|
Rushden Echo, 23rd February 1912
Co-op Bakeries at Rushden – Suggested Centralization
An adjourned meeting of the Rushden Co-operative Society was held in the Co-operative Hall, Rushden, on Tuesday night to consider the advisability of centralising the bakery department. There was a large number of members present. Mr. W. Hobbs presided, supported by Mr. W. J. Cure (secretary), and the committee.
Mr. Hobbs first dealt with statements that were prevalent about the town, as to whether the society was able to carry the burden of further expense. He clearly demonstrated that the position of the society was such that it could easily carry the suggested expense that the bakery scheme would incur. The financial burden today, he said, was not so heavy as it was some years ago, by reason of the increase in the trade. He reviewed the position of the bakery, and said for the last two years it had not been as satisfactory as they desired. The committee had considered it from every standpoint, and had arrived at the conclusion that the best thing to do was to centralise the bakery business. The quality of the bread would be considerable improved, the output would probably be much greater, and the conditions under which the staff would work would be
Vastly Superior
to the present conditions. Therefore he moved “That the committee be given power to centralise the bakery department when opportunity occurs.”
This was seconded by Mr. E. Coleman, and about two hours’ discussion ensued. The questions mainly asked were as to the cost of the building, ovens, machinery, and land.
In reply to these queries, the Chairman said that the maximum cost would be £2,250, which included everything.
Messrs. John Spencer, John Hazeldine, W. Bazeley, H. Adnitt, and others also spoke.
Mr. Elsdon supported the committee’s recommendation, and said that the bakery department had given considerable trouble for several years. There was no advantage to be gained as far as he could see by attempting to make alterations to the present buildings, which were required for the extension of other departments.
Mr. Hornsby also supported the committee’s recommendation.
Eventually, on a ballot being taken, the following result was announced:-
Against 149
For recommendation 84
Majority 65
|
