But it does seem clear that some kind of a showdown is looming with the potential to cause catastrophic damage for the Island's economy.

In the last 12 months or so, there have been at least four industrial disputes on the docks. All of them seem to have been wildcat actions, taken without any attention being paid to the legislation governing essential services.

Tuesday's "mass meeting'', although attended by just 200 or so members, caused unnecessary and wasteful disruptions to Government services.

There was no reason why the meeting could have not have been held after working hours, which would have allowed the ferries and buses to run and the garbage to be collected.

Instead the Bermuda Industrial Union appears to have decided to indulge in some muscle flexing and the ensuing disruption shows that the union does indeed have the power to bring services to a halt when it wishes.

That sends a strong message, but one which has more to do with the abuse of power than anything else. The union is saying: "We will do what we want, regardless of what the Country needs''.

That is a shame, because there is other evidence that the union, under the leadership of Derrick Burgess, can be a moderating influence which can work with employers and the Government for the betterment of its members and the Country as a whole. One need look no further than the hotel industry for evidence of that.

But nowhere is there evidence that the union can still be a disruptive and destructive force than on the docks. It is difficult to believe that it is the same union.

It can be argued that Stevedoring Services is a different employer from the hotels and it may be that conditions on the docks are quite different from the hotels.

But it is hard not to disagree with Shadow Legislative Affairs Minister John Barritt when he observes that walkouts and wildcat actions always seem to take place on the docks when Mr. Burgess is away and BIU first vice president Chris Furbert -- a former dockworker -- is acting in his stead.

If that is the case, Mr. Burgess needs to rein Mr. Furbert in. If Mr. Burgess fails to do so, then he must be held accountable for the actions on the docks.

The docks dispute itself seems to come down to a number of fairly simple issues which would easily be settled in arbitration. That is what makes the union's refusal to attend the arbitration tribunal so strange; the next step lies with the courts which can be expected to act and the union may well face an expensive punishment.

The steps for dealing with industrial disputes are clearly laid out for essential services. In the end, it is up to Home Affairs Minister Paula Cox to make sure they are followed and to take appropriate actions when either the union or the employer fails to do so.