That is only an analogy if the employer in the first statement is offering a job and then banning the potential employee from doing anything else.  Criminal A, in offering a choice between a gunshot or hanging to Victim B, is kind of like a Government A that offering choices to Employer B, either employ people at a particular wage Government A approves of or don't employ anyone at all.

In both cases, the A's oppression stems from the forceful limiting of B's liberty.  Criminal A arbitrarily takes away Victim B's liberty to simply be left alone.  Government A arbitrarily takes away Employer B's liberty to offer a wage below whatever wage Government A dictates.  In either case, you will forever lose this debate; not because you can't convince a majority of people to think like you (they already do), but because you rely on illogical non-analogies to support your fallacious premise, that you can make better decisions for people than they can make for themselves.

Give it up already.