& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Transport to Nowhere
The country wide strike by transport workers, which was of dubious validity to begin with, went completely off the rails within days. The split among the various transport unions, apparent from the very outset, robbed the action of any real effectiveness, in so far as putting pressure on the government was concerned Instead, it piled on misery on the low-income groups of the country. Amid all the violence from both the pro and antistrike factions, the purpose behind the action seemed to have been forgotten. So much so. that public confidence In the ability of the labour unions to conduct themselves responsibly appears to have been severely shaken.
Not only that, the government's handling of the dispute has also left a lot to be desired. This wasn’t the first such confrontation with transport unions that the present government has had to face, nor did the dispute appear from out of the blue. For some inexplicable reasons, the government failed to pursue the Issue at ah early stage, and later on, allowed the line 01 communication to disappear. The result was violent picketing and equally violent attempts to break the strike.
The Minister for Communication Col. (retd) Oli Ahmed felt he had made enough concessions not to warrant a confrontation. But somehow, one cannot shake off the feeling that the government was relying more on the disunity among union ranks to render the strike Ineffective than on meaningful negotiations to resolve issues at dispute. Whatever the case might have been, the result has not been to the good of any party, least of all the citizenry which always become Ine first victim of any dispute Involving a public utility, whether privately-owned or state-controlled.
The dispute has clearly shown the dangers inherent in a policy of taking actions late in the day. There was plenty of time to have a drawn-out series of negotiations, as the unions had given ample advance warning as to their eventual intention in case of failure of talks. The time In hand should also have been used by the government to build an effective mechanism for continuous parley, so that even In the event of a strike action, negotiations could continue with a unified body representing the workers. On the one hand, the government should realise that it Is not in the public Interest to split labour unions, since that can only lead to Inter-union violence which can create serious industrial instability and economic dislocation.
Ori the other hand, the unions too should realise that they are part and parcel of this country, and their demands cannot in any way be divorced from the socio-economic realities of Bangladesh. It is well understood that the unions have a duty to get the best deal possible for their members, but it must also be recognised that the deal cannot be sought by pointing a loaded gun at the head of the public. Furthermore, it Is imperative that the unions themselves try to retain unity among their constituent members, because it is neither possible for a fractured union to negotiate effectively; nor’is It possible for a go-vernirtent to hold meaningful talks With such a union.
For the public interest, negotiations between the two sides in a dispute must be serious and with a clear, credible goal in mind. This strike should stand as a good lesson for both the government and unions In how not to approach a dispute.