Relates to prohibiting agreements between employers that directly restrict the current or future employment of any employee

• Democratic1

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why the sponsor says this is needed

"No-poaching" agreements are the newest waive of restrictive employment agreements being used by employers to limit the mobility and freedom of their employees. Agreements not to poach or compete for workers among unaffiliated businesses are typically a violation of antitrust laws that were enacted to prevent employers from colluding to keep wages low. Yet, corporate franchises often claim that a franchisor and its franchisees should be held to a different standard, and the share of franchisors that included no-poaching clauses in their contracts grew from one-third to more than one-half-58 percent-of all franchisors between 1996 and 2016.* by the Center for American,Progress, some Attorneys General are taking action under their authority provided by existing antitrust laws upon learning of fast food corporations requiring franchisees to sign no poaching agreements. This legislation would provide further clarity than no-poaching agreements are banned in any form. Much like non-compete agreements, the entire purpose of these types of arrangements is to hinder the movement of employees. This type of arrangement removes the ability of employers to seek out employees they deem desirable, and can drive down workers' wages by barring companies from recruiting skilled employees. This is not in line with the spirits of free market and enterprise so many of these same corporations tout when attempting to shut down government regulations that would dictate their business practices. The "End Employer Collusion Act" would ban these restrictive employment agreements and empower employees to seek redress if they are damaged in any way by such an agreement.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.