p. 5 | Liquor Drinking and Business Efficiency by F. M. W.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 6, 1916

Liquor Drinking and Business Efficiency

By F. M. W.

THERE was a time some years ago when the question of liquor drinking was considered wholly on an ethical basis. Of late, however, serious study has been given to the question in its relation to practical efficiency as applied to the problems of the world's work. A number of the large business concerns throughout the country have given special study to the subject as related to the question of dollars and cents, and have taken a very definite stand, requiring that their employees shall not indulge in strong drink.

Mr. C. W. Baines, according to the Sunday School Times, has made an investigation among the great steel and iron concerns of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois, to ascertain their attitude toward alcohol. Of the 140 corporations written to, answers were received from 113. The report, Mr. Baines says, is not meant for a Sunday school document, but rather it is—

“a cold-blooded business and economical deliverance intended to determine industry's hostility toward alcoholic drink and drinkers, which has been very indefinitely discussed in the public press; to throw an illuminating ray of light on its attitude toward the movement for abstinence and prohibition in commercial life.”

He classifies as follows the returns which he received:—

“1. Of the one hundred and thirteen answers, only six permit the use of alcoholic drink in their shops or plants.

“2. One hundred and seven firms, the world's greatest steel and iron producers, absolutely prohibit the use of strong drink in their works. Almost without exception, they testify that the abstainer is more efficient, more reliable, and that teetotalers alone are considered when promotions are made.

“3. One hundred companies prohibiting drinking during working hours report that they are also doing ‘everything possible to prevent drinking by employees out of working hours.’ One corporation discharges any man who enters a saloon going to or from work; another suspends such an employee one week for the first offense, and for the second he is usually discharged.

“4. Eighty-three of the one hundred and thirteen concerns, when employing or promoting men, discriminate against those who use alcoholic liquors, even though they use liquor outside of working hours only; absolutely refuse to promote men who drink; there the most moderate use of rum is fatal to a man's chance of promotion.”

“5. Sixty-three corporations have undertaken constructive abstinence work, to determine the deleterious influences of the moderate use of alcohol upon a workman's efficiency, producing power, and reliability.

“6. Ten concerns not only prohibit drinking during working hours, but absolutely prohibit employees drinking at all times.”

Statements made by these large business corporations are indicative of their liberal attitude toward the liquor traffic. We append the following typical statements:—

“We do not allow any liquor on the premises, discharge immediately any man under the influence, preach abstinence through foremen and bulletin board literature, and we are succeeding famously. Most important is the fact that our men also see the good of it.”—Interstate Steel and Iron Co., East Chicago.

“The efficiency of a man is reduced in exact proportion to the amount of alcohol he drinks. The total abstainer ranks above the moderate drinker in reliability and efficiency in all classes of work nearly as much as the moderate drinker does above the heavy, regular drinker.”—The Follansbee Furnace Company, Follansbee, W. Va.

“The moderate use of liquor tends to impair efficiency and reliability, and we do not knowingly employ men who drink, nor advance them to positions of authority if they are employed.”—The Crane Company, Chicago.

The attitude of these large business corporations toward the use of liquor on the part of their employees has attracted considerable attention from the liquor interests. One of the liquor trade papers denominates it “the steady and increasing tendency of big corporations to encroach upon the personal liberties of workers,” and the Brewers' Journal is quoted as saying:—

“There are even companies and individual employers who threaten to discharge employees for drinking alcohol at any time. They do not care if that is social and economic slavery. Their main object is to protect their pocketbooks.”

It is not strange that the liquor interests make the claim that personal liberty is being destroyed because these large corporations have decided that they cannot operate their establishments with those who indulge in alcoholic liquors. Naturally their viewpoint is a personal and selfish one. They fear for the future of their business.

When these great manufacturing firms have demonstrated, as they claim, and as every unbiased man must admit, that the highest efficiency can be attained only through strict adherence to temperance principles, then the matter of securing the cooperation of their employees should not be one necessarily of compulsion, but of cooperation, as we believe it is coming to be in the large majority of cases. It is not social nor economic slavery for any firm to say to its employees, “We cannot offer you work unless you bring to our business steady nerves and clear minds. This you cannot do while using alcoholic drinks. We cannot employ those who use liquor.” The wise laboring man will see in this only an effort to help him and his fellow workmen.

Nor is it an abridgment of personal liberty to say to the operator of the saloon or grogshop, “You shall not sell that which destroys the health and lives of your fellows, debases their manhood, blasts their characters, destroys their homes, and makes of them public charges to the State and to the community.” The principle which abolishes the liquor traffic is the principle of self-preservation, the same principle which leads to the destruction of poisonous reptiles and savage beasts of prey.

F. M. W.