[lostdog]

The "radical left" finally got some power.

The head of the FTC is known to be someone who wants to enact progressive policies. For her and her staff, limiting noncompetes is driven by idealism that workers should have more rights.

I believe that these changes are echoes of Bernie and other progressives getting lots of votes since 2016. They are now insiders in the government rather than outsiders, so they advocate for progressives to lead departments.

[claytongulick]

You know, this is the exact reason why the "left" v "right" thing is do damned obnoxious.

Good ideas are good regardless of political party.

Barring several wedge issues that parties exploit to maximize outrage reaction in order to gain power, most people are pretty closely aligned on stuff like this.

I feel like if you polled the US population on this, 80+ percent of folks would be in favor of eliminating non-competes, regardless of political affiliation.

I agree with you though, that this is one of those good policy items that's historically been a casualty of tribalism and "campaign finance" aka bribes.

[ZoomerCretin]

>Good ideas are good regardless of political party.

This kind of analysis only makes sense if you completely disregard what "left" and "right" mean. The right is explicitly anti-labor.

[claytongulick]

Thanks for illustrating my point.

It's not a binary, it's limited thinking to say that someone is "pro-labor" or "anti-labor". Even that choice of words, framing the narrative and the associated emotional response is deliberate - and misleading.

Each situation is different, for example, I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a majority of "right" voters who believe that coal miner unions are a bad idea.

I think it'd be pretty easy to find a majority of them who believe that the NEA does more harm than good.

But it's a lot easier to just lump everyone together and demonize them, right? To find a few tragic examples of abuses to maximize outrage reaction, and make sure everyone is properly corralled into their tribes and casting the "correct" vote, so we can show those nasty out-groupers what's what.

In case you were curious, the distribution of political leaning in unions is a lot more complex than what you might think [1].

If someone asks me whether I believe in unions, depending on the day and how hungry I am I'd likely respond with something like "which union? which industry?", though I don't consider myself to be "right".

I am skeptical of laws that both protect and prevent unions, though. I think people should be free to assemble in whatever manner they choose, and to negotiate the same way.

I also understand that this gets really complicated when strikes or mass-firings threaten fundamental infrastructure and security. So, like most things - it's complicated.

[1] https://www.thestrikewave.com/original-content/complicated-p...