Final answer:
The tax law, holding company law, and the labor law of 1935 displeased business leaders as they favored labor rights and included regulations that business leaders saw as restrictive. These laws represented increased government intervention in a previously more laissez-faire environment, threatening the interests of businesses and their autonomy in labor practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The tax law, the holding company law, and the labor law enacted in 1935, such as the National Labor-Management Relations Act, would likely displease business leaders due to their significant enhancement of labor rights and powers. These laws were seen as an encroachment on the freedom of business operations and an alignment with workers' interests rather than purely business interests. By creating a more regulated environment, they were perceived as a shift from the laissez-faire attitude that had previously favored corporate autonomy.
During this period, businesses were used to minimal government intervention, which allowed for greater control over employment contracts and working conditions. The National Labor-Management Relations Act, for instance, granted workers the right to organize unions and required management to engage fairly with these unions. Such provisions upset the status quo and represented a shift towards a government that played a more active role in overseeing and regulating business practices.
Moreover, the establishment of regulations that could diminish profits, such as the restrictions on anti-competitive practices, also contributed to the discontent among business leaders. The social and economic reforms of the 1930s ushered in a new era of worker rights that inevitably conflicted with the interests of some business leaders.