Manheim is acutally very anti-union, but he does a better job of sounding authoritative than professors whose hatred of unions makes them sound a little crazy, like Leo Troy at Rutgers. A group of students at GW staged a demonstration in one of his classes to draw attention to his strategic consulting for Verizon during its fight against the Communications Workers. Manheim refuses to disclose how much money he accepted from Verizon for his services. (Something to keep in mind the next time you read a Horowitzian rant about how non-Marxist professors are no longer allowed on campus.)

Conservatives have long railed against unions getting involved in politics and claimed that "real" unionists are content to confine themselves to advocacy within the private sector, the way that Samuel Gompers said they should.

This new effort by House Republicans goes much further by proposing that the federal government put harsh new restrictions on how union members are able to speak out in the private sector, silencing working people in a frightening new way.

Just out of curiosity, do you support allowing a union to negotiate an agreement where all workers can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs, even those workers who oppose the union? If so, why? Do you support allowing the union to take the money that some workers were forced to pay as a condition of keeping their jobs and use it to support contentious political causes? If so, why? And if you support unions forcing workers to fund political speech with which they disagree in order to keep a job, why do you oppose employers forcing workers to comply with other conditions (e.g., working unpaid overtime, refraining from union activities, etc.) in order to keep a job?

Amy- Absolutely.

To use the logic that anti-union people always use-- if any employee doesn't like the union dues requirement, they can always choose to work at a job without a union or mandatory dues in place.

Corporations use money contracted from employees as a condition of employment to fund their political work. Why shouldn't workers BY DEMOCRATIC VOTE be able to negotiate similar mandated contributions? since union workers make more from having a union contract than they lose in dues, they have more takehome pay at the end of the day, so they have no beef with whatever the union dues go to pay for.

I love how libertarians suddenly hate contracted relationships when it comes to unions. Giant corporations make all sorts of restrictive contracts that effect other third parties, but it's all okay because it's a "free market", but when unions make a basic contract with employers, suddenly folks want the government to interfere with such contracted deals.

Now, you ask why I'm not consistent in also opposing overtime laws or other restrictions on employment contracts. 'Cause my principles aren't about "free market" contracts-- I just enjoy noting the inconsistency of conservatives on this point when it come to unions. For me, strong unions are the principle and the goal- they're good for workers rights and economic equality, so I support them. Period.