CO-PARTNERSHIP:

Evening Star, Issue 14926, 12 July 1912, Page 9

CO-PARTNERSHIP:

ITS MEANING, ITS AIMS, AND ITS WiOGUESS. “Co-partnership,” said Earl Grey recently in those columns, “ will unlock the doors of our Doubting Castle.” And the troubles which the world of Labor has experienced, especially' during recent times, have had an enormous influench in bringing people to a belief in this policy. Under industrial conditions as they exist at present competition has assumed much of the destructive and wasteful element of war; the dangers of disagreements and disputes tend to become even greater; thi' human element is being crushed. Man becomes ever more and more a more uninterested mechanical part in a vast scheme of things. That is the real national and individual tragedy at the bottom of it all. Hope and interest have hut little chance to thrive in tho great competitive machine of industry. But the light is beginning to dawn, heralding a changed order of things. The recent coal strike had the effect of showing that in all parties of the State—except the extreme State Socialists—there are very many staunch advocates of co-partnership. When Labor problems arc discussed in the House of Commons, that policy is advocated from both sides as tho most effective remedy for introducing into our industrial system the desired elements of peace, greater efficiency, and justice all round. Thinking men are in ever-increasing numbers turning their attention to it ; to the masses it is now something more than a vague term used to describe some faintlycumprehendod ideal. Tho example, of those who have gone ahead in the matter in advance of tho times is being increasingly followed. —Profit-sharing and Co-partnership.— To-day tho annual mooting of the Labor Co-partnership Association takes place—an influential body, which lias done, and is doing, magnificent educational, advisory, and propagandist work on behalf of this niitigant of Labor unrest and factor in industrial progress. It is, therefore, opportune to survey the progress made by copartnership in this country, and to describe its aims and methods. Great attention will undoubtedly be, paid to tlie question in tho, future, and in any inquiry into Labor unrest it is bound to receive tho closest attention. It will he well, at the outset, to distinguish clearly between mere profitsharing anil co-partnership. The former, of course, is ono element of the latter, hut it lacks the second And chief feature, which is capital owning. These two factors combined naturally make, a much stronger and more effective policy. Profit-sharing alone—the paying of a bonus half-yearly or yearly —has been found in many cases not to achieve tho desired ends—for there is more than one. It generally means a spurt in work when the bonus is nearly due, hut seldom general and sustained efficiency : it is sometimes used as a cover for lower wages; the workers remain servants, without a voice in the affairs of the business for the prosperity of which they are largely responsible; there is no sharing of losses, should such occur, save to the extent of a fall in wages or loss of employment.

Under a real and effective scheme ol co-partnership—profit-sharing and capi-tal-owning—however, all the desired conditions arc present. The worker gains a double interest in the success of the business. He receives a share of the profit, which lie invests in the concern, and a return on that investment. As the losses, too, must be carried hy the share capital, ho has an additional incentive to effort. His point of view is changed and enlarged by having a voice in the management of the work. That has, it should be pointed out, a most excellent educative effect on the worker. —Employees’ Interests.— Then, again, a necessary feature is the formation of a committee of the employees to look after their interests, a body which also provides machinery for the settlement of disputes at their beginning, and not when they have assumed large and dangerous proportions. it should, too, he most clearly understood that co-partnership is not a weapon aimed at trade unionism, or a policy which leaves the public, the consumers, out of the question. As regards the first point, two principle's must he accepted hy both masters and men if a co-partnership scheme is tu work successfully:— (1) Employers ami workmen shall he at liberty to become or to remain members of associations outside their place of work. (d) Wages, hours, and conditions general with good employers in the same district shall be adopted or preserved under co-partnership.

As far as the interests of the public arc concerned, consumers will sec from tho following; statement made by the late Sir George Livoscy. a great pioneer in the movement, one way in which they will benefit. Sir George, when chairman of tho South Metropolitan Gas Company, the most striking example of this kind of partnership, stated that tho £-127.000 paid in 18 years in the form of profit to the employees did not mean a single penny reduction of profit to the shareholders, because the workers had earned it by better and more economical working. Such a state of atfairs is bound to benefit tho consumer. Under co-part-nership it is, more than under present conditions, in the interest of botli masters and men to consider tho public. Broadly, there are two types of copartnership, but these are each capable of great variation to suit different conditions. One springs from the. workers themselves, and is in reality a reversal of the present relations of Capital and Labor without doing injury to cither. 11l the ordinary course, Capital employs Labor, pays it, and keeps the profits. Under this form of co-partner-ship capital is borrowed, interest on it paid, and tho profits .retained, for the benefit of the workers, the customers, and special funds. —'Workmen Who Become Owners. Tho second typo is that by which the workmen are gradually given a share of the profits, capital, and control of a business. In some oases their share will gradually increase until it displaces the original capital, and they ultimately become owners of the concern. In others—such as at Fort Sunlight—partnership certificates are allotted to workers under certain conditions, their value, being based upon the employee’s amount of salary. This plan leaves the original capital undisturbed. To-day certificates to the amount of £298,731 arc held by Port Sunlight workers, and tho last distribution of profits involved a sum of £28,708. In recent years co-partnership, in its diverse forms, has made great strides. The most striking features of that progress is the extraordinary extent to which it has been applied in the case of British gas companies. Tho capital of such concerns now run on co-part-nership lines represents £3O/100,000 — more than half, tho paid-uq > capital in this brunch of industry. Eighty associations of producers, with a capital of £300,000, employing their own labor on this principle, exist in tho country. That capital is partly share, capital and partly loan, belonging to workers in tho 'societies, sympathisers, and co-oiK-rativo productive societies. Then there arc 23 co-operative productive societies, including some extensive federations of consumers, which employ labor, not their own, on the co-partner-ship principle. Tho scheme, too, has been adopted with great success by many of tho largest limited liability companies in tho country, and this list is continually being added to. Good progress is undoubtedly being made. naA iuo now idea ha&

been adopted and worked , conscientiously by both sides no ono would dream of reverting to tho old style. Co-partnership is not put forward as a short cut to the millennium, but as a scheme which will gradually redress the had balance of the old order, which will increase efficiency, help the worker to acquire a larger share of the country’s capital, educate him and broaden his views, and so place before the whole country a fairer and nobler social and industrial prospect.—‘ Daily Chronicle.’