THE CRITICISM OF THE UNION COMPANY.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14885, 27 January 1914, Page 5

THE CRITICISM OF THE UNION COMPANY.

SIR JAMES MILLS'S REPLY. ASSOCIATION" TF.I.K'JKAM.) AUCKLAND. .January 26. Sir Jame> Mills, interviewed on his nay to Sydney and England, said tho and smallpox epidemic had caused an enormous shrinkage in the passenger trafiie between tho ilominion, Australia, and the Pncitic Islands. Replying to the criticism of the Union Company in respect to matters preceding the strike, and the statement that the Company having entered into an agreement with the Federation of Labour did not seriously oppose the demands of it--, employees. Sir James Mills said that when demands were made by the employees, the Company had to consider not only tho Company's own interests, but those of the public as well. As to the question of fairness to tho employees in the recent dispute, the issue was not a question of wages, and public sympathy was with the Company to a large extent. If the strike had been caused by the Company resisting a demand for increased wages, the very people who blamed tho Company for making concessions without showing fight, would be tho first to accuse the Company of selfishness and disregard of the interests of the public. No doubt the Company very often temporised to avoid a strike, not for fear of jeopardising its own interests, but because a strike would lead to loss to others. As to ''passing it on," Sir James said that, speaking from memory, tho Company had only made one increase in its charges. That was two years ago, whon not half was passed on to tho nublic. Sinco then many increases had been forced upon tho Company by additional manning and higher wages, and it had to put up with less efficient service from the employees, but tho burden of all theso the Company had to bear. He hardly liked to say what tho lato strike had cost the Company. The amount had been very considerable, but so far tho Company had not ''passed it on."