These senators back this kind of poaching

They oppose pacts that limit workers’ options with franchises

Say you work at a Jiffy Lube 30 miles from your house. You’re happy enough there, but when you see an opening at another Jiffy Lube that’s around the corner from where you live, you can’t resist applying. After you apply, however, you don’t hear anything back.

It’s possible you just weren’t the candidate they wanted. But it’s also possible that you were never even considered, as your local Jiffy Lube was barred from hiring you thanks to a “non-poaching” agreement it signed with the corporate headquarters. The non-poaching pacts vary, but generally they eliminate or limit franchise owners’ ability to hire workers from other locations within the franchise.

The agreements are common at fast food giants and other chains, such as Burger King and H & R Block, and they’re gaining prominence: Non-poaching clauses are now included in up to 56 percent of large franchises, up about 20 percent from two decades ago, according to a report published recently by two prominent economists.

Worker advocacy groups have long opposed such agreements, arguing they hurt employees’ leverage in negotiating raises and stifle worker pay. And now the agreements are drawing renewed scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers — as well as from President Donald Trump’s Justice Department.

Democratic Sens. Cory Booker, N.J., and Elizabeth Warren, Mass., are introducing the first legislation in Congress that would make these arrangements illegal.

The bill would term these no-poaching clauses an “anti-competitive” practice, giving workers the ability to sue and the right to claim damages.

Their bill reflects the rising concerns among some academics and on the Hill about the role of “monopsony” power —a monopoly held by a purchaser or employer, rather than by a seller — in restraining wages, a theory that has gotten increasing attention among Democratic policymakers since the 2016 election.

Industry advocates defended the practice of “noncompete” clauses, arguing companies need to protect the investments they make in personnel. “Franchising has generated more wealth and opportunities for employees to move up the income ladder than any other business model in our nation’s history,” said Matthew Haller, a spokesperson for the International Franchise Association, while also acknowledging that in some cases changes to the law may be appropriate.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department is also reviewing the legality of these agreements, and it argues some violate federal antitrust law.