"There can be little doubt that absence from work, and inefficient work, are frequently due to intemperance"
About this Quote
Mackenzie King treats intemperance less as a private vice and more as a measurable economic force. Absence and inefficiency are not just personal failings; they are costs borne by factories, offices, and the wider community. The argument shifts temperance from a moral sermon to a management problem, a move characteristic of the Progressive Era’s faith in social science and industrial efficiency. If alcohol diminishes vigilance, delays schedules, and raises accident rates, then sobriety becomes a matter of productivity and public welfare.
The line also reflects King’s early career in labor relations and his belief that industrial peace required both moral discipline and social reform. He moved comfortably between the language of statistics and the language of character, urging employers to consider the human factors in production while expecting workers to uphold standards that made collective life possible. That duality helped justify workplace policies that banned alcohol, funded recreation and education, and offered welfare programs intended to stabilize the labor force. It also lent support to broader temperance campaigns sweeping Canada and the United States in the early twentieth century.
Yet the claim carries ambivalence. By tying poor performance to drinking, managers could sidestep structural causes of fatigue and absenteeism: punishing hours, low pay, dangerous conditions, or job insecurity that might themselves foster drinking. Critics then and now would argue that intemperance can be a symptom of industrial alienation as much as its cause. The causal arrow points both ways.
What endures is the insight that substance use is inseparable from the social and economic environments in which people work. Contemporary workplaces tend to approach the problem through public health and accommodation rather than moral condemnation: employee assistance programs, mental health supports, flexible scheduling, and harm-reduction policies. King’s assertion remains recognizable, but the preferred remedies have shifted from prohibitionist zeal to a more humane calculus of support, accountability, and shared responsibility for productive, dignified work.
The line also reflects King’s early career in labor relations and his belief that industrial peace required both moral discipline and social reform. He moved comfortably between the language of statistics and the language of character, urging employers to consider the human factors in production while expecting workers to uphold standards that made collective life possible. That duality helped justify workplace policies that banned alcohol, funded recreation and education, and offered welfare programs intended to stabilize the labor force. It also lent support to broader temperance campaigns sweeping Canada and the United States in the early twentieth century.
Yet the claim carries ambivalence. By tying poor performance to drinking, managers could sidestep structural causes of fatigue and absenteeism: punishing hours, low pay, dangerous conditions, or job insecurity that might themselves foster drinking. Critics then and now would argue that intemperance can be a symptom of industrial alienation as much as its cause. The causal arrow points both ways.
What endures is the insight that substance use is inseparable from the social and economic environments in which people work. Contemporary workplaces tend to approach the problem through public health and accommodation rather than moral condemnation: employee assistance programs, mental health supports, flexible scheduling, and harm-reduction policies. King’s assertion remains recognizable, but the preferred remedies have shifted from prohibitionist zeal to a more humane calculus of support, accountability, and shared responsibility for productive, dignified work.
Quote Details
| Topic | Work Ethic |
|---|
More Quotes by William
Add to List
