For years, Republicans have tried to rebrand themselves: Unlike the patrician conservatives of the past who were determined to liberate the wealthy from the burden of taxation, the GOP now speaks for the common folk.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
But it’s one thing to claim, as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has said, that “we’re the workers party.” It’s another to use your power to help workers. That’s the part they’re not yet comfortable with.
Liberals often say Republican claims to represent the interests of working people are nothing but an act, meant to distract the rubes while the GOP advocates for the needs and wants of the wealthy. But some Republicans actually do struggle with conflicting impulses toward the American worker, caught between conservatism’s traditional service to the owner class and the GOP’s newfound, occasional and highly selective opposition to corporate interests. For the next two years, Republicans will have plenty of opportunities to show whether their rhetoric has anything behind it.
Here’s one case study. The Federal Trade Commission recently announced a proposed rule that would prohibit noncompete clauses in employment, which have spread like a virus across the American workplace in recent years (though they’re banned or restricted in a dozen states). This is not about trade secrets, which can be protected by nondisclosure agreements. It’s about workers getting forced as a condition of employment to sign away their right to seek a better job elsewhere in the same industry.
Follow Paul Waldman's opinionsFollow
It’s not surprising that noncompetes have been found to depress wages and reduce entrepreneurship. From the employer’s perspective, that’s kind of the point.
According to the FTC, about 1 in 5 American workers, or about 30 million people, have been forced into noncompete arrangements by employers. A noncompete is never in the interests of the employee. There’s no rational reason anyone would sign one if they felt they truly had a choice. We’re talking about fast-food workers and security guards, people who are deprived of their ability to act as autonomous agents in the marketplace for labor.
If you value liberty and free markets, as every Republican will tell you they do, then noncompete agreements should be intolerable. They deprive workers of something fundamental, the ability to go down the road and find a better job. Naturally, big business advocates — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal editorial board — are appalled at the FTC’s move.
So where are the “pro-worker” Republicans on this issue? Are they trooping to Fox News to applaud the proposed rule, pledging to support it with legislation that would show how committed they are to getting a fair shake for the “hardworking, blue-collar men and women” they say they represent?
No. The few conservatives who have said anything about it have criticized FTC chair Lina Khan for regulating, which happens to be her job. They say that if this is done at all, it should be done through legislation.
Are they offering such legislation? Of course not.
The only exception I could find was this news release, which includes comments praising the FTC decision from GOP Sens. Todd C. Young of Indiana and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, both of whom have supported banning noncompetes in the past. And in fairness, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) criticized noncompetes at a little-noticed Senate hearing three years ago. But I’ve been unable to find any recent comment from him on the subject. He is, however, deeply interested in the latest Hunter Biden news.
In other words, it’s hardly a pro-worker GOP groundswell. And when you put it in context of the rest of what Republicans are doing, you see how hollow their rhetoric is.
The first bill the new GOP House majority passed was to rescind an infusion of funding for the IRS, money that was intended in part to try to get the wealthy to pay their taxes. They also renamed the House Committee on Education and Labor to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, so venomously opposed are they to the very idea of “labor” as an entity. In a statement, committee Republicans explained the change:
No doubt at least some Republicans sincerely want their party to be more responsive to the needs of people who aren’t wealthy. But where rhetoric turns into policy, that desire always seems to wither away. Will they advocate for a higher minimum wage, an expanded child tax credit, paid family leave or anything else that would materially help workers?
Not likely, outside of a few lonely GOP voices. Instead, they’ll settle for saying they’re the workers’ party, without doing anything to help workers. It’s been a pretty good formula for them so far.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
But it’s one thing to claim, as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has said, that “we’re the workers party.” It’s another to use your power to help workers. That’s the part they’re not yet comfortable with.
Liberals often say Republican claims to represent the interests of working people are nothing but an act, meant to distract the rubes while the GOP advocates for the needs and wants of the wealthy. But some Republicans actually do struggle with conflicting impulses toward the American worker, caught between conservatism’s traditional service to the owner class and the GOP’s newfound, occasional and highly selective opposition to corporate interests. For the next two years, Republicans will have plenty of opportunities to show whether their rhetoric has anything behind it.
Here’s one case study. The Federal Trade Commission recently announced a proposed rule that would prohibit noncompete clauses in employment, which have spread like a virus across the American workplace in recent years (though they’re banned or restricted in a dozen states). This is not about trade secrets, which can be protected by nondisclosure agreements. It’s about workers getting forced as a condition of employment to sign away their right to seek a better job elsewhere in the same industry.
Follow Paul Waldman's opinionsFollow
It’s not surprising that noncompetes have been found to depress wages and reduce entrepreneurship. From the employer’s perspective, that’s kind of the point.
According to the FTC, about 1 in 5 American workers, or about 30 million people, have been forced into noncompete arrangements by employers. A noncompete is never in the interests of the employee. There’s no rational reason anyone would sign one if they felt they truly had a choice. We’re talking about fast-food workers and security guards, people who are deprived of their ability to act as autonomous agents in the marketplace for labor.
If you value liberty and free markets, as every Republican will tell you they do, then noncompete agreements should be intolerable. They deprive workers of something fundamental, the ability to go down the road and find a better job. Naturally, big business advocates — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal editorial board — are appalled at the FTC’s move.
So where are the “pro-worker” Republicans on this issue? Are they trooping to Fox News to applaud the proposed rule, pledging to support it with legislation that would show how committed they are to getting a fair shake for the “hardworking, blue-collar men and women” they say they represent?
No. The few conservatives who have said anything about it have criticized FTC chair Lina Khan for regulating, which happens to be her job. They say that if this is done at all, it should be done through legislation.
Are they offering such legislation? Of course not.
The only exception I could find was this news release, which includes comments praising the FTC decision from GOP Sens. Todd C. Young of Indiana and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, both of whom have supported banning noncompetes in the past. And in fairness, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) criticized noncompetes at a little-noticed Senate hearing three years ago. But I’ve been unable to find any recent comment from him on the subject. He is, however, deeply interested in the latest Hunter Biden news.
In other words, it’s hardly a pro-worker GOP groundswell. And when you put it in context of the rest of what Republicans are doing, you see how hollow their rhetoric is.
The first bill the new GOP House majority passed was to rescind an infusion of funding for the IRS, money that was intended in part to try to get the wealthy to pay their taxes. They also renamed the House Committee on Education and Labor to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, so venomously opposed are they to the very idea of “labor” as an entity. In a statement, committee Republicans explained the change:
So when your boss — excuse me, your “job creator” — forces you to sign a document pledging that you won’t take a position elsewhere for better pay, it’s only because he has your best interests in mind! Now get back to the fryer.
No doubt at least some Republicans sincerely want their party to be more responsive to the needs of people who aren’t wealthy. But where rhetoric turns into policy, that desire always seems to wither away. Will they advocate for a higher minimum wage, an expanded child tax credit, paid family leave or anything else that would materially help workers?
Not likely, outside of a few lonely GOP voices. Instead, they’ll settle for saying they’re the workers’ party, without doing anything to help workers. It’s been a pretty good formula for them so far.
