The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-02-14


purchases are the rule.
The Bache Review, published by ],
S. Bache & Co., brokers, reviewing
the benefits to capital from this
growth in employee stock ownership,
says: 1T is impossible to regard this
movement except with satisfaction"
The bond house believes that the
movement "harmonizes capital and
labor" encourages thrift and saving,
and makes the worker more efficient.
Gives Game Away.
Why corporations have introduced
these schemes is clearly implied in the
bankers review. 1t says:
. Indirectly the philanthropic i'm
petus must be traced to the influence
of organization in labor"
In other words, labor organizations
has forced the employers into the
welfare offensive. Further:
1.-THE labor unions for many years
have been fighting for better condi-
tions, and the long drawn-out con-
test between capital and labor has un-
doubtedly cost industry billions of
dollars.
Weaken Unions.
'Profit-sharing, and finally stock
acquisition, were adopted as amelio-
rating influences (meaning to weaken
the trade unions. Ed AS far as
they have been conducted, they have
been especially successful.
6frr1.o h,,,1r;,,a- s,,ek,4,,fso,,e
have only in few instances adopted
the system, gives cause for some re-
Election. 1t is true that mainly the
number of employees in a single bank
ing institution is limited, but it also
may be true that the absence of or
ganizatiOn among clerks and failure
to exert the labOr-union pressure may
have something to do with it,"
Members of the Bookkeepers',
Stenographers' and Accountants I'M
ion will be particularly interested in
the last sentence.
Strengthens Capitalism.
A no less explicit statement of the
purposes and implications of worker
stock ownership schemes is presented
in a recent issue of the N. Y. World:
Employers stock-ownership is Who'll
ly capitalistic in its inspiration, and
it is designed to strengthen the pillars
of capitalism The employers
who have adopted it have been
actuated by motives of enlightened
self-interest."
Less Democracy.
Some telling answers to the Har-
ward and Princeton professors and
Pollyana economists who see the COM
ing new revolution rising out of the
employee stock ownership wave, have
been made by Lewis Corey, who after
a thorough study concludes that COR
porate ownership is not being demo
cratized, even though stockholders
may be increasing in number. In
1924, 1850 of the stockholders owned
1880 of the stock Of American cor
porations. The tendency is for the
large investors to increase their share
in corporate ownership. The work
ing class has but slightly increased
its stockholdings in recent years and
this gain is absolute and not relative.
There are no indications that the
class concentration of corporate
ownership is being broken. Profess
sor Ripley, in his studies in corporate
control, has also shown up the fallacy
of revolution" through stock owner
ship.
Ripley Fables are Bunk.
In fact Ripley and Corey reduce the
hopes and prophesies Of the other
professors to so much bunk, and make
their long tables of corporation en-
ploye stockholders impressive only to
a thoughtless public. The latest re-
lease from the Industrial Relations
Section of Princeton University re-
views the worker stockholders de-
velopments of 20 selected corpor-
ations and concludes that the number
of the present and prospective work
err stockholders is only 2096 of the
number of present stockholders, on
the books of the companies, while the
market value of the average worker
holding or subscription in these spec
ial companies is only $1,000.
Study Big Employers.
The 20 companies studied, and tn
number of employee owners and sub
scribers in each, are:
Amer. Sugar Refining Co., 1000;
Amer. Tel and Tel. $1,000; Bethle-
hem Steel Co., $4,000; Henry l..
Doherty e. Co. 5000; Eastman Kodak
Co., 10000; Illinois Central System,
1886; init. Harvester Co., 10000;
Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co., 276;
Lehigh Valley r. r. Co., 2,127; Natl.
Biscuit Co., 1854; N. Y. Central
Lines, 2O,46S; Penn. r. R., 19,500;
Phila. Electric Co., 1,035; Proctor e.
Gamble, 1926; Pure Oil Co., 1881;
Radio Corp, 443; Standard Oil (Cal.)
1864; Standard Oil Qnd.) 17416;
Standard Oil On. j. 1915; Swift e.
Co. 10000.
Some of the biggest open shop and