Well they're similar in some regards and different in others. Apart from the cons being actively harmful towards various marginalized groups, here's how they might differ in handling this labour dispute. In the lib case, we have them going through the legal framework with the union and Air Canada, and they wanted force arbitration, which while not as good as the union could get would have likely produced meaningful improvements to the workers' contract. A con like PP would have likely said that the union has been infiltrated by radical woke left lunatics and no longer serves the interests of the workers. He would have then singled out these workers as unreasonable and bad, and gone on to say how they are harming the rest of the good workers with their strike. Then he'd go hard on them in various ways. For example by emergency amending labour law to make it easy to bust the union, as well as others in the future, and to make it more difficult to organize in the first place. If he were extra nasty, he could have picked up some of the pro-Palestine messages said by various CUPE leaders and declare it/them supporters of terrorism or some shit like that and sanction them from that avenue as well. With this in mind, consider that the state can do a lot more to make life difficult for workers and while the libs aren't doing nearly enough to avoid us descending into fascism, the cons under someone like PP won't be afraid to use their power to increase labour exploitation at behest of their donors. Either way we need a strong, unapologetically worker-focused NDP but the libs aren't nearly anti-worker as the PP cons would likely be.