There was an interesting article in the NY Times today about worker advocacy groups. The complaint, as initially stated, is that in some specific cases some worker advocacy groups have done "union" activities without being a union. That could be true, possibly. But, in reading the whole article, that really isn't the issue. What is annoying business is that groups are advocating, sometimes in general (minimum wage laws) and sometimes specifically (paying more for tomatoes), for workers. The horror. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/business/as-worker-advocacy-groups-gain-momentum-businesses-fight-back.html?ref=business&_r=0 So, what it amounts to, is that Mr. Berman doesn't think that non-union groups should be allowed to push for improved worker conditions and pay for restaurant workers, while his group is perfectly justified in advocating for restaurant owners. By his own words, he wants free speech for business owners, but, not for worker advocacy groups. I, for one, have been quite interested in some of the information that has come out during these struggles. For one, I always understood that tips were to benefit the otherwise underpaid waiters and cooks. Come to find out, in many cases, owners and managers have been taking a cut, in some cases, the lions share. Whatever excuses restaurant owners have for that, I consider it completely unethical.