After nearly a month of industrial strife ? which saw just over 1,000 strikers mushroom to 7,000 in a matter of weeks ? Government and the Bermuda Industrial Union (BIU) finally settled the long-running wage dispute that first triggered the April 1981 general strike.

Viewed as a triumph by union officials, the deal saw them secure for their members 20.5 percent in the first year and a 15.5 percent rise in the second.

Amid jubilant scenes, thousands attended a victory rally at BIU HQ in Hamilton, as Government came to terms with the settlement and tried to get the battered economy back on track.

In the second and final part of a special feature marking the 25th anniversary of the sage, we ask some of the major figures their views on the latter stages of the unrest, what impact the dispute had on the country and what the consequences were on what had been a booming tourism industry.

?Story: Page 6

With widespread chaos and feelings of resentment sweeping the Island, many observers believe Government had little choice but to back down and agree to pay increases that, when eventually agreed, averaged about 20 percent.

Ottiwell Simmons, who was president of the BIU in 1981, said the strike had brought the Island screeching to a "virtual standstill". Bermuda society was divided before the industrial action, he stated, and the unrest merely crystallised the divisions.

"All hotels closed," recalled Mr. Simmons. "All planes stopped flying here. All cruise ships turned away.

"But all these decisions were taken by employers and Government, not the union."

He added that the union's aim was to secure a brighter future for workers.

"We intended to close the Island down and we believe we had good reasons to do that, otherwise there would have been no progress made in this society. I'm a great believer there's no progress without a struggle.

"Was it a victory for the workers? Yes, absolutely.

"Was it a victory for the Government to get the workers back to work? Yes, but it was a hollow one. They could have come to the position that we settled on at the beginning."

During the height of the strike, the leader of the nation, Premier David Gibbons, issued a press statement declaring that the country's whole future was at stake.

Asked if a sense of crisis had gripped Government at that stage, he replied: "They were proposing a strike at the airport, which would have been catastrophic as no visitors could have come in.

"Forty years ago, tourism was two-thirds of Bermuda's GDP; now it's something like 17 percent. There was no reliance on international business like there was then, so at that time to close down the airport would also have had a terrible effect on the union's own members, with thousands of them working in hotels."

Sir David recalls there was some interruption at the airport ? but it did not close down. "The union must have realised that if they completely cut off tourism, when would it come back?"

At one stage, troops were called to guard Parliament, although Sir David ? echoing the views of union leaders that the strike was entirely peaceful ? stated there was never any fears people would be injured. The troops were considered a precaution, he recalled.

"Nobody was quaking in their boots about assaults; we had no fear about any injury to anybody. We would not have expected anything else. It was totally peaceful ? we just did not want any looting or fires or any of that nonsense."

He rejected suggestions there was a feeling in Government that he country had slipped out of control. "I would not say that. It was very unfortunate and governments are sometimes faced with substantial unrest. It was a lesson and we appreciated it was extremely serious."

Ottiwell Simmons, however, carries a different view about the use of troops ? and claims there was a threat of mutiny in the ranks at the height of the strike, around May 1.

"A call came to me saying the Regiment was not going to be protecting the establishment, we are going to protect you."

But he said "something strange" happened after that call. "I was later told by one alleged mutineer the Governor found out about it within minutes. They were restrained and just could not pull it off."

Later, troops were marshalled to surround the House of Assembly, which was in session and in uproar, where some of the strikers had gathered. Amid a bad tempered debate during which claims flew from the Government side that the BIU was trying to bring it down , the Speaker was forced to adjourn the House in mid-flow for the first time so the issue of the troops could be resolved.

"The Government said they knew nothing about it and the PLP were giving them hell about using these sort of tactics. It was tantamount to war against your own people," remembered Mr. Simmons.

"It was a show of strength and we resented that because our emphasis was always on peaceful protest."

Sir John Swan, Home Affairs Minister at the time, said the UBP administration would not have looked good if it had "capitulated" early on in the dispute.

"It was a very intense period," he told The Royal Gazette. "You can hold out but you will be judged by what you achieve not by what you do not achieve.

"Given the social and economic environment, we were faced with a major problem we had to find some solution to. I do not think we had any choice but to do what we did."

He said that the public accepted the settlement because they wanted the long-running issue resolved. However, Sir John added: "If a conservative Government had capitulated and made a settlement too early, our own supporters would have turned against us."

Pressed on whether the settlement could be viewed as responsible, he added: "If you were an economist you would know that settling at those levels was going to have some repercussions.

"We tried to prevent that from happening, yet with the strength of the labour demonstrations we had to come to some kind of settlement.

"We were damned if we did and damned if we didn't. Our only choice was to do it and hope we rode this thing out."

He remembers informing the Premier an agreement had been reached. "He was at home and I said, 'You're not going to get less than this, and I think this is going to get out of hand if we do not come to some sort of conclusion'.

"He concurred with me and we finally agreed the amount, which was still below the calculated inflation rate."

The former Premier also believes that the strike marked the beginning of the downward slide in the country's tourism industry, which has been booming in the years preceding the stoppage.

Union officials, however, roundly dismiss this version of events as "nonsense" and claim that other factors were to blame.

Yet, with just 1,200 tourists remaining on the Island when the strike ended and the economy millions of dollars down, Sir John maintains the strike was "almost the defining point in the decline of tourism".

"A combination of events in 1981 started the erosion of this (tourism)," continued Sir John.

"The pay deal struck with Government workers meant wages and costs pushed up in the private sector as a result, effectively increasing the price of hotel rooms at a time when tourists had less spending power. It got to the stage where the cost was more than the consumer was prepared to pay.

