There may be a line to walk here, but the balance of power really does matter. The Republican Party might send me a flyer saying "if you vote for Democrats, it'

There may be a line to walk here, but the balance of power really does matter. The Republican Party might send me a flyer saying "if you vote for Democrats, it'll be very bad for you" (or vice-versa), but they're not in an explicit contractual relationship with me that my income depends on. If my employer sends me a flyer saying "if you vote to unionize, it'll be very bad for you" that's clearly got some very different implications to it. They may both be raising the spectre of what happens if the vote doesn't go their way, but only one of them carries an implicit threat. Should employers be able to make an anti-union case? I'd have to say yes on free speech grounds, but I'd also say that they really should be subject to more restrictions on what kind of anti-union organizing they can do than the union should be on what kind of pro-union organizing they can do. Yes, that's deliberately giving the union an advantage -- but, again, management has the advantage of being the side that literally writes the checks. > unions once established have their own balance of power, and that's not in favor of the individual. I mean, that's kind of the point, in a way, isn't it? The employee/employer power balance is almost always weighted toward the employer, because the employee alone is one individual and the employer is a corporation. Employees acting as a collective are theoretically on more equal footing. That doesn't guarantee every single individual employee will support every collective action the union makes.