Establishment pundits love a clean narrative. They want a Labor Secretary who functions like a well-oiled gear in a legacy machine, keeping the peace between unions and C-suites while making sure the paperwork is filed in triplicate. When someone like Lori Chavez-DeRemer or any reform-minded official steps into that buzzsaw and walks away under a cloud of "disappointment," the media treats it like a failure of character. They are wrong.
The departure of a Labor Secretary amidst friction is not a sign of a broken department. It is the natural byproduct of attempting to dismantle a bloated, pro-incumbent regulatory structure that has spent decades stifling wage growth under the guise of "protecting" workers. If you aren't leaving office with the old guard screaming about scandals, you probably didn't do anything worth doing.
The Myth of the Steady Hand
Critics point to "disappointment" as the primary metric of a failed tenure. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how power shifts in Washington. The Department of Labor (DOL) is not a neutral arbiter; it is a battleground. For fifty years, the "steady hand" at the DOL has overseen a massive expansion of the administrative state that benefits two groups: high-priced labor attorneys and union bureaucrats.
When a Secretary attempts to pivot toward a more flexible, 21st-century labor market—one that recognizes the gig economy and independent contracting as features, not bugs—the system revolts.
- Scandal as a Weapon: In the beltway, a "scandal" is often just a policy disagreement wrapped in a costume of ethics violations.
- The Disappointment Metric: Who exactly is disappointed? Usually, it's the professional activist class whose funding depends on maintaining the status quo.
I have watched dozens of executives attempt to "fix" HR departments from the inside. The ones who try to build consensus usually end up being absorbed by the very culture they meant to change. The ones who actually move the needle are the ones who get fired or forced out after six months of being called "divisive."
The Wage-Hour Trap
Standard analysis focuses on the number of enforcement actions a Secretary oversees. The more fines levied, the "better" the performance. This is the equivalent of judging a doctor by how many prescriptions they write rather than whether the patient actually gets healthy.
Aggressive, broad-brush enforcement of outdated Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) interpretations does not help the modern worker. It creates a "compliance tax" that forces mid-sized businesses to hire fewer people. We are stuck in a 1938 mindset trying to regulate a 2026 digital economy.
Imagine a scenario where a boutique software firm wants to offer its employees total flexibility—work whenever you want, as much as you want, as long as the code is shipped. Under the "steady hand" of traditional Labor Secretaries, that firm is a lawsuit waiting to happen because they aren't tracking "hours worked" in a way that satisfies a bureaucrat's spreadsheet. When a Secretary tries to modernize these rules, they are accused of "eroding worker protections." In reality, they are trying to keep the US competitive against markets that don't treat 40 hours a week like a religious commandment.
The Union Obsession
The competitor's narrative relies heavily on the idea that the Labor Secretary's primary job is to be a cheerleader for big labor. This is a relic of the industrial age. Today, private-sector union membership is in a secular decline not because of "anti-labor" secretaries, but because the value proposition has shifted.
Modern workers—especially Gen Z and Millennials—value portability and individual agency over collective seniority. When a Labor Secretary recognizes this, the legacy media frames it as a "betrayal of the working class."
- The Reality of Pro-Labor Policies: Many policies marketed as "pro-worker" are actually "pro-incumbent." They make it harder for new, leaner competitors to enter the market, which protects the market share of established firms that are already unionized.
- The Regulatory Moat: Big corporations actually love complex labor regulations. Why? Because they can afford the 500-person legal team to navigate them. Their smaller competitors cannot.
If a Secretary leaves office and the loudest critics are the heads of major trade federations, it’s a signal that they were actually starting to clear the regulatory moat. That isn't a failure; it’s an achievement.
The Performance Review Nobody Wants to Write
The focus on "vast disappointment" ignores the raw data of the labor market. We are currently seeing a massive shift in how people view employment. The "Great Resignation" and the rise of the "Fractional Executive" aren't anomalies; they are the new standard.
A Secretary of Labor who tries to force these new workers back into the 20th-century box of W-2 employment is the real failure. The "scandals" that follow reformers are usually just the sounds of the old machinery grinding its gears in protest.
If you are looking for a Labor Secretary who everyone likes, you are looking for a placeholder. You are looking for someone who will let the department drift further into irrelevance while the rest of the world’s economy evolves.
The next time you see a headline about a "disastrous" tenure at the DOL, look at who is doing the complaining. If it’s the same group of people who have presided over forty years of stagnant middle-class growth, then the person leaving probably had the right ideas.
The administrative state doesn't need a caretaker. It needs a wrecking ball. And wrecking balls don't leave behind a "legacy of cooperation." They leave behind rubble. From that rubble, a labor market that actually functions for the individual worker—not the institution—might finally have room to grow.
Stop mourning the departure of bureaucrats who refused to play the game. Start questioning why the game is rigged to keep the reformers out.
The era of the "company man" is dead. It’s time the Department of Labor caught up, regardless of how many feelings get hurt in the process.
