This is a really weird comment.

I re-read the article and it only mentions labour vs capital once, in passing. Mostly it talks in terms of owners vs managers, and the principal-agent problem. You refer to "greedy pigs" and exploitation making it sound as though the author is anti-capitalist, but that does not seem to be the case).

(I was curious enough to look him up. He's a finance professor at HBS. That probably explains the different slant compared to other Atlantic articles).