End result is the same either way whether FTC allows it to happen through inaction, or changes it themselves. Point being, labor fucked once more, and capital gets what they want.
This might appear to be the case to a layperson but it is in fact more nuanced.
Scratching the surface:
Democratically, the public enjoys participation in policy development through notice and comment rule-making, but not through this accession/acquiescence (which is politically motivated).
And legally, the public can (or can more-easily) challenge and seek invalidation of rule-making, but cannot (or cannot as easily) challenge effective policy choices made through litigation strategy in cases in which the agency is adverse to a single party, to the exclusion of non-parties and the public generally.
Of course it goes much deeper than this and there are many other differences and considerations.
In this instance, your view of the capital/labor outcomes is probably roughly true, and I agree in principle; but the same procedure could happen with opposite effects in a different administration and with contrary rules, for example.
Comments
This is inaccurate; see my other comment.
End result is the same either way whether FTC allows it to happen through inaction, or changes it themselves. Point being, labor fucked once more, and capital gets what they want.
This might appear to be the case to a layperson but it is in fact more nuanced.
Scratching the surface:
Democratically, the public enjoys participation in policy development through notice and comment rule-making, but not through this accession/acquiescence (which is politically motivated).
And legally, the public can (or can more-easily) challenge and seek invalidation of rule-making, but cannot (or cannot as easily) challenge effective policy choices made through litigation strategy in cases in which the agency is adverse to a single party, to the exclusion of non-parties and the public generally.
Of course it goes much deeper than this and there are many other differences and considerations.
In this instance, your view of the capital/labor outcomes is probably roughly true, and I agree in principle; but the same procedure could happen with opposite effects in a different administration and with contrary rules, for example.