let us leave aside that you repeatedly redirect the subject away from the material well-being of the middle class towards employment alone and thus divorce the notion of job quality from the discussion entirely (and incidentally negate any possible labour benefit from collective arrangements)

from the evidence at-hand, ask yourself this:

have relative (manufacturing) wage rates fallen over time given the economic developments out of 1985?
has sectoral employment been on the decline in the same period?

such answers address the real conditions of labour. do you really think it is reasonable to blame unionization for two separate and inversely-related concepts when their purpose is to fight for the obverse?

what of the conclusions of the statement that "[w]hen government imposes trade restrictions it reduces the marginal productivity of labor and thereby lowers wage rates. If, in this situation, workers should refuse to suffer wage cuts, they are inviting mass unemployment"? shall we devote our proposal solely towards maximizing employment by (freely) minimizing wage rates in an effort to compete globally without "radical interventionism"? how grand! did you just assume that this article was right or did you consider bringing it to its logical conclusion?

as mentioned all along, such policy does not provide the good job that the american labourer desires and deserves.