Se hai bisogno urgente del nostro intervento puoi contattarci al numero 370 14 89 430
Johnson examined the “economic case” for such agreements. “Many employers argue that these types of restrictive agreements protect the investments they make in workers like training, or other types of investments [they make] to attract clients with whom workers could build relationships and establish them with them,” he said. “The economic argument behind this is that if employers know that [they] can train a worker and the worker can simply leave immediately, [they] might have less incentive to provide that training. If [they] push the worker to sign one of these agreements, perhaps their incentive to provide that training increases and everyone is more productive. 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. In the fall of 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice`s antitrust division announced that from that date it “intends to pursue bare non-vaccination and wage agreements.” According to the Cartel Service, agreements are bare when they are not reasonably necessary for separate and legitimate commercial cooperation between employers. [and] are in themselves illegal because they eroded competition in the same irretrievable way as product pricing or customer award agreements.” Between the DOJ, Senators Warren and Booker, eleven attorneys general, and now the class action bar, the control of non-poaching clauses has never been higher. Given that the DOJ promises to bring more cases in the near future, including possible criminal prosecutions, you remain ready to continue the development of the situation in the coming months.  Leah Nylen, the number of “shocking” agreements discovered by the DOJ, says MLex Market Insight, May 17, 2018. Starr stated that the evidence is contrary to the impact of non-competition agreements on costs. “If you look at the people who have signed a non-compete clause, unlike those who don`t, it seems that those who sign them actually make a little more money,” he said. This could be the case because these workers are not low-wage workers, but managers or technology workers, he said.
At the same time, its survey revealed an increase in wages of up to 10% for workers who are informed of non-competition bans when they receive the job offer, not on the day they start working. However, this agreement did not retain the applicants` bar. Since August, at least two national fast food franchisors have been prosecuted in separate class actions involving cartel challenges and abuse of dominance of their non-poaching clauses. In particular, the two companies had already agreed to terminate the application of their non-poaching clauses. The applicants are therefore clearly seeking damages for the opportunities they may have missed in the past to change deductibles, even though those options are now open to them.