of capital and labour. Thoy c.uinot work well together without mutual goodwill. Industrial war tends to destroy goodwill. That employer and employed' should look upon each other as o'-iemies is tlie curse, and it may be the ruin of some industries. Just think of it—working for your enemy, employing your enemy! Imagine a man saying, "I employ five hundred enemies," or "I receive weekly wages to do my duty to my greatest enemy!" Is .such a state of things, from any point of view, sensible, sound, or safe? It would be I iisola-s to appeal to the ,</';'ial-wreok-er class—happily in this country small. But th" traders of public opinion of I every party md creed may well ask themselves. In our great industries (upon whii'.li our necessities and comforts depend) should this spirit of enmity he, allowed to continue, if by any means it can> be allayed? Mr Taylor claims to have proved in his own bus-i- ' ne?s as a woollen manufacturer that profit-sharing and co-partnership are quite practicable, and that they tend to create harmony between employer 1 and employed.