If employers were indeed exposed to competition in the wage market without the introduction of a minimum wage, they would not need this type of agreement. The economic symptom is therefore analyzed as an economic cause in Johnson`s argument. A salary premium is not what you are looking for in an economic analysis of this subject when there is a minimum wage. The reason you don`t see a difference in salary here is that the introduction of a minimum wage devours potential wage fluctuations, all of which would be in the form of a reduction in the market rate of pay. Workers who are at risk of theft or who require additional investment in training would not be compensated for more stable or productive workers. Thus, the employer can offset the cost of these risk factors by reducing wages. However, with the introduction of a minimum wage, the employer is essentially forced to bear the costs of bad workers and excessive risk of theft. With this excessive rate, there is no potential for wage premiums, just as wage reductions are made illegal. Therefore, the employer`s only recourse to compensate for the decrease in the cost of excessive age is an employee`s contractual obligation to work for a period that « repays ». It is the non-poaching agreement. The same issue is now being addressed in a group action filed in February in federal court in New York involving some of the world`s largest luxury retailers, including Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Saks and Prada.
In this action, it is alleged that the defendants entered into non-poaching agreements between themselves that prohibit employees from moving from one company to another. Employers who enter into non-poaching agreements with their competitors continue to risk civil and criminal liability for cartels and abuse of dominance. In addition, employers who have contractual non-employment or non-recruitment agreements with their employees run the risk that these provisions will be found to be unenforceable. For employers, especially those in Indiana, it is essential to review these agreements and, if necessary, update them. Not too many subjects related to restrictive alliances get a buzzworthy status. However, when government and federal authorities and class advocates start filing complaints nationally, and Fortune 500 companies in different sectors begin to establish themselves and agree to change the way they do business, well, that usually generates some excitement and attention. It seems that not a week has happened lately without a new title being discussed on the most recent hot topic in the world of restrictive alliances – the « No Poaching » agreement. Starr said there was a big debate these days about « pay transparency, » in which, for example, a candidate would like to know how much the previous person paid in that job. « There are a lot of questions if we were more transparent about wages, what the effects would be, » he said. « This discussion is important, but it ignores the fact that there are many non-salary characteristics for which we are absolutely not transparent, » such as non-disclosure agreements. He noted that, in many cases, new staff members are aware of intellectual property and confidentiality agreements on the day they take office.
It may be too late to reject them, especially if they have turned down other job offers. « The fact that these features are not transparent can be as important as pay transparency. » The problem is compounded by the fact that franchisee workers are generally unaware of and have not accepted non-poaching contracts with franchisors.