today over legislation aimed at bringing Bermuda's laws governing tax evasion and money laundering into line with standards demanded by international organisations.

But last minute amendments, as we report in our Business section today, appear to have staved off a fierce debate and shows the Island's bilateral system of making business law is working -- although it seems to have come very close to breaking down.

Although Finance Minister Eugene Cox has dismissed claims of divisions, it is clear that there are a wide range of opinions on the whole question of tax law and money laundering legislation, caused largely by the fact that no-one really knows how much regulation will be enough.

There are those who believe Bermuda will have to get into line or it will become a pariah nation, thrown in with tax havens of low morals and dubious repute. Because one of the Island's most valuable assets is its reputation, that would be a grievous blow in the long term.

In the other corner are those who maintain the legislation as it was first drafted was over-reaching and would have required Bermuda businesses, and the banks in particular, to become watchdogs for the world's tax authorities. At the centre of the debate is the vexed question of what constitutes tax evasion and what constitutes legitimate tax avoidance.

Aside from the fact that Bermuda depends on reputation, it is also a respected and popular jurisdiction because of its successful system of self-regulation and because of its low tax rates.

Bermuda has to get this right. If the Island goes too far in trying to satisfy the European Union and others it risks losing legitimate business. Too little care over regulation will lead to the Island being blacklisted.

Most of the business community and both sides of the House of Assembly are now satisfied. It remains to be seen if Bermuda's business partners and international regulators will be.

*** If the storm over the financial bills was averted, MPs are bound to clash over the Trade Union Amendment Act, which is also up for debate today (or possibly tomorrow as the PLP has taken the UBP's habit of cramming legislation into the last day of the session).

The bill is designed to allow managers to join the same union -- but not the same collective bargaining unit -- as workers in their companies.

The amendment is intended to replace the bill steered through the House of Assembly last year by the UBP which guaranteed the right to union certification and decertification, but only up to management level.

Government argues all employees have the right to collective bargaining, and maintains that membership in different collective bargaining units will prevent conflicts of interest.

Technically that is so; but managers may find themselves caught in a vise if they are expected to keep a business running during a strike and their union votes to bring all its members out.

Questions of access to confidential information and the right to hire and fire will also come into question.

However, employers need to be more pro-active as well; middle managers are entrusted with serious responsibilities and are held accountable when they fail to fulfil them.

Forward-looking companies which want managers -- and employees -- to be loyal and committed to the company's success have to give their staff a stake and sense of ownership in the business. Profit sharing, more involvement from employees in the running of the business and employee ownership can all improve loyalty and productivity -- and diminish the frustrations of employees who feel under-appreciated and are leaning towards union membership.