It is an opinion based on what is meant by balance in the context of the code, and on whether or not that definition of balance would be disturbed.
The definition of balance was used in pulling the provisions of the code together, and the Sims report really describes it and discusses it in detail. To determine if there is balance, you must look at whether or not the law would create equal incentives for both parties to come to a reasonable solution.
Again, I can use the CN example. In the current strike, both parties face financial challenges. The workers, of course, face financial challenges because they lose income as long as they are on strike. According to a union spokesperson, CN is now running at 25% capacity, which of course means that CN management and business are also facing financial challenges. So there is the balance in the code to encourage both parties to come to a view on what a reasonable settlement would be. If you change that balance, then of course the incentives will change.
I'm not here to suggest whether or not that new balance is appropriate. All I'm suggesting is that the existing balance, in which there are reasonable incentives on both sides to come to a view as to what a reasonable settlement would be, would be disturbed, and then somebody would have to find what new balance one would need or whether one needed a new balance. As I said before, that is really a policy question.