The problem here is it feels like Police for thee but not for me.
This is false.
It's certainly not ATF, ICE or Secret Service who police corruption. It is and always has been FBI.
My bull case is not that I particularly like their reforms, but that they demonstrate that substantive rather than incremental changes are possible at all.
Also perhaps that they rip out things that are supposedly doing something useful but sufficiently terrible at it they're not meaningfully helping, such that somebody not-them can later at least attempt to introduce a replacement that does.
Or: The vetocracy problem is very much real and reducing that could, in the medium to long term, be a huge win on net even if the things they do having reduced it in the short term are absolutely not the kind I would like to see either.
Substantive-not-incremental change has always been possible, but it's mostly avoided for being a bad idea. Only when we identify an opportunity to make substantive improvement, clear and well understood, should it be used; the default is substantive destruction which is rarely more helpful than harmful.
In software terms, they're looking to rip out entire modules, because they don't understand the business logic that demands those modules. Such substantive change would be pretty idiotic in almost all cases. Refactoring is virtually always the better choice, even if it's hard and takes a long time.
Ripping out a module entirely, only to find it was necessary after all, tends to lead to the same module being rebuilt piecemeal as the missing logic is identified and being as bad or worse than before. In the end, you still need to refactor it if you want it to be good. If you can't afford to refactor, (and you don't have well understood problems,) you're better off not changing anything.
Nonetheless, I largely agree with your metaphor(s) as a projection of how a bunch of things are depressingly likely to go wrong in the short term.
Specifically, these companies argue that the NLRB's structure grants excessive power to the agency, allowing it to make decisions without sufficient presidential oversight. This, they believe, undermines the checks and balances system and infringes on their rights as employers. They contend that the board's ability to create rules and regulations that have the force of law, encroaches on the legislative branch's power. Additionally, they raise concerns about the NLRB's adjudicative role, which combines executive and judicial functions, blurring the lines between the two branches.
By challenging the NLRB's constitutionality, these companies aim to limit the board's authority and influence over labor relations. They argue that the current structure of the NLRB is outdated and no longer serves the best interests of workers or employers. Ultimately, these challenges raise important questions about the balance of power between the federal government and private businesses, and the role of independent agencies in regulating labor relations.