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. Employers should review their existing contracts to determine if they do not have poaching and assess whether they should be removed. In addition, staff professionals and others involved in recruitment and compensation decisions should review the DOJ/FTC “guidelines” to identify and avoid antitrust pitfalls. The deluge of activities in this area of restrictive contract law will remain a hot topic for the foreseeable future, as will the threat of criminal and civil prosecutions for companies implementing non-poaching agreements. At the state level, there are significant differences depending on the conditions or conditions under which the company operates. Some states, such as California, North Carolina and Oklahoma, do not comply with non-competition bans as a whole. Other states have imposed various restrictions on employers who want to impose CNs, such as the authorization of certain anti-competitive roles. B or the requirement for employers to pay workers for each week they are prohibited from working for a competitor. As part of its enforcement and competition advice, the Cartels Department has been looking at companies and individuals for years how antitrust laws apply to recruitment and compensation decisions. In particular, the department protects labour markets and workers by actively examining and challenging non-discrimination and compensation agreements between employers.
When companies agree not to hire or hire, they agree not to compete with the work of those employees. When they deprive employees of competition in the labour market, they are deprived of employment opportunities, information and the ability to use competing offers to negotiate better terms of employment.