Profit-Sharing
SIR,—It is not surprising that many people, seeing that profit sharing is a good thing, do not understand why convinced and practising profit- sharers strongly oppose the proposal to enforce it by law. Hitherto, whenever bekun with the object of benefiting employees, it has been a success. But that success has always been without compulsion. I believe that the profit-sharers of hitherto will agree with me in thinking that if it had been compelled, it would not have had the same beneficial result. At any rate the two proposals voluntary and compulsory profit- sharing, are not the same, and the benefits to the community that have followed voluntary would not have followed compulsory profit-sharing. State-enacted profit-sharing would involve State regulations and State control. To enforce profit-sharing on unwilling employers, some authority would have to decide what salary the manager-owners should receive. -t, The public at large have but vague ideas of what a business stocktaking means. They seem to think it a mere matter of arithmetic. It is that but much more also. In most businesses it involves the ad hoc valuation of goods in stock and debts by customers. For example, a maker of cloth may have 20 pieces in stock made at 8s. per yard, but yet owing to change of fashion he may not be able to get more than 6s. per yard foi,them. But if a government valuer had to be consulted he might say they should be valued at 8s. per yard. In nearly all businesses there are hems as to which honest opinions may differ. In case of doubt who is to decide? For voluntary profit-sharing no control is needed, no clashing occurs. But the compulsion of unwilling employers would be the bringing in of trouble in the industry.
What then is to be done? Gradually but steadily and• surely profit- sharing is making its way. And its best guarantee for its future progress is its proved success, which I am confident will bring about tits general adoption. May that time soon arrive.—Yours
Previous page
