Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/715

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
PROFIT SHARING IN THE UNITED STATES
701

13. Welshans & McEwans, Plumbers, of Omaha, Neb., divided all net profits for 1886, after reserving interest on capital, pro rata between capital and wages. For the first year the bonus amounted to an extra month's pay on eight months' work. The following year the men went out on a general strike, and the plan was abandoned.

14. The Sperry Manufacturing Company, of Ansonia, Conn., divided profits for the two years 1886–7, but without any perceptible benefit from the plan.

15. E. R. Hull, Clothiers, of Cleveland, Ohio, divided profits for four years following 1886. The results were satisfactory, but the plan was discontinued with a change in the firm.

16. The Warden Needle Company, of Lakeport, N. H., divided net profits equally between capital and wages for the years 1886–9, with a change of firm the plan was discontinued.

17. The Hoffman & Billings Company, of Milwaukee, Wis., manufacturers of plumbers' goods, divided net profits equally between capital and labor, each laborer participating in proportion to wages earned for the years 1886–90. "This plan worked well for several years when there were profits to divide, but when we happened to have a poor year, and losses instead of gains at the end of the year, wc met sour faces all around among our men, and concluded that it was too much of a 'jug-handle affair' to be continued, so we dropped it. Any company would of course have a right to expect some benefit when dividing gains with employés. We found out after profit sharing for about three years, that ours was a mistaken idea, and concluded to drop it."

18. Rogers, Feet & Company, manufacturers of clothing, New York City, adopted a profit sharing in 1886. Three dividends, averaging about 3 per cent, on wages, were paid. The firm write: "We distributed a share of our profits among all our employés in the expectation that the value of the principle would entitle it to a permanent establishment as part of our business policy. In this we were disappointed, for towards the close of the third year our cutters, who were the only mechanics employed in the business, went on a strike over a rather insignificant matter, to settle which we had to call in the authorities of their Trade Union. Our position was maintained by the arbitrators and the men went back to work, but we felt that our liberality towards them was not appreciated, and the next year we discontinued the profit sharing arrangement. We have always felt that we made a mistake in admitting all our employés to this participation on the same