"At a time when US pockets had been hit by rising fuel and other inflationary costs, this situation led to decreased spending by Americans and less tourists from the US coming here. There were also the competing pressures of the Caribbean waking up to tourism and the cheaper cruise ship market thriving."

But that view, according to Mr. Simmons, should be rejected outright.

"It's absolute nonsense," he told The Royal Gazette. "During the 1959 boycott, black people were told that if theatres were integrated tourists would stop coming here. But tourist numbers continued to increase.

"During the 1965 Belco riots it was said that workers were going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and that tourists would stop coming, yet tourism continued to increase."

Mr. Simmons said that in In 1981, inflation was out of control and plane hijackings were taking place.

"Tourists stayed put," he continued. "Tourism has been declining for 20 years. It's illogical and foolish to say that 1981 was a major reason for the drop in tourism.

"You can't tell me that everyone who's a potential tourist woke up and said: 'There was a strike there in 1981, I'm not going to Bermuda.'

He said that wages were just one part of inflation and added: "We did not cause inflation; we came in with the inflation that existed."

Chris Furbert, recently elected leader of the Bermuda Industrial Union, was vice-president of the Portworkers' Division in 1981. He agreed with Mr. Simmons and said he did not buy the argument that the 25-day strike kick-started the tourism decline, a decline the country is still battling to address.

"Right now the Opposition is trying to blame the present Government for the decline of tourism, but you have to look at what happened in the 70s," he said, pointing to the way the six-week American college exodus was allowed to slip of the hospitality radar.

"They were our future visitors. We used to get between 5 and 7,000 people. You can't do that to your future client base."

Mr. Furbert also hit back at claims the 1981 settlement increased the cost of living. "That could not be further from the truth. "If you look at the way the cost of living has gone up in the last 30-plus years, rents have gone up in excess of about 900 per cent. "A three-bedroom house in 1971 was about $300; the same today would be about $3,000 per month. But wages have not gone up 900 per cent, they may have gone up between 400 and 600 per cent.

"Wages have not kept abreast of the cost of living.

He said that 25 years ago, weekly wages generally covered monthly rents. "Now that's not true," he stated. "People have to get two or three jobs to live in this country."

Sir David Gibbons reckons that unions will always "aim for the stars".

He added: "That's their job in a way and it's up to the Government and the private sector to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Huge demands are very commonplace.

"They (the BIU) had to answer to their memberships' demands and had to try and achieve what their hopes and aspirations were. "I understand they were reacting to the financial demands of their membership because of the impact of the pensions and hospital changes."

Like Sir John, he also thinks the strike hit tourism, but emphasised the shift towards international business.

"That opened up new opportunities for Bermudians with better hours and no evening and weekend working.

"The strike focused peoples' attention on the uncertainty of tourism and they asked where they would be safer and better off." The former Premier denied the saga fatally damaged his leadership, and led to him standing down in 1982.

"I had done my ten years and it was traditional for business people who benefited from life in Bermuda to go into Government and make a contribution.

"In the early days, my father was in Parliament and did his ten years. I stayed on as Minister of Finance for two more at the request of Sir John Swan.

"But the strike had no role in my decision. I left voluntarily."

Sir John, asked about the role the strike played in his predecessor stepping down and the shift to international business, said: "He (Sir David) had served and won an election, but obviously the strike was very disturbing to people. It brought about a defining moment in Bermuda's history.

"The question was how to we go ahead and make this economy work and that was not going to be easy.

"When I became leader of the party I realised depending on tourism was not going to be sufficient and international business was something we looked more towards. We had no choice ? it was less people demanding and was not subject to the weather."

Meanwhile, Mr. Furbert, remains in no doubt that one benefit of the strike was that a strong message was sent out to employers that unions wanted workers treated fairly. He hopes, however, that 1981 served as a learning experience for both sides on the negotiating table for future talks. "It just did not only send a warning out to Government in this country, it sent a warning to all other employers," said Mr. Furbert, who stressed that all workers, and not just unionised employees, benefited from the settlement.

"It also said to all companies that had unionised agreements: we are serious about talking with you and want to make sure we are being treated fairly.

"I think the country needs to understand . It's unfortunate that it took mass action to get a solution. I just hope that 1981 was a learning experience for us in being able to sit down collectively before it gets to these kind of things (widespread strikes)."

He added that he wanted to see modern negotiations handled in a much better time frame, so the frustration of members would be reduced. "In 1981 frustrations grew," he stated.

Workers got more respect in the wake of the strike action, according to Ottiwell Simmons.

"The fear that many people got from joining a union was dropped and they faced their employers with courage," he recalled. "It was that strike that changed the minds, hearts and attitudes of the working class where working relationships were concerned.

"Government no longer treated workers like they were chattel they could bring in and discard at their own whims and fancies."

Asked if the scale of the industrial action and the disruption it caused was justified, Mr. Furbert replied: "That's what they felt needed to be done to get the end result.

"I have a lot of respect for the visitors to this country, but we do not just organise a strike for the sake of it. Strikes should be a last resort when you can't reach a resolution, when something is not going anywhere. Hopefully that type of thing is going to happen less and less.

"I can't say these things will never happen again, but as long as we build much better relations and resolve these things in better time frames so frustrations do not grow, the chances of it happening are very slim."

The man sitting on the other side of the debate in 1981, Sir David Gibbons, said he did not think a repeat was possible.

"I think lessons were learnt, although I do not think anything like that will ever happen again.

"We now have low unemployment and the highest per capita income in the world. Anyone who wishes can go and get a well paid job, and if they get a good education they can get a really well paid job ? the best in the world.

"People are all covered for medical insurance. Most have pensions and are covered for treatment abroad. The strike was a cathartic experience and I think we have moved on from it."