Yesterday?s strike by taxi drivers should come as no surprise. The seeds of the action were sown when Transport Minister Ewart Brown tabled the legislation making the controversial GPS system mandatory in the House of Assembly last Friday.

Assuming the Government?s majority in the House holds tomorrow, it will be on its way to becoming law. In spite of an increased ? and very generous ? package of concessions offered to the drivers on Tuesday, the drivers voted to reject the offer and to take action.

This is unfortunate. Although the Government contingency plan worked well yesterday, this action threatens to upset the tourism industry in particular and to cause inconvenience to thousands of residents as well.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the dispute to have reached this point. The drivers have not come up with a credible alternative plan to improve service to their customers and concerns about poor service remain. Nor have they been able to really come together to speak with one voice, as shown by the fact that some drivers continued to offer service shows. That alone suggests that the Government will eventually win out on this issue.

At the same time, the drivers? concerns about being forced to take on additional costs at a time when the industry as a whole remains marginal is well taken and it would be better for the two companies licensed to offer the equipment should proceed without waiting for Government to make it mandatory.

If the service can then demonstrate that it will make the drivers better off and more efficient, then they would be foolish not to take it up. Government?s failure to sell the idea to the drivers can be blamed on the drivers? obstinacy and fears of costs and technology. Clearly, concerns about ?Big Brother? also played a part, although drivers who do their jobs properly should have no cause for concern.

But the fact that Government has not been able to demonstrate clearly that the drivers would benefit financially from the service represents a ?failure to communicate? on Government?s part. To some degree Government did put its money where its mouth is when it promised to install the service for free and then forgive the cost if installation after a year if they did not make money. Just how this would have been monitored, and what the eventual cost to the public would be, is anyone?s guess.

But if Government was that confident, it could have offered to end the requirement after a year if it failed to live up to its promise.

That may still be an answer. Rather than force the legislation through now, at the risk of further industrial action and controversy, Government and the drivers could still take up the services of an independent mediator or arbitrator to come up with a deal that both sides could live with.