Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-04-27
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT MADE
BY WELFARE Department OF
NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION

I them apparently based upon no accepted
economic theory but embodying ideas pc.
culiar to the individual employer.
Among the points raised against the
profit -sharing among the trades unions
the chief IL, Of course, that the interests
Of labor as q whole would be imperilled
by any weakening or destruction OF
strong organization to protect wage
standards which. under proft-sharing,
would pass wholly under the control OF
the employers.
Another objection by organized labor
which it must be acknowledged is, borne
out by the statistics of many of these
experiments, is that profit-sharing chiefly
affects only the superintendent. fore.
men, and higher grades Of employees and
does not reach the rank and file. Either
it is claimed, the profit payments are toe
small to be of any moment to the low
paid workers, or. where it is stock sub.
scription plan. the mass Of the workers
do not earn enough to Duy any STOCK
even on installments.
Union representatives also point out
that labor itself is making no demand
for profit-sharing. either in the organized
or unorganized fields, and that the things
Of real and vital interest to labor are not
those which employers propose, but
which emanate from the working men
themselves.
Another frequent criticism Is that
market wages are not paid where profit
sharing is applied, 80 that wages and
profits together do not exceed, and often
do not equal, the prevailing union scale
Analysis Of the report shows that this
charge is borne out in some cases"
The report points out the complaint
that profit-sharing employees are often
not allowed access to the books of the
company, and it quotes some of the
spokesman for labor in opposition to the
whole theory of proflt-sharing on the
ground that eff the profits are paid as
something actually earned they are 3
right and should be as definitely legal
claim of labor, as are wages, rather thar
a payment optional with the employer
while, on the other hand, if they are not
| a right, they are merely gifts, creating
an un-American sense Of obligation and
! dependence among the workers and otter
preventing them from demanding what
! they conceive to be their rightful earn
| ings." The report makes no attempt t
but simply sets forth an outline Of more
than 200 schemes that have been tried IL
this country, and includes also some Eu
ropean examples.
| There are three main divisions o.
schemes, the first being a percentage o
profit plans under which the employer
agrees to pay his employees a certain per
centage, fixed in advance, of the profit!
of the business. The Eastman Kodal
Company of Rochester, New York, 1!
cited as a typical example under thi
plan. A second scheme is the specia
distribution of gratuities in great va
riety of forms ranging from discount!
on supplies purchased to cash bonuse!
paid usually at the end Of the year. Thu
Crane Company Of Chicago is named al
presenting a good illustration Of suci
special distribution schemes. The thirt
plan Is stock ownership, which is being
! given notable test by the United State!
Steel Corporation.
| The report reaches the conclusion tina
the five-dollar-a-day minimum wage pla1
of the Ford Motor Company, although
described by the company and popularity
understood as profit-sharing. does no
fall within the standard definition O
profit-sharing and is in reality q unique
| high wage system made possible only by
extraordinary conditions.
! The report regrets an inability to learr
| with certainty the views of the rank ant
| file Of employees affected by profit-sharine
plans. since nearly all Of these undertake
| ings are carried on by employers Of non.
union labor, and the unorganized workers
have no authorized spokesman. 1t was
possible only to gather scattered individ.
ual opinion.