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.