CO-PARTNERSHIP.

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 15294, 24 July 1923, Page 2

CO-PARTNERSHIP.

CONGRESS IN LONDON* VIEWS OF BUSINESS CHIEFSSTABILITY AND TRUST. , Sir George Gibb (formerly chairman of Hie Road Board), presided at the session of the second. Labour CoPartnership Congress hold at the Royal Society of Arts, London, lie said that a great many of the troubles in the industrial world in the past were cither directly or indirectly traceable to some faulty organisation. Mr G. G. Renold, director of Messrs Hans Renold, Limited, speaking on the place of the worker in industry, said there had been a change in Labour's demand since 1910, previous to which it was mainly directed to better conditons. Immediately before and during the war there was a demand for a share in control, and this presented new problems. Lately there had been a period of bad trade, but the moment trade improved the same demand would arise- Whatever changes were going to come, it was important to see that all grades should understand more than they did of the present problems of industry'- He believed that the workers would understand more of these problems if they were taken into the •confidence of the management. His firm, engaged for about fortyfive years in manufacturing bicycle chains and largo driving chains, and employing 1700 people, had gone further than many firms in experiments of this kind. The outstanding part of the scheme was committees in various parts of the organisation. The first committee was formed in 1909; a social union organising all recreation work, run by an elected committee of workpeople of all grades; it was sounder than the usual welfare work schemes, which forced workers to play. A committee of skilled workers (shop stewards) was formed in 1917, and in 1920 the welfare and the shop stewards amalgamated, mainly to watch over questions of wage awards, and became a standing negotiating committee rather than a joint workers' committee. To this committee, the mouthpiece of all trade unionists in the firm, a monthly statement was made by the management on the likelihood of increase or decrease in different departments, and when, during the trade Slump, cutting down of personnel had to bo discussed, it was put to them that this should be done on the principle of efficiency rather than length of service.

The- advantages of personal contact with the workers was shown in the details of the profit-sharing scheme, where the manual workers saw that a sales department was necessary, and that manual work required office work to make it negotiable- The scheme .of profit-sharing was initiated in 1921, and in spite of the "slump" was reaffirmed in March, 1922. The dangers were cumbersome working and vital information leaking out, but these were risks they were prepared to run. The great advantages were stability and general trust, the workers being in close touch with the policy of the management and unlikely to be swept by the wings of Communism. They were far less likely to entertain "revolutionary proposals than those who believed their managers to be hostile.

Women In Industry,

Lady Parsons, director of Atalanta, Limited, presided at the afternoon session, when Miss Dorothy Cadbury, director of Cadbury Brothers, Limited, read a paper on the position of women in industry.

Lady Parsons said that session was the first to be called by the newlyformed women' committee. The position of women in industry was undergoing a fundamental change- In the past the term "women in industry" was generally understood to mean the manual workers in factories, who had long been associated with many kinds of production, and on whose labour we depended for so many necessaries. But this term now was understood in a wider sense, and included also the teohnical and professional women who were studying in ever-increasing numbers for the various, professions. Whatever industrial busines o> profession they considered, they found that the relations between capital and labour were the pivot of all business, the harmony, and the success of the firm. In prosperous times, when there were profits to consider, they were -absorbed in two main streams, wages and salaries —increasing, very rightly, with the prosperity of the urm —and interest on capital. But here they came up against the difficulty -at the root of all modern industry. Wages were fixed in an indefinite, unscientific manner, mainly by the process of bargaining and by the consideration of what others were receiving, and the employer took the surplus profits. The division* of the product—wages to worker, surplus to employer—might be the most correct' division, but it was open to suspicion. In an absolute co-partnership academic scheme, which was quite unrealisable for very obvious reasons, no one would get any wages at all; in theory the profits would be divided equally; but this theory was brought up sharply at the start by the necessity of having to live during the process of working. Hence wages, which might be considered as interest on labour, and always were the first charge on capital. Many subsidiary and less fundamental changes were being brought into use for the more generous distribution of profits, schemes which did not entail a complete upheaval of existing conditions, and did not interfere with that very difficult and delicate operation—management. The most ordinary way in actual operation seemed to be to assign nominal shares to workers, which were not paid foJ>Jn cash, and they bore interest, proportionately to capital and wages. In some schemes the dividend was payable in shares only until a certain holding in the business was achieved. In others the dividend was paid half in shares and half in capital. In some firms a worker must relinquish his share on leaving- Some such limit would seem to be necessary, as employees, retired or leaving their shares to descendants, might in the course of time acquire a majority of shares and consequently control.

One speaker recommended broadcasting music as a cure for the monotony of repetition work, but Miss Cadbury replied by suggesting that In a noisy factory i|, would not be possible, and that change of process would probably be belterThe conference was adjourned till next day. when .Mr Oswald Moslcy, M.P., was chairman. "Balkan War Methods." Sir William Beveridgc (Director of ilie London School of Economics) presided at the luncheon at Gatli's. He said that the relationship between employers 'and workers must, bo a practical and nut theoretical one. It was high lime Ihe Balkan War method of conducting industry was abolished. The greal remedy was publicity, "ol ' actual fact of co-.partnership, but

the fact of taking the workers into their •confidence.

Mr Theodore 0- Taylor, managingdirector of the co-partnership business of Messrs J. T. and J. Taylor, Limited, said tiiat one of the dangers of the handling of their cause 'by politicians rather than by business men was that undue emphasis was laid upon theoretical as compared ■ with practical considerations. Control of business by employees was sometimes alleged to be of greater importance than sharing* in profits and capital. Whatever their ultimate ideal, if they wished to win business men as converts, they must talk loss of workers' control and more of what was immediately practicableThe average worker craved less for control than for income. There might be various methods Of profit-sharing or co-partnership; there was only one spirit that would ensure permanent success—the spirit of self-secrifice.

The true idea of business was service of the community. It was not improbable that by accepting lower rates of wages, and by doing more work for the same wages, workers could soon dispense with doles and receive actually higher wages. "But how could the workman be convinced of this? How could he make sure that once lower rates were accepted he would he ahle to get them up again when profits permitted? The way in which greater, better, and cheaper production could ho secured was by giving the worker a share in the profits and capital of the business. He frankly confessed that the reason which first attracted him to the principle of profit-sharing was that it seemed the most effective way in which an employer could safely pay (he highest wages his business could afford. War Profits and the Worker. Mr J. A. Bowie, of Manchester, speaking on co-partner-ship through investment," said that the worker should Be asked to contribute something from his savings for the acquisition of shares- Saving was a kindergarten lesson in the school of ownership for Labour Co-partnership founded solely on profit-sharing did not adequately teach the lesson of saving, as no sacrifice was asked of the. worker. Lord Emmott said they wanted Labour to get the bourgeois attitude towards 'saving. They heard of late about the class consciousness of the proletariat, but he wanted to see the class consciousness of the small possessor.

Sir Edward Pcnton said that what they were seeking in co-partnership was a settlement of the disputes between Capital and Labour. During the war employers missed a golden opportunity of profit-sharing with the workers- ' He did not believe in all the agitation about the profiteers. In many cases they could not help themselves, and could not help earning profits. But if they had acknowledged the profits and said, "Wo are dividing them between our workers and ourselves," we should have got over a great deal of the heart-burning we passed through during the past 'four years.