PROFIT SHARING

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1847, 31 July 1907, Page 42

PROFIT SHARING

MR WESTBROOKE’S VIEWS. A recent remark by the Provident of the Arbitration Court (Mr Justice Sim) on the subject of profit sharing, in regard to the relations between employer and employee, has given rise to considerable comment in labour circles. In a conversation with a "Mail” reporter on Saturday last, Mr W. H. Westbrooke, secretary to the Wellington Trades and Labour Council, the Furniture Trades Union, the Coachworkers’ Union, and the Domestic Workers’ Union, had something to say on the subject from the workers’ point of view. In dissenting from Mr Justice Sim’s expressed opinions, Mr Westbrooke said: "We are often told that the interests of the employer and employee are mutual, but they are only mutual when the workers have a share in the profits. If a man hires himself for 10s per day and earns <£lo, his wages are only Its.' This is surely hot in accordance with the laws oi natural justice. Then again if the Arbitration Court awards what it terms a fair living wage, why the difference that exists at present in regard to different trades. Take the building trades for instance. There we find the rates of pay per hour as follows: Plumbers Is sd, plasterers Is 6d, carpenters Is 4d, bricklayers Is 7d. Again bootmakers have 45s per week, and coachbuilders Is 3d per hour or <£3 per week.” "If the living wage is to be the basis of awards, then our agitation in favour of the Government building workmen’s homes with a view to lowering the rent, or talk of a Fair Rent Bill, or of tramway extension with a view to getting cheaper land for workmen, or taking the Customs duties off the necessaries of life—are simply in the interests of the employers of labour; because the cheaper house rent, the necessaries of life, etc., become, the lower the wage will be. "What is the effect if we accept the Judged decision as true and final—that profit only affects the awards of the Court in the way of protecting industries that may be injured by too high a wageP I know from the amount of dissatisfaction existing amongst the workers that the present system cannot last long. My opinion is that the only possible mean 3 of effecting a permanent industrial peace is to give the workers some definite share of the profits made. Of course these are difficulties, but I do not regard them as insuperable. Certainly it could be worked out in regard to many of the main industries. "I very willingly acknowledge that the present Act has done good work, and if it eamo to a question a® to whether we should have tins Act or the old strike system, I would fight strenuously for the retention of the Act. At the same time I believe that it should be amended, if necessary in the direction of making it available for fixing wages on a profit-sharing basis. The interests of both employer and men would then be truly mutual. When I asked in Court if the profit in an industry influenced the Court in framing an award, the Judge stated that if profits influenced the Court we should have different wages paid by different employers. This is no obiection, as at present we have firms of builders and others working under different awards and paying different wages in each case; while it was .only recently that the Court made provision that the plumbers’ award should not take effect in cases where the employe; had a contract in hand until such contract is finished. This means that an employer taking a fresh contract will have to pay different wage's on it to the wages paid on a contract taken before the award came into force. I understand some plumbers had" work in hand likely to last over six months. The employers’ representative on the Arbitratioii Court Bench (Mr S. Brown) also asked if the workers would be willing to share in the employer’s losses. It must be evident that we share in the losses now. Even from the Court’s own view of the matter the wages have to come down when a business is only making small profits; and if ho profits are made the business soon closes, and the men are out of work. Not only is that so, but if we got a share of the profits we could have a reserve fund to help us over the bad time, the same as the capitalist employer has. At present the Court can demand an employer s books with regard to any matter, why not have an annual balance-sheet from the different employers? My idea is to have a form of bonus from the share of the profit. The ironsmelters m the Old Country work on that basis with a sliding scale of wages according to the profit made in the industry.