<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Report on profit-sharing and labour co-partnership in the United Kingdom</title>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt />
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <msIdentifier>
            <idno>1016336950</idno>
          </msIdentifier>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div>12 
II.—PRIVATE FIRMS AND COMPANIES. 
in bonuses a total of more than £172,000) remarks as follows :■— 
“ 1 wonder how Sir George (Sir George Livesey, Chairman of the 
“ South Metropolitan Gas Company) would deal with such a 
“business as ours, where, during the 16 years our profit-sharing 
“ scheme has been in force, we have paid in bonuses more than 
“ twice the amount of our ordinary capital, and we couldn’t, if 
“ we wanted to, find employment for such an accumulation of 
“ capital as these bonuses represent. With a Gas Company, 
“ which is always increasing its mains and adding to capital 
“ account, it is different. We want to keep our capital account 
“ as low as possible.” 
In an article on Co-partnership the Engineer, of May 31, .1912, 
describes a profit-sharing scheme under which a Company at 
the end of each year pays 5 per cent, dividend on its shares 
“ and the remaining profits are apportioned between capital and 
“ labour in the ratio that the capital bears to the wages bill. 
“ The labour portion is distributed amongst all the workers gro 
“rata with their wages, but not in the form of money. The 
“ distribution is made in ordinary shares of the Company, which, 
“ of course, take their dividends in the ordinary way in succeed- 
tT ing years.” This journal observes that under this scheme 
“ in the course of time the business must become seriously over- 
“ capitalised. Already the majority of the shares are owned by 
“ the workpeople, and these all, with the exception of such 
“ transfers as are made when, for example, a co-partner dies 
“ or leaves the firm, represent new created stock. Clearly there 
“ must be a limit to that kind of thing. A natural limit would 
“ no doubt be reached when the capital became so great that 
“ the dividends dwindled to the 5 per cent, due to shareholders. 
“ There would then be no new issue of stock, and although every 
“ shareholder would be concerned in maintaining the 5 per cent. 
“ dividend, there would clearly not be the stimulus that there is 
“ at present.” 
Complete lists of the profit-sharing schemes notified to the 
Department up to August 1, 1912, are contained in Appen 
dices A and B (pp. 95-114), particulars relating, to schemes which 
have been abandoned being given separately from those relating 
to schemes in which Profit-sharing is at present in force. In every 
case the year of starting Profit-sharing is given, together with the 
nature of the business carried on by the employer, the number 
of the employees, and the form in which the bonus is paid. In 
the case of abandoned schemes, the year and the cause of abandon 
ment are also stated; while for schemes at present in force 
particulars are added as to the number of employees entitled to 
participate at the end of 1911 (or in 1912, in the case of schemes 
started since 1911). In Appendices C and D 1pp. 115-125) Tables 
are given for existing and for abandoned schemes relating to the 
investments of employees in their employers’ businesses. 
The Summary Table on the next page has been compiled from 
the information given in the Appendices referred to above : •—</div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
