The Portland daily press., 1886-03-30
INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIP.

INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIP.
The announcement that Messrs. Ara Cush-
man & Co., the great shoe manufacturers OF
Auburn, are to try the experiment OF allow
Ing their workmen to share in the profits OF
the business gives special interest in this To-
cality to Part ii. of the last report Of the
Massachusetts, bureau of labor statistics, pre-
pared under the direction of Col. Carrol ID.
Wright which is wholly devoted to the sub
ject of Industrial Partnership. Passing over
so much of the chapter as relates to the his
tory of this method of cooperation In Tor
eign countries, with the remark that 1t con-
tains much valuable information concerning
the origin of the method, as well as that
which relates to profit sharing in the fisher
les, the facts of which are so familiar along
the Maine coast as to call for no extended
elucidation here, we come to the experiments
in this line made in the manufacturing es-
adjustments in this country, where the con-
ditions are very similar to those existing in
the Messrs. Cushman's shops.
The earliest experiment of this kind of any
considerable note was begun by A. S. Came
ron & Co., manufacturers of steam pumping
machinery of New York. In 1869 in circu-
lar addressed to their workmen the Messrs.
Cameron announced that ten per cent. OF
the net profits will be distributed among
them each year, provided that our employees
perform the duties assigned to them In such
manner as to warrant us in pursuing this
course, of which we are to be the sole judg-
es." The firm distinctly stated that they
expected to receive, in the way of increased
diligence and interest, as much from their
employees as they gave in cash. In other
words the arrangement was one of business,
and not of charity The arrangement lasted
eight years. until the death of the senior
member of the firm, and proved highly sat-
isfactory to both sides.
Contemporaneously with this a sim
liar experiment, was made by Messrs.
Brewster & Co., carriage builders of New
York. The dividend to labor in this case
was ten per cent, of the gross profits, there
being no deduction first of any salary or in
terest on capital for any member of the firm.
1t was divided in proportion to wages, every
employe receiving share unless he volunta-
rily left the establishment before the close of
the fiscal year. A relief fund was also main
tanned from the profits of the business. The
employees were divided into seven depart
ments, corresponding to their work. Each
department elected board of control, and
the chairmen of the several boards OF con-
troll, with a representative from the shop at
large constituted board of governors. The
board of governors elected a president of the
association from among the members OF the
firm. The board of governors had power
to make all rules and regulations for the
shop, and hear and investigate complaints.
But before any of their rules or decisions be-
came binding they were to be approved by
the president, and if not so approved they
became void unless two-thirds of the men,
bers of the board concurred in them when
they stood, notwithstanding the presidents
disapproval. The duties of the board OF con-
troll were to take care of the property OF their
departments, and to settle all minor questions.
Neither the association nor any member OF
it, except the president, had any voice in the
management of the firms business, nor the
right to bring suit against Brewster IL Co.
to recover any share in the dividend to labor,
which, it was expressly understood, was
voluntary concession. This arrangement
continued two years and half, when the
employees went on a strike to make eight
hours working day They continued on the
strike two weeks, meanwhile forfeiting
dividend of $11 ,0O0 which would have been
due them, and losing $4,000 in wages. They
then returned to work without a single con-
cession ON the part of the firm and the profit
sharing experiment came to an end.
In 1878 the Peace Dale Manufacturing Com
pany decided to give their employees share
in the profits. The dividends were made con-
tingent upon the results of the years busi-
ness. After paying wages, interest, rea-
sonable profit on capital invested, and set
ting aside amounts required to make good the
wear and tear of buildings and machinery
and to strengthen the reserve funds, the
company proposed to distribute the balance,
if any, among the workmen by making
dividend of so much per cent upon the
amount of wages earned during the year by
the persons entitled to receive it. If not
enough was left from the years business
after providing for contingencies to pay one
per cent. then nothing was to be paid. 1t
was clearly stated in the company's circular
that it was expected that increased diligence
on the part of the employees would result in
saving that would go far to pay the bonus.
The company did not intend to make pres
ent to their workmen any more than did the
Messrs. Cameron to theirs. They expected
the arrangement to be profitable to both
sides, and they reserved the right to dlscon-
tinue it whenever it was proved that it was
not. The first year there was no dividend.
The second year $5,S4240 was distributed by
five per cent. dividend on wages. Ihough
the scheme had produced some good results,
the company could not, at the END
of the second year pronounce 1t a success
The third year balance Of $5,999.65 was dlS-
tributed. This dividend was derived more
from the purchase of materials at low prices
than from economy in manufacture, and the
Company announced that the result OF the
cooperative experiment had not been all
they had right to expect. Some OF the op-
eratiyes had been stimulated to do better
work and take better care, but upon good
many it had produced no such effect. The
next year only $3,76014 were distributed;
but the employers thought they could see that
the experiment was beginning to produce
good results in increasing the diligence and
interest of the workmen. The next year
about the same dividend was paid, and there
was further improvement in the work of
the employees. Since this dividend, which
was paid in 1884, none has been paid, the
general depression inbusiness cutting the
profits too low to justify it. The arrange
ment. however, is still in force, and when
ever business sufficiently revives profit shar-
ing will be renewed
The most extensive example OF profit Shar-
ing in the United States is to be found in the
great Touring mills of c. A. Pillsbury & Co.
of Minneapolis. The plan went into opera
ton three years ago, and the sums divided
have been S25. 900. $26, 900 and $3.50 among