I agree with a lot of what this article has to say, and it's true that the politics of the US would be quite different if one of the major parties were a bona fide labor movement. But they're not, and I worry that the label of "elites" makes it harder to see why they're not. It's genuinely challenging - although I agree sometimes necessary! - to explain to someone who's really fired up about racial justice or climate change that they're not representative of the public and their concerns need to take a back seat to kitchen table issues.
It's also not obvious to me that a bona fide labor movement would take a particularly strong stance on an executive order curtailing independent agencies. Being invested in the details of how paper-pushing agencies are structured is a very elite concern.
> to explain to someone who's really fired up about racial justice or climate change that they're not representative of the public
To some extent yes. But also those issues have big implications for working people. It's possible to talk about them in a way that inspires and builds a movement, or in a way that makes people feel stupid and excluded from the conversation. Often they choose the latter.
> It's also not obvious to me that a bona fide labor movement would take a particularly strong stance on an executive order curtailing independent agencies
It should be absolutely obvious why the labor movement might be opposed to what is literally the largest layoff in American history.