﻿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.