Just who's being unreasonable?

Yesterday, Digital Memoirs posted on the issue of the B.C. truckers strike. I was going to wait for DM's followup to respond, but today's events add a whole new dimension to the issue:

Truck companies involved in a dispute with truck drivers have rejected a deal that would have returned the Port of Vancouver to full operation.

The vote Sunday afternoon was unanimous. The port could have been moving back to full operation by Tuesday if the deal had been ratified.

About 90 per cent of the 1,000 striking truckers who haul containers had already approved the tentative two-year deal in a vote earlier Sunday.

DM had expressed concerns that the mediator was only involved in the process at the behest of other businesses, who had lobbied the provincial and federal governments to get their products moving again:

As always, big business wants these pesky glitches in profit pumping, called 'strikes' to end as soon as possible, and without change.

While this may well be true, the actual result of the mediation makes it clear just who's responsible for the continued strike. There's always risk involved where third parties are brought into labour disputes, but the more reasonable party should always be glad to have a neutral observer to validate its position, and in this case that's exactly what happened.

The truckers were willing to accept a contract recommended by a neutral third party in order to get back to work and also help the other industries who are affected by the strike. It's the companies who refused to accept a reasonable deal, leaving the truckers on strike even though they've voted for a fair resolution.

While the mediation process could have had negative effects, its actual role has been to make the respective merit of each side very clear to the public - something that may not have happened without the mediator's solution being on the table.

Now the battle lines are the truckers, the rest of the economy and the two levels of government who want to get products moving again, against the companies who refused a fair solution. No matter how thoroughly the media covered the initial arguments of both sides, that division may never have been as clear without third-party involvement.