As a general rule, worktime regulations tend to represent attempts to mitigate working conditions that may be deemed too heavy, afflictive, or subject to exploitation.

The law in case (n. 105, March 22^nd 1908) is no exception. The text prohibited a vast range of activities - including heating up the ovens and yeast "refreshing" - for all "industrial" bakeries (that is, the ones selling their products) and baked goods sellers, from 21.00 to 4.00 in the morning (except for Saturday, when the ban covered 23.00-4.00).

The most obvious issue - still mentioned in a law revision motion submitted on February 27^th 1995 - was the fact that, without those regulations, businesses would be encouraged to stretch the work-hours back, or forward, inch-by-inch if necessary, in order to be the first ones to come out with freshly baked bread in the morning.

It's worth noting that bread - more than it is now - was also a "working man" staple, and that therefore bakeries tended (or, at least, had economical incentive) to provide freshly baked bread throughout the day, to meet the periodical demand of city workers. Meanwhile working hours were not as well regulated as they tend to be now, and depending on the particular situation - contract terms, city regulations, etc. - workers might have been in need to work extra-hours in not ideal conditions (consider that at the time ovens often lacked sanitation among other things).

The law allowed room for exceptions. The most obvious one being that for anticipating yeast "refreshing" during the hot season (July-September), "by at most two hours". In this case, only one worker could be called to the extra shift - and for "no more than six days every two weeks".

As this last point makes clear (smaller ovens - it probably goes without saying - might not have enough employees for managing the turnaround), the law tended to focus on, and to interpret, instances of properly "industrialized" bread-making. Relatively larger baking firms - either cooperative, or industrial - had begun to develop especially in larger cities for the purpose of rationalizing production and managing costs (furthermore, flour and ovens were often supplied by the municipality that in turn controlled the quality of the product). In this context, the law offers a significant - if properly enforced - guarantee for wage-labor; but tends to impact negatively smaller ovens and bakeries (consider for instance that workers were exempted from the significant fine of 30 Lire only if they were "coerced" by the owner).

In order to mitigate the impact of the regulation, various additional exceptions were foreseen - regarding festivities, celebrations or other particular moments - as determined by the local municipality (and for periods longer than one week, with the agreement of the Ministry). Local officials (public health) were also called to supervise the execution of the measure.

The collected revenue was destined - by law - to the National Insurance Fund for Invalidity and Seniority, that had been recently instituted (law n. 350, July 17^th 1908). Which, as the texts that usually reference this measure, represents one of the moments of "social legislation" that marked the high point of "Giolitti's age", when - during comparatively fortunate economical and financial period - Giolitti attempted to "integrate" social conflict within the fabric of the State.

This law - far from being the most significant or representative - shows both the positives (a certain responsiveness to social and working issues, an attempt to produce a framework of legality for private business parties to operate within) and the flaws of Giolitti's attempt (a tendency to privilege circumstantial provisions instead of consolidating more structural transformations). One might ask why were the bread-makers singled out instead of other categories; and the malicious answer would be that the bread-makers had been on strike in places and at a time where Giolitti needed to secure political support. But this is really how Giolitti's system worked, and - as the long-serving statesman himself pointed out - a good tailor doesn't make a straight suit for a hunchback.

It would appear that the measure wasn't held as particularly significant anyways, as the day of publication (April 4^th 1908) came immediately after the "massacre" of Piazza del Gesù - one of the not infrequent deadly encounters between workers on strike and public force.