The CLC, Ken Georgetti, and the working class

I used this post to comment on CLC president Ken Georgetti's criticism of this Canadian Federation of Independent Business release, which is highly critical 0f meaningful public sector pensions. I commended Georgetti for standing up to the CFIB and for his support of strong pensions for public sector workers, but I am forced to question the word usage that he employed in this instance. From Georgetti, I quote...

“Instead of looking for a rising tide that raises all boats, the CFIB is trying to sink the modest middle-class prospects that public employees have worked hard to achieve.”

Modest middle-class prospects? What's that supposed to mean? Does Georgetti not realize that what makes workers different from the 'little bourgeoisie' represented by the CFIB is the relationship to management, ownsership, production, and distribution? I'm sure that Georgetti is aware of these distinctions, but why, I ask, did he employ the term "middle-class" to describe public sector workers. Public sector workers, like their private sector counterparts, are working class. What is middle-class anyways? A capitalist conception used to erode class distinctions by associating class with income, instead of with relationship to management, ownership, and production.

For clarification purposes, public-sector workers are members of the working class, let's not forget about that important point. They sell their labour for wages, even if it is to the government. Let's hope that Georgetti keeps that in mind in the future and is aware that the constituency he represents is working class.