OPINIONS OB' EMPLOYERS. 73 Messrs. Morris & Bolton, Ltd., printing ink manufacturers, write: — “ Satisfactory in every respect; it induces extra zeal on the part of “ those who hold shares and is an incentive to the others.” “ B. B.” writes : — “ Our scheme of Profit-sharing has proved satisfactory. Its object “ was to bind to us zealous and efficient employees, and to stimulate “ these qualities of zeal and efficiency, encouraging the desire to save “ waste of time or material, and the feeling that each member was “ benefiting directly by so doing. We have had our disappointments, “ but firmly believe in the principle of profit-sharing, and are satisfied “ with the general result in our case. Our business is one not liable to “ be affected by direct strikes or labour disputes—we are hard hit by “ those recent strikes, but our own employees are not liable to be “ affected by such a spirit. Our object has been to benefit our most “ deserving or promising employees, and make them settle down “ with us.” Messrs. H. Backhouse & Co., Ltd., grocers, chemists, etc., write; — “ After an experience of nine years we have no hesitation in saying “ our simple profit-sharing scheme has proved satisfactory and we “ would not return to the old system. “ Our business has grown steadily during this period, and although “ we had strikes all round us during the past year we never had any “ complaint from our men. We are strongly of opinion that Co- “ partnership of some kind is the only way to combat labour troubles.” Messrs. James Cropper & Co., Ltd., paper makers, write : — “ Profit-sharing—in some departments—was discontinued by us two “ years ago. “ We found that it did not 1 call forth extra zeal,’ owing to the “ half-yearly distribution of profits—the result of endeavour was not “ felt soon enough. Also, so many other factors outside the workers’ “ control either make or mar profits. “ As the output was decreasing, we adopted piecework, which has “ resulted in an ever increasing output.” “ L. R.” writes : — “ The adoption of this profit-sharing has proved very satisfactory. “ It has undoubtedly called forth extra zeal on the part of the 11 employees, and the payments they receive at the end of each year “ are highly appreciated, although obviously they vary from year to “ year. Care had to be taken, however, that the quality of the work “ was not depreciated. We have certainly found that these arrange- “ ments tend to promote harmonious relationship between the “ employees and ourselves.” Coming now to the more recent cases—those in which Profit- sharing or Co-partnership has been adopted since 1902—we find that out of the total of 73 cases the duration of Profit-sharing has been nine years in 4 cases, eight years in 3 cases, seven years in 4 cases, sis years in 4 cases, five years in 6 cases, four years in 17 cases, three years in 14 cases, and less than three years in 21 cases. In a considerable number of cases* either no answer at all was given to the Department’s question as to the results obtained by Profit-sharing and Co-partnership, or it was expressly stated that the experience of the firm had been too limited to enable them usefully to reply on this head. With respect to the remaining * Nos. 64, 72, 78, 80, 107, 108, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133.