No, he isn't.
And neither is Hillary Clinton. Mark Penn, a Clinton pollster and advisor is often used as an example in arguments designed at painting her as "anti union" or "corporatist". It's reasoned that because Penn's company has done anti union work, her employment of him is a breach of trust with the Democratic pro labor base. I've argued many times that the foibles of an employee do not always reflect upon the employer. That argument rarely seems to work.
But now we have evidence that John Edwards has basically done the same thing as Clinton. He has paid some $200,000 to a consultant who owns a company that has carried out anti union work. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
This is a link to some of that work, http://unionfacts.com/
I don't think Edwards is anti union. Few of our good or even mediocre Democrats are. Along with the poor, union members have long been our base, and we have long tried to act in their interests. In 2005 Clinton voted in the interests of the AFL-CIO 93% of the time. The year before it was 100%. Progressive Punch gives her a General Union Rights rating of 100%. Her overall Labor Rights score is 3% less then Edward Kennedy. I suspect John Edwards would have similar results.
Mark Penn does not make Clinton anti union. Christopher Werner does not make John Edwards anti union. They are employees, hired to do a specific job and do not control how their candidates think or feel or do their jobs.