A "False Middle Class"

Frank Ahrens in the Washington Post at least knows enough to link labor unions with the growing middle class, but look at the way he frames it:

The question is: Do we want to increase membership in unions that, in some respects, created a false middle class for decades, setting prices for labor that never would have been reached had they been left solely to market forces? Is that the way to middle-class prosperity?

What the heck is a "false middle class"? Would our grandparents have enjoyed their paid vacations, dignified retirements and childrens' educational accomplishments if they had known they were "false"? If there was a middle class that tens of millions of Americans enjoyed for decades, improving living standards for a the broadest swath of people ever and creating unprecedented societal prosperty and stability for generations, what exactly is "false" about that? "Setting prices for labor that never would have been reached had they been left solely to market forces"? Frankly, I'm not sure that "market forces" are what pay investiment bankers 7 figure bonuses for making losing investments, but I have trouble figuring out why the fickle finger of the market tickles some and not others, anyway. Did market forces put an end to slavery, indentured servitude or child labor? If not, is that "false freedom" and is it any less sweet than the real freedom brought about by market demand?

Oh well. At least the author acknowledged an upside to unions, which is more than you can usually expect from the Washington Post.