The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1891-09-04
PROFIT SHARING.

Pillsbury-W ashburn mills. contrib
utes very interesting article to the
September number Of the Reraeac Of
Rerie,rs on the profit sharing scheme
adopted by his company eight years
ago. Mr.. Pillsbury saws three years Of
the eight in which the profit sharing
project has been in vogue the annual
profits did not exceed the fixed pei
centage set for the initial remunera-
ton of the capital invested, and con-
sequently in those years there was no
distribution of surplus to employees.
The sum total of the amount divided
among the men in the five years of
distribution has been about $4,000,
an average of 100000 per year. Obyi-
ously the increase in the number of
participants, says Mr.. Pillsbury. has
diminished the amounts paid on dis
tribution day to individuals. How
ever, it is unnecessary to show that
$4,000 year, paid out as extra money
at one time to 800 or 400 men is no
trifiing benefit. 1t is equivalent to 6
per cent. dividend upon an invest
ment of half a million dollars. 1t
means, in other words, that an en-
ploye, besides drawing safely from
week to week his full wages, is likely
to receive at the end Of the year a
check for sum greater rather than
less than current annual interest
upon his total yearly salary. 1t should
be clearly understood that the distri-
button among the men is made in the
proportion of wages received. Thus
the most responsible and therefore
most highly salaried men, whether
employed in the commercial side or in
the manufacturing side of the bust
ness, draw the largest check in the
distribution of profits.
From his own point Of view he is
convinced that the experiment is
profitable for capital. From the point
of view of the participants themselves
he holds that it would perfectly de-
monstrable that what GENES to them
as their share of surplus profit
comes in clear addition to maximum
wages as result, not so much Of more
strenuous and self-denying effort on
their part, as Of the more highly eff
cient and stable organization that
profit-sharing brings about.
Mr.. Pillsbury declares as result of
his experience that he knows Of no
objections whatever to the system of
proit-sbaring. LAS to its moral eff
fects,' he declares, lit certainly pro-
notes good feeling between capital
and labor, and tends to make the men
more contented and more likely to
settle down and acquire families and
homes for themselves. Moreover it
educates sense of responsibility in
the men. 1t is a mistake based upon
theory rather than upon observation
to suppose that profit sharing induces
the men to act as if they owned the
establishment or that it gives them
sense of lazy security. We would dis
charge an old employe who was prov
ing incompetent or unworthy rather
sooner than we would were this sys-
TEN not in vogue. We have never
been troubled with any impertinent
employe prying into our company's
financial business, nor have we heard
any complaints that we were not acting
in good faith in operating our system
of profit sharing. / do not contem-
plate any change in the system as now
in use.'
Mr.. Pillsbury is also Of the opinion
that profit sharing could be successful
ly and economically applied to any
business which, like the -four bust
ness. depended largely upon the care
and skill Of the men employed: and
that it is especially advantageous in
those kinds Of manufacture or trade
in which it is difficult to detect any
neglect of duty or to regulate such
neglect eveu when detected.