THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1913. EMPLYOER AND EMPLOYED.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 24 April 1913, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1913. EMPLYOER AND EMPLOYED.

One of the most difficult promblems that confronts the people of New Zealand and of many other countries, at the present time, is how to bridge the gulf between employer and employed. Legislative attempts have been doomed to failure, almost from their inception. The primary and .secondary industries .in New Zealand are languishing at the present time because labour cannot be profitably employed in, them under existing conditions \\\hat is to be the solution of the .difficulty? Is there no solutio v? When Mr T. M. Wilford returns J i from England he announced that ho had discovered a cure for labour troubles in the system of profit sharing. This system has been tried in 'England, but only with partial success, chiefly owing to the hostile attitude of the Labour unions. It might be well if either the profit-sharing or the co-partnership system were gi/en a trial in "New Zealand. It will be remembered that the late Lord .Furness, the faanous ship-builder, introduced a system of co-partnership in England. He himself began life as an errand boy, and climbed every rung of the ladder which leads to prosperity. He knew what the working >aien needed. When his fortune was made and he had a great araiv of men under him. Lord Furness re membered the experience of his> youth, and wished to give his men an interest in his shipbuilding business. The practical experience and fate of the bold experiment upon which ho entered a few years ago is worth many volumes of "theorising" "on the question of co-partnership. It will bo remembered that the East Coast shipbuilding yards had been brought to the verge of ruin l>v a long succession of bitter strikes anion" different sections of workmen. They may or may not have had legitimate grievance*; but the men's leaders were certainly reckless of the effect which their action was produci'j;' upon the shipbuilding industry, by which they lived. Foreign firms 'le- I gan \o refuse to place orders in di»-

tricts where contracts could not bo fulfilled to time, and the condition* went from bad to worse. Lord Fi 1 - nea? saw that disaster lay straight; ahead unless the men could bo given a sense of responsibility towards the industry. He therefore put two bo'd propositions to his men. He invit:-.. - them in the first place to take ove" his shipyards at West Hartlepool at a valuation and see what they could make of them. Hero way an excellent opportunity for the unions to estao lish "model" shipyards and show by what means the industrial nville::nium could be inaugurated. But the trade union leaders, with the shrewdmess which was commendable, refused the offer. v lt suited them mu'.h better to L't a private employer run all the risk of controlliing the buV.i nes» and managing it, while they maintained their independent po-ii tion, with the power to war ! against the "capitalist" for a larger wage and shorter hours, and the prohibition of non-union labour whenever they chose. It is important to remark also that by their refusal of Lord Furness's suggestion the trs 'e unionists admitted that they were not capable of managing the West Hartlepool shipyards to advantage Lord Furness Had probably taken the measure of the men's officials, and was not surprised by their admission that a great captain of industry is still art asset to a business. His next offer to the men was a scheme of copartnership, by which they wo ild speedily become substantial shareholders in the industry that employ ed them. The terms appeared to be liberal. By a five per cent, deduction of wages the men purchased shares carrying 4 per cent interest, and were entitled to a share of the profits beyond a certain amount Equal numbers of representatives of the men and the employers formed the council to settle disputes between masters and men. For a year this plan was worked, and it proved of very great value to the industry. The fear of strikes wag removed, and "security" etablished which brought large numbers of orders. A return of nine per cent was made upara the ' limited shares. The trade union movement, which had never liked the scheme, now grew alarmed. It feared that these men would become too contented and wedded to their work I and would fail to respond to the strike call. So the decree went forth '! that the co-partnership trial must be killed. All the forces of trade unionism were-set "in motion against it, and upon a ballot being taken at the end of the year tlie unskilled workmen out-voted the skilled men by 59R votes to 432, and a promising experiment terminated. The employees drew back into their own camp, and resumed tlie priceless right to hold up the industry whenever they thought it to their advantage to do i so. The effect has been to discourage * the movement for co-partner.sh r-. 1 The trade unions have declared bitter war against it, and reformers may be excused if they despair of overcoming such blindness and narro.vmindedness. When, therefore, Labour members in Parliament amd on , the platform claim sympathy for working men because they are only wage-earners and have no stake in the prosperity of the firm for whi ,ii they labour, the fate of the West Hartlepool experiment may be recalled. They themselves are the wreck . ers of co-partnership movements, and have condemned all schemes that, would bridge the gulf between em pi oy- , ers and employed.