|
||
|
||
| In the last half of the nineteenth century "capital" and "labour" were enlarging and perfecting their rival organisations on modern lines. Many an old firm was replaced by a limited liability company with a bureaucracy of salaried managers. The change met the technical requirements of the new age by engaging a large professional element and prevented the decline in efficiency that so commonly spoiled the fortunes of family firms in the second and third generation after the energetic founders. It was moreover a step away from individual initiative, towards collectivism and municipal and state-owned business. The railway companies, though still private business managed for the benefit of shareholders, were very unlike old family business. At the same time the great municipalities went into business to supply lighting, trams and other services to the taxpayers. The growth of the limited liability company and municipal business had important consequences. Such large, impersonal manipulation of capital and industry greatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class, an element in national life representing irresponsible wealth detached from the land and the duties of the landowners; and almost equally detached from the responsible management of business. All through the nineteenth century, America, Africa, India, Australia and parts of Europe were being developed by British capital, and British shareholders were thus enriched by the worlds movement towards industrialisation. Towns like Bournemouth and Eastbourne sprang up to house large "comfortable" classes who had retired on their incomes, and who had no relation to the rest of the community except that of drawing dividends and occasionally attending a shareholders meeting to dictate their orders to the management. On the other hand "Shareholding" meant leisure and freedom which was used by many of the later Victorians for the highest purpose of a great civilization. The "shareholders" as such had no knowledge of the lives, thoughts or needs of the workmen employed by the company in which he held shares, and his influence on the relations of capital and labour was not good. The paid manager acting for the company was in more direct relation with the men and their demands, but even he had seldom that familiar personal knowledge of the workmen which the employer had often had under the more patriarchal system of the old family business now passing away. Indeed the mere size of operations and the numbers of workmen involved rendered such personal relations impossible. Fortunately, however, the increasing power and organisation of the trade unions, at least in all skilled trades, enabled the workmen to meet on equal terms the managers of the companies who employed them. The cruel discipline of the strike and lockout taught the two parties to respect each others strength and understand the value of fair negotiation. 参考译文： 劳资关系 在十九世纪后半段劳资之间的矛盾在扩大并且用现代模式建立来建立他们自己的组织。许多老式的公司被拥有董事局并雇佣经理的有限责任公司所替代，这种变化通过扩大专业元素，并且阻止效率的下降适应了新时期技术的需要，而效率的下降正是使很多家族式企业在创始人的第二代和第三代就失去了他们的财富，这是从个人创业到集中和多人共有或着政府所有的商业的前进的一大步。铁路公司尽管由于持股者的利益，仍然是私有商业，但是他已经不像旧的家族式企业。与此同时许多公用事业也开始以公司的形式来为公众提供照明交通和其他服务给纳税人。 有限责任公司的增长和公共商业的发展已经带来严重的后果，如此巨大的个人操作的资本和工业极大地增加了持股者作为一个阶级的数量和重要性。国家生活里出现了一种和土地责任相分离的不负责任就有财富的人，而且几乎也没有进行商业管理的义务。机关在十九世纪美洲非洲印度澳大利亚和欧洲的部分国家都是由英国的资本发展起来，因此英国的持股者因为世界性的工业化运动变得很富有。像A和R等小镇都成了这种阶级退休后的所去之处，并且他们除了拿个人的分红和偶尔参加一次股东大会对他们的经理进行指示以外与其他毫无关系，从另外一个角度而言，股东就意味着休闲和自由，从而被许多人作为最高追求的胜利者。 这些股东对他们所持股公司雇用的工人生活思想和需要毫无所知，因此他们对劳资关系的影响也不好。管理运作公司赚薪水的经理与工人有更直接的联系，并且知道一些工人的要求，但是他们与以前那种家族式企业的所有者相比，对工人的了解也很少。实际上操作的规模和工人的数量使这种经理对工人的很好了解成为不可能，但是幸运的是，工会不断增长的权力和加强的组织，至少在技巧性行业，可以是工人与雇用他们的经理处在平等的地位。罢工和封厂的残酷后果和使双方相互尊重并知道公平谈判的重要性。 。 来源：中国MBA备考网 |
||