AN AMERICAN ON INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIP.* THIS is the English edition
of an American study of a branch of the "Labour Question" which is coming into greater prominence every year. The book is well-timed and well- executed, and, so far as we have been able to test it, is thoroughly trustworthy in its summary of facts, and the most complete compendium of them yet published. The writer, however, has not been content to give us a mere collection of facts, but has let us know very clearly the result of his studies on his own mind, and his reasons for arriving at that result,— which is, that profit-sharing is already proved to be, if not the very best, yet certainly " one of the most promising methods • of securing the peaceful and fruitful union of the productive forces of modern industry." Mr. Gilman brings with him all the confidence and hopefulness so characteristic of his nation to this inquiry. His judgment on the wages system is "that we cannot do without it, and cannot endure it as it is ;" but he has no fear whatever of social trouble while the great change is in progress. " To talk of industrial revolution is idle ; just as idle is it to maintain things as they are " (p. 43), is his judgment. We believe he is right, and that the hopeful spirit in which he comes out of his laborious inquiry is justified by the facts. We are sure it is the right spirit in which the subject should be approached.
We hope, and indeed believe, that the book will he as useful elsewhere as it most certainly will be in England, where, we must add, it cannot fail to prove a salutary if somewhat humiliating record. We have been pluming ourselves now for the last dozen years, at any rate, and not without reason, on being far in advance of other nations in developing that system of trade known as *‘ Co-operation," by means of which, as it now exists all over this Kingdom, the poorest consumers have only themselves to blame if they do not supply themselves with all they need—luxuries as well as necessaries—on the most advantageous terms, and reap the full benefit of their own outlay. We have succeeded in thus organising consumption by bringing the Co-operative Societies from Northumberland to Cornwall into union (Scotland having a similar union of her own in alliance with the English), and so of rousing a most valuable sense of corporate life and membership in a constantly growing number of our working * Profit-Sharing between Employer and Employee. By Nicholas Paine Gilman. London : Macmillan and Co.
folk. In recognition of this, all the nations, and notably France and Italy, where co-operative ideas are most living and active, have been following our lead, and endeavouring to unite their scattered associations in one union on the model of ours. They have sought earnestly for advice from us, and for delegates to their conferences and congresses ; and these, when they have appeared, have been welcomed more like royal personages, or perhaps we should say, more like prophets and apostles, than ordinary visitors. And we should be the last to deny that French- men and Italians are right in paying honour to men who have spent the greater part of their lives in promoting and building up the English form of Co-operation. But, at the same time, we are bound to own that that form is the lowest, and that when we come to speak of the higher and more difficult forms —co-operative production, either in industrial partnerships or in associations of workmen—all the principal European nations, with the exception of Russia, are distinctly ahead of us. And the same might be said of the United States, but that there by far the greater number of the firms which have adopted the principle of sharing profits with their workpeople have only done so within the last two years, and that in almost all cases the employers have not bound them- selves by legal contract, and can at any time discontinue the sharing of profits with their workpeople. The table of cases in which profit-sharing is now in force (at p. 382) will show readers at a glance how the case stands, and how far ahead of all other nations France is at the present time. We are apt to think that the social fabric is less safe there than in any other country ; but the nation which has taken the lead in this great industrial reform, and has pro- duced such men as Leclaire and Godin, and their host of followers, may yet disappoint the prophets, and has, at any rate, given a noble lead to the employers of labour in the rest of Christendom. The story of these two captains of industry has often been told, and is probably familiar to most students of social science; but we are not aware of any previous writer who has brought out their characters and methods, and the history of the " Maison Leclaire" and the " Familistere " at Guise, which stand out as their monuments, so clearly and tersely as Mr. Gilman His sketches (pp. 67-105 and 173-180) can scarcely fail to interest even the general reader who may not care to study the whole book as it deserves to be studied.
