74

II.—PRIVATE  FIRMS  AND  COMPANIES.

53  cases,  in  only  two  instances  (Nos.  61  and  71)  is  it  stated  that
the  results  hoped  for  were  not  obtained,  while  in  five  others
(Nos.  62,  66,  69,  79,  and  111)  it  is  observed  that  the  results  were
on  the  whole  satisfactory,  but  that  the  good  influence  of  the
methods  adopted  did  not  extend  to  the  whole  of  the  employees—
a  more  or  less  considerable  proportion  of  whom  remained  unresponsive. ­

In  three  cases  (Nos.  87,  104,  and  106)  the  employers  express
only  a  moderate  degree  of  satisfaction  with  the  results  obtained,
but  in  the  great  majority  of  instances*  their  satisfaction  with  the
effect  produced  by  the  adoption  of  Profit-sharing  and  Co-partnership ­
  is  entirely  unqualified,  and  in  some  of  these  cases  they  express ­
  a  very  high  degree  of  appreciation.
As  examples  showing  the  terms  in  which  this  appreciation  is
expressed,  may  be  quoted  the  replies  of  three  of  these  firmst:  —
“  0.  N.,”  worsted  and  cotton  manufacturers,  write:  —
“  1st.  Simply  as  a  money  making  plan  we  should  not  say  that  tlio
“  scheme  has  paid  us,  but  this  was  not  the  chief  reason  for  its  intro-“
  duction.
“  2nd.  We  think  our  workers  put  forth  extra  zeal  and  are  more
“  interested  in  their  work  and  the  place  generally  and  more  anxious
“to  do  good  work.
“  3rd.  Yes,  we  think  there  is  no  question  that  the  plan  has  tended
“  to  promote  harmonious  relations  between  ourselves  and  our  work-“
  people.  We  have  never  had  any  strikes  or  lock-outs  either  before  or
“  since  we  started  profit-sharing,  but  the  last  few  years  have  been
“  exceptional.  We  have  had  a  six  weeks’  strike  in  our  nearest
“  town,  three  miles  away,  but  there  was  no  suggestion  of  unrest  among
“  our  people.  We  think  there  is  not  much  of  the  suspicion  and
“  distrust  between  ourselves  and  our  workers  that  seems  to  prevail,  and
“  that  the  interests  of  Capital  and  Labour  are  not  antagonistic  but
“  have  much  in  common.”
The  Prudential  Assurance  Company,  Limited,  writes:  —
“  The  Profit-sharing  scheme  has  proved  eminently  satisfactory  and
“  has  been  greatly  appreciated  by  the  staff.
“  The  Company  has  never  been  troubled  by  strikes,  and  it  is  doubtful
“  whether  any  other  similar  large  body  of  men  (over  20,000)  could  be
“  found  to  show  the  same  consistent  degree  of  loyalty.
“  The  Profit-sharing  scheme  -was  not  needed  for  the  purpose  of  main-“
  taining  the  general  loyalty  and  zeal,  but  at  the  same  time,  the
“  annual  distribution  of  a  share  of  the  profits  undoubtedly  enables  the
“  Company  to  show  its  appreciation  of  the  untiring  efforts  of  a  hard-“
  working  staff  which  they  are  anxious  to  suitably  reward.”
The  General  Manager  of  the  Bournemouth  Gas  and  Water  Company ­
  writes:  —
“  We  are  thoroughly  satisfied  with  the  operation  of  the  scheme,  and
“  I  am  fully  satisfied  from  the  obvious  interest  taken  in  their  work
“  by  the  employees  generally  and  by  practical  instances  that  it  would
“  not  be  wise  to  mention  in  detail,  that  the  result  of  the  scheme  is  to
“  create  and  cement  conditions  of  mutual  interest,  cordiality,  and
“  goodwill  which  cannot  be  obtained  by  any  other  existing  system  with
“  which  I  am  acquainted.”
*  Nos.  63,  65,  67,  68,  70,  73,  74,  75,  76,  77,  81,  82,  83,  84,  85,  86,  88,  89,  90,
91,  92,  93,  94,  95,  96,  97,  98,  99,  100,  101,  102,  105,  109,  110,  112,  113,  114,  115,
116,117,118,119.  ’’’’’’’’
t  See  also  the  opinions  expressed  by  Firm  No.  65  (Messrs.  John  Knight,
Limited),  pp.  53  and  54,  and  by  Firm  No.  103  (Messrs.  Lever  Brothers,  Limited),