For the sake of SPF, don't make me start all over !!!
The problem I see with her presentation about OOCSS and HTML "objects" is that:
The cascading in CSS is already designed for productivity. HTML needs to be flexible and it can't be thought in "objects" but in elements. And it's not even original. This is what HTML5 tries to do with elements like header, footer, article, nav, aside etcetera.
Her idea of productivity is to just ignore the power of cascade and cripple down both CSS and HTML.
Back on topic, being someone who uses OO religiously in many (though not all) cases, I can see the simple beauty of what they're busy. However... the simple part can be a problem.
If you are a huge company, like Facebook, I could understand wanting to have a site that can be maintained by less skilled people, though at the same time... I'd want to be training those people and making them better. It's like making a car that has snap together parts so you can have less educated mechanics. I'd still want to train them to be able to work on real cars too. =)
When it comes to CSS, I'm also one of those that avoids frameworks like the plague. Re usability is nice, but it'd take me just as long to pick out which things I wanted to use from my re usability pull and clear out the rest than it would to rewrite them from scratch.
This is especially true in the case of CSS because most of the re-usable blocks are super simple and generic (.red, .bold, .underline, etc), since complex blocks are by their nature not very re-usable, since they're tailored to a specific element.
Regarding the teaching and less skilled people, I think she covers that in this video. I dont think necesarly they are less skilled people, she talks about training them and teaching them oocss, and helping them maintain the css in a more efficient way.
[On Original Topic]
You know, all the going back and forth, I think I will watch this video this weekend and reserve my judgement until then. Just watching a few minutes of it (before they actually gets to the CSS itself) and I am still in agreement with her.