> Here's an interesting article. Anybody have any comments on it?

Only some not-exctly-unique observations. Specifically, that while the principle behind organisation of labour is sound - it's not a bad thing to become organised and communicate more clearly with superiors - in practice it goes out of skew the instant legislation gets enacted allowing the labour organisation to paralyse a company on a whim. Since employers are prohibited by law from booting and replacing striking employees, this allows the union to cause very real and significant financial loss to the company unless its demands are met. When the mafia does this, it's called racketeering and you better believe it's against the law. When the unions do it, it's called striking and they're just standing up for their rights. The moon logic involved in that distinction is beyond one as simple as myself.