The Waikato Times. With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1923. CO-PARTNERSHIP.

Waikato Times, Volume 97, Issue 15274, 26 June 1923, Page 4

The Waikato Times. With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1923. CO-PARTNERSHIP.

“Whereas there is great loss to the industries of the country by the opposition of Capital and Labour, and whereas such opposition increases the cost of production and the prices of all commodities, and whereas it is desirable to restore to the wage-earning classes human interest in life and work and to place them in a position of economic equality with every other class, I desire that this Bill be enacted.” In these words Mr Basil E. Peto, M.P., brought the subject of copartnership before the British House of Commons on April 17, when he secured the first reading of a ’Bill dealing with it. A similar ideal to that voiced by Mr Peto is, it may be assumed, entertained by those whose efforts were successful in obtaining a first reading 'for the Companies Empowering Bill during the final stages of the late New Zealand Parliament. For half a century experiments have been in progress with the object of bettering the lot of the workers by securing for them a more adequate share of the fruits of industry, and of improving the relations between those who supply the monetary capital for industry and those without whose manual assistance money alone would be practically valueless for initiation and development of trade enterprises. Trade unionism, the right of collective bargaining, Arbitration Courts arid Conciliation Councils, whilst not wholly devoid of benellcial results, have not achieved what was expected, and all over the civilised’ world to-day it has become apparent to thinking people of all classes that something different must come into general operation ere the relations between what are generally designated as “Capital.” and “Labour" can be adjusted upon a harmonious basis. . The conclusion to which the great bulk of .moderate opinion, excepting extremists in the “employing” and “employed” camps, is fast arriving is that no real harmony or satisfactory advance can be achieved until the interests of so-called “Capital" and "Labour” become one, and until they are fighting upon the same side and not against one another. To this end much consideration has been devoted by earnest men in New Zealand and other countries to various schemes for profit-sharing, or copartnership, between those who furnish the monetary capital for productive enterprise and those whose contribution to the industry is the labour of their hands and brains. It4# outside the scope of this article to quote detailed results of profit-sharing and co-partnership ventures now in operation in the Old Country and New Zealand. From data available, however, it may be said that, speaking generally, considerable advance in the direction desired has been made under such schemes. In New Zealand, however, under the Companies Act as it stands at present a limited liability company has no legal power to put into application this idea of co-part-nership. In other words, allotment of “Labour shares" under the existing Act would be illegal. It is to remove this disability from a company desiring to adopt sucli a course iiiat the Companies Empowering Bill was introduced into the New Zealand Parliament; and presumably similar restrictions upon English companies’ freedom of action in this direction led Mr Peto to bring the matlcr before the House of Commons. From a precis, published in another column to-day, of Mr Peio’s explanation of the provisions of his Bill, it will be seen that the measure he proposes goes beyond what is sought in the Companies Amending Bill in this country, and is open to objections not attachable to what is proposed here. It will be noted also that, while the mover disclaims intention to lay down any standard scheme, his proposals provide for the appointment of Co-partnership Commissioners, lo the consideration and approval of whom all such plans arc subject. It also seeks taxation remissions and preference in Government contracts for firms and companies that have adopted methods of co-partnership. In this connection it is significant that the only speaker in opposition, Mr A. Hopkinson (whose remarks on Mr Peto’s Bill are also quoted elsewhere) has in successful operation at his Delta mining machinery works a co-partnership scheme, which might rightly be described as ultra-radical, so far does it go in distributing Die profits of his business amongst the workers engaged therein. The impression Lo be gathered from his remarks is that a Bill on the lines laid down by Mr Peto might, in effect, result in unscrupulous manufacturing firms taking advantage of remissions in taxation to dispose of their output at a low price to a subsidiary selling concern. Thus i

the profits to be shared by the workers in the manufacturing concern could be kept low, whilst the higher profits of the selling company, where copartnership would not be in operation, would go into the pockets of those supplying the monetary capital for both businesses. To the Companies Empowering Bill proposed for New Zealand these objections do not apply with equal force. No appointment of commissioners is stipulated for, and no bribe by way of taxation remissions, is suggested. All that is asked for is legal power for companies to enter into co-partnership arrangements with their employees if satisfactory terms can be arrived at between the parties interested. There can be little valid objection to the granting of such power, and we look for the early reappearance of the Bill before the present Parliament and its speedy translation into law. Opposition, if any is encountered, can only come from the extremists on either hand —the class of moneyed man who regards all manual workers as “pointers,” and the ultra-red radical who denounces anyone possessed of more of this world’s goods than himself as a conscienceless oppressor and bloodsucker. Were there good ground for believing that what is currently known as the “capitalist” class would use co-partnership schemes as a hypocritical cloak for exploitation of the workers, then indeed might the situation be considered hopeless. But we have sufficient idealism to hold the belief that, dividing the irreconcilables on either hand, exists a less articulate but far more substantial body of opinion, which would mutually and in all sincerity welcome and assist any movement calculated to end the unhappy state of friction at present existent throughout practically the whole Industrial world. In this faith, so far as this Dominion Is concerned we rely upon the Government to expedite by all means in its power the passage into law of a Companies Amending Act on the lines of the Bill already introduced. When this has been done, we venture to predict, quite a number of concerns in this country are likely to take the opportunity thus permitted of instituting co-partnership schemes designed to promote industrial harmony .and a more equitable distribution of profits amongst all those engaged in the particular activities carried on by firms concerned.