THE BAKERS' STRIKE. '

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 246, 10 July 1908, Page 4

THE BAKERS' STRIKE. '

Sir,—l have read your able articles ro tho "Bakors' Strike." I have also heard _ a great deal said on both sides, _ and I" must say I havo not heard anything said that appears to mo' as a just reason for these men leaving their omployhmont and joining tho ranks of the unemployed. There is no doubt ill my mind (ana I am not alone by any means in this opinion) that :it is a wicked thing for two or three men to play upon tho feelings of tho operative bakers, and causo all this loss- of monoy to the: - general body of the workers. Tho working man's wifo knows full well what it means to havo to pay a penny extra on la loaf of, bread whore there are four, five, six, or more children to provide for. I would liko to ask, Sir, aro tho operative bakors so blind as to think that' a rise in their wages will come ■ out. of tho pockets of tho master bakors? No, Sir, certainly not. We, the 'workers' wives, will havo to pay this rise, as bread will be risen in price in proportion to the increase of wages paid to tho "operative bakors," notwithstanding w-hat the union may say to tho contrary. Years ;iago, when tho Seddon Government was in its infancy, tho Hon. W. P. Reeves, our present High Commissioner, then Minister '.for Labour, brought forward the Con"-: ciliation and Arbitration Act, got it passed on-to the Statute Book, to do away with "strikes.", Thoro aro penalty clauses in the Act affecting both employer and em'ployee. :i Is tho law in "God's own country" really what the peoplo havo ever said of the experimental legislation of the Scd-don-Ward party, i.e., a dead letter? So much wasto paper and an absoluto wasto of public monoy. If tho law is not a dead letter ; then I certainly say that tho leaders of this strike should bo treated as the law : proyides for aiding and abetting, if not : of actually causing, this strike. Tho genuino of this community consider it a 'crying shamo and a scandal to "God's own country" that representatives of those mon are allowed to violate the laws. And, by the way, Hliis very law, re trade unions, ietc.', was- made solely in the interest of the" workers themselves, and not for the employers. Havo the GoVornment indeed created a "Frankenstein" that has risen to destroy them? It would seem so. Tho monster has turned, but the "peoplo" object to this handful of men, who have very little at stake, disorganising trade. .W>,

the wives of the. workers, would rather bake ou? own bread and scones than bow own to their terms. We hope the employers will not now givo in to the impertinent demands of Mr. Collin's and "Tom" Mann. Neither of these men are "workers." They are not disinterested agitators even, .and should not be allowed to carry on this agitation in our public streets. The Government are certainly responsible for this stato of affairs, and wo aro waiting to seo how long they will allow those men to intimidate other workers, who, feel that there is another law to be fulfilled, viz., "Ho who shall not work neither shall ho eat."—l am, etc.,' A WORKING MAN'S WIFE. July 4.