The labor standard., 1919-10-01

Profit Sharing, or the Workers Tai
 Share," George w. Perkins said, il
 part: :, ,o-r.'e
 "The Workers Fair Share" Ina
 been "a real problem ever since tn
 world began. It has changed greatl.
 as civilization has progressed, and ha
 crowded harder and harded for solu
 tion as intelligence and education hav'
 spread and broadened.
 The workers fair share was an un
 solved problem when the expression that designated the relationship be-
 tween the man of capital and the mar of labor was "owner and slave" Il still existed when the expression o1 relationship became master ane
 man." It still exists in these days when the expression of relationship is "employer and employe." These very changes in the expressions used to designate the relationship between capital and labor show that steady ing the problem of the workers fair share.
 take it that everyone believes that we cannot go back to the old condi- tions; that we< must move forward to an even better relationship than that expressed by the term "employer and employe." You ask: "What is this newer relationship to be and what term will express it ?" I answer that I believe it must be partners" If l am. right, then the next question is how can this relationship be worked out so as to bring the best results to all concerned?
 This problem has greatly interested me for thirty years. l have studied it earnestly, not from boks but from eX- perience obtained in the hard knocks of everyday work in the various busi- ness undertakings with which have been connected. Twenty-Five years ago I became convinced that only through profit sharing that was real, honest and open could we hope to find anything like 8 satisfactory and per manent method of arriving at the workers fair share.
 Ever since that time have inn proved every. opportunity. to spread the gospel of profit sharing and to have it's principles adopted by busi- ness organizations, and have greatly appreciated the honor of serving as Chairman of your profit sharing com mittee since 1t was organized. l re- call that I read profit sharing paper before this organization about twelve years ago, and I find little, if any thing, to change in the basic princi ples then laid down. l believe the work that has been accomplished meanwhile has been worth while and that the time is now ripe for us to push it harder than ever along con- strucIive lines. -..a< --.'- ...E,'. ,-
 have found that my views on profit sharing, and my beliefs as to how to apply it, differ radically from those of many other people; that the plans I have been instrumental in hav-a ing adopted are very different in ap- plication and in results from many other so-called profit sharing plans. want, if possible, to point out wherein these differences lie.
 Profit Sharing Not Philanthropy
 In the first place, do not look upon profit sharing as philanthropy or form of benevolence. I do not put it in the same class with gifts at Christ mas-time or bonuses at the end of the year. l do not approve or believe i'll any plan that even savers of giving a man something for nothing. I do not believe that any self-respecting man wants any such arrangement, and do not believe that any broad-minded, sef-respecting employer can, in the long run, afford to have any such ar engagement.
 The profit sharing I believe in is the kind that is real; the kind that pro- notes thorough and efficient co-opera- tion between employer and employe; the kind that makes partners of em- ployes; the sort of profit sharing that is practiced between partners in a business. Anything short of this is bound to result in failure and will between employer and employe.
 C1nSn nhcQruofiOn oor1n1o1 with o0n. siderable experience, has convinced me that practically all the many fail ures in profit sharing, both in this country and in Europe, have occurred because at bottom the plans were not honestly devised nor equitably worked out. In nine cases out of ten, at some point in the practical application of the plans that have failed, the fact has developed that they were not mutually the efficiency of the men in such way as to satisfy the employer, or else did not distribute profits in such way as to benefit and satisfy the employees. No partnership where the profits are shared by two or half dozen partners could last any length of time unless mutually beneficial, and the same rule holds good in larger partnership where the profits are shared among many partners. NO man or 1rm or corporation that is thinking of adopt ing profit sharing can hope for sue cess, unless prepared to approach the subject in this spirit and deal with it in an absolutely honest, open and broad-minded manner.
 As have said, the relation between employer and en~ploye has changed with the centuries Originally it was owner and slave; hen it was master and man; now it employer and em- ploye, each stage of development bringing the employer and employe into closer cooperation. What has caused this change in relationship? In my judgment the cause is found in the vast and broad educational forces that have been at work in the world. Since we founded this country we have spent approximately as much money on our educational systems as on our railroad systems. We consider our railroads financially successful if they earn dividends. If our educational