Nature and definition of profit-sharing.

1. Profit-sharing is rewarding labor with a share of the profits in addition to contract wages. The essential mark of profit-sharing is that the additional payment depends on the net profits of the whole business at the end of the year. It is not to be confused with a free gift, or with special privileges granted by the employer, such as lunch-rooms, bathrooms or houses at a low rent. Profit-sharing is a contract made in advance, not a free gift. Nor is it the same as a bonus or premium for a larger output, made contingent on the physical product, on the increased number of pieces turned out by the workmen, individually or in groups. Premium for output is given for something directly under the influence of the worker. The amount of profits is affected by the amount of output, but also by a number of other things that are quite outside the control of the workmen.

The possibilities of profit-sharing.

2. The purpose of the employer in adopting profit-sharing is to stimulate the industry of the workers, thus reducing waste and cost of labor and supervision. The employer adopting the plan does not intend to lose by it; he believes that if he can get his workmen to take an interest in the business his costs will be reduced. He offers to divide with them the resulting savings. There is, in every factory, greater or less waste of materials, destruction of tools, and loss of time, that no rules or penalties can prevent. If the worker can be made to take a strong enough personal interest he will use care when the eye of the foreman is not upon him. The product also can be slightly increased in many ways by the workmen's exertions or suggestions. In some cases the quality of the work cannot be insured by the closest inspection as well as it can be by a small degree of personal interest. Either responsibility for the fault cannot be fixed, or the defect is one not measurable by any easily applied standard. Strikes are averted, good feeling is promoted, and contentment is furthered if the interest of the worker can be made to approach, and actually to be in harmony with, that of the employer. The economic result of the plan, if it can be made to work, must be to reduce the costs of these establishments below what they are. The crucial question is whether this alone insures that the costs will be less than those of competitors, thus giving a source out of which an increased amount, really a wage, can be paid to the laborer. This additional wage is made conditional on the employer's success in gaining a net profit on the year's business.

3. The profit-sharing plan is now successfully working in over one hundred firms in America and Europe. The plan was first tried in Paris by Leclaire, a house-painter. In house-painting there is often a great waste of materials and time by men working singly or in small groups in different parts of the city. By this new method Leclaire enlisted the aid of the workmen, reduced the costs, and increased the profits. It is a remarkable fact that the plan has been continued successfully by the same firm to the present time. The most important examples of profit-sharing in the United States are the Pillsbury Mills in Minneapolis, Procter and Gamble's soap-factories at Ivorydale, 0., and the Nelson Mfg. Co. at Leclaire, 111. In some cases both manufacturer and workman value the system highly. N. P. Gilman, the author of "Profit Sharing," puts the ratio of successes very high. Others declare that the failures are mostly lost sight of and are very many. The proportion of business done in this way is not large. One hundred firms is a very small fraction of one per cent, of the total number of firms in Germany, France, England, and America. A still more important fact is that this method of remuneration did not spread in the ten years preceding 1900.

Its successes and failures.

Objections to and difficulties in profit-sharing in practice.

4. The failure of profit-sharing to grow is due to objections on the side both of the employer and of the workman. On the side of the workman there is the bookkeeping difficulty. He is suspicious, and he lacks knowledge of the business. If at the end of the year the books show no profits, the workman loses confidence, considers the plan to be mere deception, and rejects it. Moreover, the plan puts a limitation upon the workman's freedom to compete for better wages by changing his place of work. It is almost indispensable to make length of service a condition to the sharing of profits. Workmen coming and going, working only a few months, cannot be allowed to share; the percentage given to the others increases with length of employment. Whenever men are thus practically subject to a fine (equal to the amount of shared profits) if they accept a better position, there is danger of a covert lowering of wages. The plan tends to break up the trade-unions, which is one of the reasons that the employers like it, and is the reason that organized labor opposes it. The employer on his part objects to the interference with his management, the troublesome inspection of the books, and the constant grumbling and complaint of the workmen. It makes known the amount of his profits; if they are large, the advertising of his success invites competition; if they are small, publicity injures his credit and depresses the value of his property. In view of all these difficulties it is not surprising that while the plan often starts promisingly, it usually loses its efficiency after a short trial. Business methods are severely subject to the principle of the survival of the fittest.

Through competition and the survival of the firms that adopt improvements, better methods must eventually supplant poorer ones. If a method fails to spread when it has been tried for fifty years and all are free to adopt it, there must be some defects inherent in it. That must be our conclusion as to profit-sharing.

5. It is usually better to make wages depend on the worker's efficiency rather than on the profits of the whole business. The strongest motive to efficiency is present when reward is connected immediately and directly with effort, not with some result only slightly under the worker's control. In profit-sharing the added share is only partially due to increased effort of the worker. Labor is but one of the groups of costs. Profits are the net result of many influences. Chief among these is the wisdom of the enterpriser in planning and conducting the business. The "profits" may be nothing, though the worker may be exerting himself to the utmost. The plan is, therefore, reactionary, not in accord with the general progress of the wage system, which is tending constantly to centralize responsibility, to put the risk into the hands of competent managers, and to secure to the worker a definite amount in advance, as high as conditions make possible. The system of premiums, or bonus payments, for output, gives in most cases better results and is rapidly spreading. It is sounder in conception and works better in practice. This premium depends on the increase by the laborer of the output of his particular machine or process as compared with a standard based on the experience of some definite period.

Defective character of profit-sharing.