There's a difference there that I would think is obvious: one is actual government intervention on all employers equally (the government is collecting taxes, or regulating the employer). The other is a third party that has the right to collectively bargain, but not the obligation.
Additionally, those regulations are universal - it's not like there are certain places you can work that aren't subject to the Income Tax Act, much less non-governmental third party entities that can decide for the employer and all employees whether or not they're going to be subject to tax.
EDIT: Note that I'm not saying that unions are inherently a good or bad thing or that unions shouldn't exist. I was only pointing out that it's ridiculous to say, effectively, what was being said: that this is a characteristic of an individual workplace that can be weighed as a pro or con by an employee like any other, be it salary, benefits, working hours etc.; and if you don't like it, go work somewhere else - you're not being forced into anything. That is false. It's not at all analogous to those other individual workplace characteristics.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 07-06-2016 at 07:08 PM.
|