[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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, just that it's ridiculous to say, effectively, what was being said: namely 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 Forestry Act applies to me even if I choose not to cut down trees. The Labour Relations Act applies to all workplaces even if employees choose not to organize and certify a union. I don't see the distinction.