WORKER AND PROHIBITION.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 268, 11 November 1922, Page 13

WORKER AND PROHIBITION.

IS PROITIBITTOX A DEMOCRATIC | MEASURE? I Prohibition has now been applied to | the United States for nearly three years. I As the New Zealand worker will shortly : 'be a*k«-d to vote upon its adoption or ■ rejection in this country, it is worth uiiile to consider how' this law has operated upon the welfare of the mass of tilt l people in America. | The first questions which will be'; asked 'by the New Zealander who works for hit* living are: 11) Has it improved the economic | condition of the workers? 1 2) Has it abolished or reduced drunkenness? (3) Ha<» it been enforced upon all classes, regardless of eoeial position or individual wealth? ill Is the sum total of its application beneficial or otherwise to the workers of tho country? To the first question the answer is very definitely in the negative. Arneri-1 can workers to-day are economically worse off than they were before (he introduction of prohibition. If the nhstinenre 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 efficiency. Such information as is available all points in the opposite direction. Whilst on the subject of the workers' '■efficiency," New Zealanders would .1" well to o'onsid'-r one of the methods employed by the professional prohibition agitators to bring the measure into favour with "I>ig business"-prior to introducing it into Congress. First of all Rome of the huge industrial ciiccnis were approached, and a glowing picture was painted of the new and infinitely more efficient working man who would aririo once fhe saloons w?re closed. Some of the employers, seeing more profits and cheniv>r ln'iour in th" picture, took the bait regularly, and according to the •'Prohibition Handbook," the Carnegie Steel Company of Ohio issued an order that "all promotions will be made only from the ranks of those who do not indulge in intoxicating liquors." Bishop O. E. Locke, the prominent American prohibitionist, recently toured Xew Zealand in the interests of that movement. In hie speeches he told us how, at the suggestion of the Prohibition Party, "the great railroad companies, banks, 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 the American employer this may be all very well, but we scarcely think that sort of coercion, if introduced in Xew Zealand, would be received with the docility apparently accorded to it r>y the U.S.A. worker. There can be no doubt, however, that eveTy effort is being made to sex-tire the utmost passible pressure off "moral eujision" on the part of employers here upon their staffs. In addition, the workeTs of Xew 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 liquore. while they will have to go without. For this is what New Zealand's law permits to those who can afford it. Vote Continuance.—(Ad.) *> n