We must refrain from noticing other Continental experi- ments of almost equal interest, and turn to that portion of the book which deals with England. In our case, Mr. Gilman stands confronted with the fact above referred to, that while co-operative distribution has been made a splendid success, and we can show a few genuine and fairly successful efforts of productive Associations of workpeople, Profit-sharing, or, as we call it in England, Industrial Partnership—where the initia- tive comes from above, and employers take their workpeople into loyal partnership—has been a decided failure, with the ex- ception to be noted presently. This fact he explains by the history of the break-down of the early experiments, and above all, of the well-known attempts of Messrs. Briggs and Co. in coalmining, and of Fox, Head, and Co. in ironworks, some twenty-five years ago. These experiments, of which he gives an excellent account, were watched with deep interest at the time, were successful, the first for nine, the latter for eight years, and then abandoned, the employers in each case not having bound themselves legally, but having tried the system as a voluntary and semi-benevolent method of bringing about more friendly relations between the capitalist and working classes. How did this come about, then ? Mr. Gilman traces the failure, and we think rightly, to the avowed desire of the employers to weaken by this means the Trade- Unions. ' You cannot be loyal to both,' the Messrs. Briggs practically said to their miners ; ' we do not wish to hurry matters on, or to put unfair pressure on you, but in the end you will have to choose between us and your Trade-Unions ;' and the men answered, when the crisis came, by sticking to their Unions. Now, John Bull, Mr. Gilman thinks, is of a stubbornly practical temper, and troubles himself little about theories and reasons, when he has what he considers proved fact to go upon. And so it was in vain that Messrs. Briggs declared that they were still convinced of the soundness of their principles, and testified to the im- provement which had taken place in their relations with their men, and in the condition of the miners' families. The experiments founded on these principles had been abandoned ; that was enough for John ; and hence the barrenness of the record of Industrial Partnership for the last fifteen years, during which Co-operation has reached its marvellous develop- ment. As above said, we think Mr. Gilman in the main right, but must admit, at the same time, that we have heard another reason urged for the failure of Industrial Partnership in England, as to which we do not feel easy at times. " Your employing class," it is said, "the capitalist middle class, is before all things, as Matthew Arnold told you, Philistine. They have forgotten that trades, just as much as pro- fessions, are callings. They have no idea of looking on their factories and businesses as the parson, for instance, looks at his parish, accepting it as his life's work to make his own relations with his people, and theirs with each other, as noble and perfect as possible. What they want and mean is, to make money as fast as possible out of their businesses, and then clear out, and turn (so-called) gentlemen." We should be sorry to think that this view is the true one, for if it is, it must take at least another generation to educate the English master-class up to the point where Industrial Partnership will be successful. At any rate, there is one hopeful sign in these last years, in the case of W. Thomson and Sons, Limited (p. 292). Here we have, at last, in England a Captain of Industry of the Leclaire and Godin type. Mr. George Thomson has converted his old and well-established cloth factory, the Woodhouse Mills, Huddersfield, into a bona- fide Industrial Society. There is no reserved power in the rules, registered in October, 1886, enabling him to put an end to the experiment should it not in all respects fulfil his antici- pations. He has handed over the whole stock and plant of the business at a valuation, making no charge whatever for the goodwill, and he remains himself as the general manager for life (unless removed by a vote of five-sixths of the members), having thus broken down his bridge and absolutely embarked in the same boat with his workpeople. The committee of Trade-Unionists, co-operators, and workmen in the mill, who discussed and settled the registered rules with Mr. Thomson, have wisely left the staff and workpeople under his control, an arrangement which goes far to ensure suc- cess. Democratic government may have its appointed and beneficial part to play in political, but will not do in in- dustrial affairs, as the sound. heads in the working class are beginning to recognise. As Mr. Gilman puts it (p. 7), " attempts to carry on large establishments on the town meeting plan invariably come to grief." W. Thomson and Co., Limited, have an up-hill battle still before them, though we are glad to see that the first two years have been successful in all ways. They carry with them the anxious hopes and earnest good wishes of many deeply interested bystanders, for, as Mr. Gilman says (p. 295), "students of labour questions have no more interesting subject for observation for the next few years than the Huddersfield industrial partnership." Our space forbids further comment on some of Mr. Gilman's views which we had noted for criticism. We may end as we began, by thanking him for a most useful and trustworthy contribu- tion to the literature of the Labour Question.
Previous page
