The Press. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1914 Profit-Sharing and Sensationalism.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14907, 4 March 1914, Page 8

The Press. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1914 Profit-Sharing and Sensationalism.

When it was announced that the lionaire motor-car manufacturers, the Ford Co., intended to distribute the year's profits, amounting to £2,000,000, among their employees, Sir Andrew Carnegie applauded the project as " foretelling the coming of the day when " the distribution of wealth will be far " more equal than it has over been." This characteristically sweeping opinion, however, was" by no means generally shared by the more careful thinkersand writers of America. There is a great and hopeful future for the- profit-char-ing idea, of the value pt which, when it it; worked on sound lines, we have always been convinced. But the Ford Company's scheme has served to bring into the light some of the dangers of rash experimenting with a good idea. The London "Spectator," which is a friend of the principle of profit-sharing, points out that Mr Ford ie creating a privileged body of employees, "and einco the world be- " gan privilege has to be paid for in ono "way or another," in this particular case it will he paid for by the employees in a loss of personal liberty, for Mr Ford . is coupling with hie scheme a "sociological department, " which will investigate the private lives and habit* of all the beneficiaries. As to the question, what Mr Ford ought to do If he feels that ho is not morally entitled to spend upon himself the huge income he commands, the "Spectator" sensibly suggests that he ought to lower "the prices of his care. It so happens that such a course would only benefit those who can afford the luxury of a motorcar, but this does not affect the general principle, which the "Spectator" states in these words:—"ln order to secure "the general progress of mankind we " must proceed by cheapening articles "for the benefit of the general "consumer rather than by maintaining " prices for the benefit of the parti- " cular producer. The one course " leads to a more equable distribution " of wealth throughout the world; the " other course creates little knots of " privileged persons enjoying •.flfleition " which thoir neighboure. cannot at- " tain." The real danger connected with the Ford scheme ie declared by the "Iron " Age," one of the leading trade papers in the world, to he the encouragement it will givo to "the seeming belief that " there is a strong box behind every " establishment, from which wage ad- " vances can bo taken when workmen " conceive them to be necessary." That this criticism is well founded is made dear by the attitude of some of the-

Socialist newspapers. The Milwaukee "Leader," for example, looks upon the scheme as a good reason why all the other workers in America should seek to gain the profits which the wretched employers contrive to make. The New York "I>aily People" has no applause for 31 r Ford; it regards his plan as tending to give him advantages over his competitors, to the ultimate detriment of tho workers themselves. No doubt the view of the "Iron Age" will in some quarters be represented as fresh proof of the cupidity of employers and of tho brutal eagerness of some people to keep the worker down. Yet tho fact remains that if all the workers fonght for possession of the mythical "strong box," industry would collapse. This is so far from being "a Tory fact" that it was stated very emphatically a few years ago by Sir John Findlay, whose thoroughgoing Radicalism lms brought him quite as near to Socialism as are any of tho Radicals, Social-I>eraocrats, or "Progressives'' in the whole community. Mr Ford, it may ultimately turn out, has hindered tho progress of the profit-sharing idea instead of helpins it- His £2,000,CC0 bonus is not a stimulus to better work, but, to quote tho "Spectator" again, merely "a "charitable gift." It will strengthen the delusion that there is a "strong "box" behind every industry, and may at the same time tend to make eraployers unfriendly to the profit-sharing idea. For they will naturally fear that any forward movement by them in that direction will be taken by tho militant labour organisations as an admission that they have been robbing tho workers on a colossal scale.