As political analysts and others continue to dissect the litany of wrongs resorted to by transport operators last week, the government, businesses and many workers are counting the cost of an action that has drawn national fury and anger as yet incomparable to any so far seen before in any industrial action.

There is little about the strike that has not already been said and discussed, except perhaps for the unprofessional manner in which the federation leaders led the members during the action.

Public transport drivers went far beyond striking in sympathy with colleagues hit by a government decision. Many of them took the law into their own hands, paralysing key economic sectors and even stopping an emergency service.

It would seem federation leaders lost control of the situation. If, as it has been argued, the leaders' task in the strike had been made doubly difficult by the unruly character of a number of its members, then, knowing this, federation leaders ought to have shown greater circumspection in their action.

What seems to have escaped everybody's attention is the actual status of the federation in the strike. Could it, or could it not, call the strike in the first place? Emmanuel Micallef, former deputy general secretary of the General Workers' Union, argues that since the federation is not a registered trade union it could not enjoy the privilege of immunity granted under labour legislation when an industrial action is enforced. In his view, therefore, all actions taken by the federation were illegal on all fronts. Mr Micallef's point needs to be thrashed out as it carries important implications, particularly in view of the judicial protests already filed by a number of companies seeking damages.

There is another outstanding matter, one that has angered commuters no end. It is over the sum of money the government is dishing out to the Motor Hearses' Association, ostensibly for its members to face the challenges of liberalisation. The government is arguing this not is something extraordinary. It had been done before in cases requiring assistance for restructuring. This may very well have been the case but does the argument apply in this case as well? Many feel it does not. Indeed, one comment made in the post-strike analysis - that the sum would also cover marketing expenses to help the association retain its present market share - has been generally considered a bit risible. It is more likely the sum was the carrot that made the association withdraw from the federation, more so after the court rejected a request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction to stop the government issuing new hearse licences.

Equally mind-boggling is the extraordinary impudence being shown by the bus drivers in expecting to be paid the subsidy deducted for the time they were on strike.

As in the case of the dockyard, no "reform" in public transport has ever worked. The taxpayer has forked money for both over the years. Despite the fact that new buses have been put into service, commuters are as yet highly dissatisfied with the kind of public transport run today. A reform document was launched only yesterday. However, the drivers' unacceptable behaviour last week indicates that the road to any kind of reorganisation is bumpy.