Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/708

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
694
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

for anybody, so there has been no profit sharing; and we have not had enough experience in it to intelligently judge of the good results that might arise from it. We think that it is a good scheme, but we also think that its advantages have been exaggerated, and that no radical change can be made in our industrial conditions without injury to both employers and employés. We think that there is only one class of employés to whom a share should be given, and that class is experienced mechanics or those who may be styled well up in their trade. Common labor can hardly expect to participate in profit sharing since they are unstable and do not remain long in any one place, or in any position. This of course bars out all our common men, woodsmen and laborers who have no trade. The condition of this class it seems to us is becoming more and more hopeless.

The Bounie Mills of Tiverton, R. I., adopted profit sharing in 1889, and have paid thirteen semi-annual dividends to their employes. Of the total amount of net profits, not less than 6 nor more than 10 per cent, is set aside for distribution among employes. This is divided in the proportion which the wages of each operative for six months bear to the entire wage payment for that period. The rate of this payment has averaged over 3 per cent. "There is but one condition necessary to entitle every one in our employ to share in the profits, namely, faithful service during the required term ; though it is stipulated that each employé shall deposit some sum of money every month if possible in the Employes Savings Fund or in some savings bank." In November 1895 a vote of the employés was taken as to the expediency of continuing profit sharing. There were only six negative votes, the plan being disliked by one of the local trade unions; one negative, however, explaining that he felt the corporation did not receive an equivalent. The treasurer of the company writes: "Our directors are 'strictly business' and the plan is a method of business, and thus far we have been satisfied with the returns. The scheme is bitterly disliked by some of our competitors here." It is of interest to note that the antagonism of the trade unions is not general, as the following from an account of a meeting of the Spinners' and Carders' Union shows: