{{Short description|Anti-competitive employment practice}} {{distinguish|Anti-poaching}} '''Antipoaching''' (or '''no-poach agreement''') is an [[Anti-competitive practices|anti-competitive conduct]] where companies conspire not to hire each other's [[employee]]s.<ref>[https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ Apple, Google, others settle antipoaching lawsuit for $415 million - CNET], September 3, 2015, Lance Whitney, ''cNet.com'', retrieved at 2 March 2017</ref>
Antipoaching agreements, or no-poach agreements, are related to [[non-compete clause]]s, but distinct—no-poach agreements are among employers, non-compete clauses are between employer and company. In the United States, antipoaching agreements have been widespread among franchise businesses: Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors' contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to hire the workers of other franchisees.<ref> Alan B. Krueger and Orley Ashenfelter, [https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/11672/theory-and-evidence-on-employer-collusion-in-the-franchise-sector "Theory and Evidence on Employer Collusion in the Franchise Sector"] (2018).</ref> Some franchisors have since stated that they would drop those agreements.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/12/fast-food-chains-agree-drop-no-poaching-clauses/ Jeff Stein, "7 fast food chains agree to drop ‘no-poaching’ clauses,"] ''The Washington Post,'' July 12, 2018.</ref>
Antipoaching agreements may be illegal under U.S. antitrust law in some circumstances.<ref>Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, [https://www.justice.gov/atr/division-operations/division-update-spring-2019/no-poach-approach "No-poach approach,"] Spring 2019.</ref> Major high-tech companies in the United States, such as Adobe, Apple, Intuit, Intel, eBay, Google, LucasFilm and Pixel, entered into at least one no-poach agreement. These firms reportedly engaged in the following behaviors: "Managers informed recruiters which potential hires were off-limits and some human resources departments maintained written lists. Some agreements included additional anticompetitive restraints, such as prohibition of bidding wars. Enforcement was straightforward. In cases where a firm violated an agreement, its counterparty often contacted a senior manager at the violating firm, who would then put a stop to the violation." These tech firms were the basis of the [[High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation]]. A 2025 study found that this collusion reduced wages at the colluding firms by 5.6%, reduced stock bonuses for employees, and led to worse job satisfaction.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gibson |first=Matthew |date=2025 |title=Employer market power in Silicon Valley |doi=10.1093/ej/ueaf109 |url=https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1417&context=up_workingpapers |journal=The Economic Journal |article-number=ueaf109 }}</ref>
==See also== * [[Employee poaching]] * [[High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation]] * [[Non-compete clause]] * [[Market power]]
==References== {{Reflist}}
[[Category:Anti-competitive practices]]
{{business-stub}}