year from that date about 25 per cent, of the 400 or more men employed participated in a distribution of a bonus of more than $40,000. The participants included "first, all men having positions of responsibility in the offices as well as in the mills,—nearly every man whose labor could be called skilled or upon whose fidelity much depended, being in the number; and, second, there were included all employes, however menial their work, who had been in the service of the firm continuously for five years." The bonus amounted to about 33 per cent, on wages for the year, though the basis of division between employer and employes was not and never has since been made public. The bonus is declared on all profits remaining after 8 per cent, interest has been paid on all capital invested. The two succeeding years a similar sum was paid to about 33 per cent, (in 1885) of the men, the ratio of bonus to wages remaining about one to three. Two years of unprofitable business followed, with no bonus. Participation in profits was resumed in 1888, a larger proportion of the employes being benefited thereby. Since 1891 no bonus has been paid, a condition due to the prevalent business depression. At all times the firm has paid the highest rate of wages to all employes. Mr. Charles A. Pillsbury writes: "I do not believe it has ever lessened our profits. I think that the men have done enough better to make up for all we have paid them." The significance of this statement is emphasized by Dr. Shaw in his account of this enterprise. He says, "I need not say to students of the labor question that this assurance is the most important thing I have to communicate on this subject.
has a system of labor pensions and labor insurance, and the Gain Sharing system of the Yale & Towne company are not here included, because they are based upon quite different principles from that of profit sharing. It is true that they are often described as such, but they have little in common. The latter system is described in the Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. X, pp. 600 et seq., or in D. F. Schloss' Report on Gain Sharing to the Board of Trade (C.-7848), pp., 7–26. Similar to these is the system of indeterminate bonus as practiced by the H. K. Porter locomotive works of Pittsburg, Pa., and many other firms. As interesting and commendable as these modifications of the wage system are, they do not come within the scope of this inquiry, nor do they offer any testimony as to the inherent value of profit sharing as a solution of the industrial problem.
