When an employee leaves the company he is obliged to ex change his industrial partnership shares for second preferred non voting stock.
Organized labour has been hostile to profit-sharing for a variety of reasons. Testifying before the Senate Committee, William Green said labour "is not opposed to principles involved in profit-sharing but . . . to the way in which it has developed and operated. . . . Labor cannot be asked to accept blindly management's decision on what constitutes prof its." He insisted that all records ought to be equally available to both sides, that the company's sales policies, executive salary scale, financial policies, and wage structure should be mutually discussed as a basis for profit-sharing and that "collective bar gaining should be extended to the field of profit-sharing." Under such conditions labour's attitude would be favourable. John Lewis maintained that labour could not accept as part of its just com pensation a share in profits so long as the conditions which control the profits "are completely beyond its control or influence." Em ployers, too, have serious questions. They have established the plans for any one of several reasons : To promote social justice, reduce labour turnover, increase the interest and loyalty of their employees, encourage thrift, increase efficiency and decrease re striction of output. Often they cannot see that the end sought is achieved.
Many plans have failed to produce economies or increases in efficiency equal to their cost, others have been discontinued be cause of labour troubles.
A smaller percentage have been ended by the employees asking for higher wages in lieu of profit-sharing.
Uncertainty of profits is, perhaps, the most disturbing factor— uncertainty as to whether there will be any profits, how large they will be, and whether the distribution of them will be on a mutually satisfactory basis.
Although profit-sharing has been successful in a number of instances, it is doubtful whether it is gaining ground at the present time. The underlying purpose of profit-sharing, which was to create a bond of mutual in terest between management and workers and to promote greater co-operation and efficiency, has found expression in other forms, such as co-operative thrift and savings schemes, stock purchase plans, benefits for sickness and accident, group life insurance and pension or retirement plans. The profit-sharing systems of some companies have continued to exist through the years, although the details of the plans have been modified from time to time. The N. 0. Nelson Manufacturing Company of St. Louis operated on a profit-sharing basis from 1886 to 1935. The Bourne Mills of Fall River, Mass., has continued to share profits with its employees each year, with the exception of 19o4, since 1899. Although the plan of the Baker Manufacturing Company has been in existence since 1894, it was not until 1899 that profit-sharing actually be came effective.
The most significant development in profit-sharing has been its application in unionized plants. At least seven companies now have profit-sharing in union plants. In all cases the control of profit-sharing is entirely in the hands of the companies but in three of them the unions have insisted upon discussion of the plan at bargaining time. A few unions have asked for profits-shares in addition to the wages provided by the agreement.
The Dutch schemes, though mostly very small, present many interesting and original features; and Switzer land has the unique experiment of a scheme in the Federal postal