1. I think you are missing the challenge here to the fetishization of organizing--your fundamentalist commitment as you put it. Lynd for example in same issue criticizes Sweeney's organizing commitment as simply inclusive business unionism (a repeat of John Lewis' efforts).
2. You miss Slaughter's criticism that no detailed criticism of team concept until 1994, that is long after damage was done. And there is extensive work by Slaughter and Parker that is very specific in its criticism of the team concept.
3. You miss Rachleff's argument that the old cold warriors have not been replaced at least in the context of a very important strike action in Mexico. As I have been arguing, there is not much impressive about the new internationalism either.
4. You seem to explain away all concessions (flexibility, unbounded overtime and outsourcing) as necessary under the law (which seems to be an exaggeration or why are you in law school?) or inevitable given union powerlessness. This seems not true;plus again it misses Slaughter's criticism that victory is counted by things that can easily be measured--union density, how many more cents per hour, number of jobs, etc, not the stress and fatigue and deskilling of work, etc. that that can make victory in terms of measured criteria hollow.
5. Why does tough language against the bosses cancel fawning language? Why is there any of the latter?
6. At what point does the union say the (always moving) target of union density has been met so that more militant actions can be taken, instead of suppressed? If the target can always be moved, then don't unions devolve into internal police forces of labor? What steps are taken to guard against this outcome?
Don't know the details of the Ford and Boeing contracts you mention.
As for the Democrats, I think it remains true that austerity, repression and foreign aggression have proven easier to carry out under social democratic, Democratic or leftist governments.
Yours, Rakesh