WORKER AND PROHIBITION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2507, 18 November 1922, Page 1

WORKER AND PROHIBITION.

TS PROHIBITION A DEMOCRATIC MEASUREC

Prohibition has now been applied to the United States for nearly three years. As the New Zealand worker will shortly he asked tq vole upon its adoption or rejection in this country, it is worth while to consider how this law has operated upon the welfare of the mass of the people in America. The first questions which will he asked by the New Zealander who works for his living are: — (1 ) Has it improved the economic conditions of the workers? (2) Has it abolished or reduced, drunkenness? (3) Has it been enforced upon all classes regardless of social position or individual wealth? (4) Is the sum total of its application beneficial or otherwise l to the workers of the country ? To the first question the answer is very definitely in the negative. American workers to-dav are economically worse off than they were before the introduction of prohibition. If the abstinence from liquor has “improved their output”—as the prohibitionists claimed it would -then someone other than the worker has gathered in the extra reward. There is no evidence, however, of any such improvement in mass efliceney. .Such information as is available all points in the opposite direction. Whilst, on the subject of the workers’ “efficiency," New Zealanders would do well to consider one of the methods employed by the'professional prohibition agitators to bring the measure into favour with “big busness” prior to introducing it into Congress. First of all some of the huge industrial concerns were approached, and a glowing picture was painted of the new and infinitely more efficient working man who would arise once the saloons were closed. Some of the employers, seeing more profits and cheaper labour in the picture, took the bait, regularly and according to the ‘‘Prohibition Handbook, ’’ the Carnegie Steel Company of Ohio issued an order that “all promotions will he made only from the ranks of those who do not indulge in intoxicating liquors.” Bishop C. E. Locke, the prominent American prohibitionists, recently loured New Zealand in the interests of that movement. In his speeches lie told us how al the suggestion of the Prohibition Parly, "the great railroad companies, hanks, and factories decided that they would not employ men who drank on or off duty.” All this was preparatory work.” From the point, of view of tbe American employer this may be all very well, but we scarcely think that sort of coercion, if introduced in New Zealand, would be received with the docility apparently accorded to it by the U.S.A. worker. There can lie no doubt, however, that every effort is being made to secure the utmost possible pressure of “moral suasion” on the part of employers here upon their staffs. In addition, the workers of New Zealand will not be denied one of the few relaxations still remaining within reach of their pockets; especially when they know that the wealthy can stock-up with a lifetime’s supply of the best liquors, while they will have fo go without. For this is what New Zealand’s lav permits to those who caii afford it. ' Vote Continuance.