Fast food chains agree to end ‘no poach’ agreements |

Fast food chains agree to end ‘no poach’ agreements

Paul Guggenheimer

In what’s being declared a win for workers, four national fast food chains agreed Tuesday to stop using “no-poach” agreements.

“No poach” agreements are clauses, often contained in fast-food franchise agreements, that prevent fast food workers from switching between employers of the same franchise in order to obtain a better job with a higher salary or improved working conditions.

Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced the agreement as part of a 14-state settlement led by Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

The agreements with Dunkin’, Arby’s, Five Guys, and Little Caesars settle an investigation announced by the states in July, 2018, over concerns that “no-poach” agreements limit the ability of low-wage workers to secure better paying jobs.

“’No-poach’ agreements unfairly exploit working women and men, especially low-wage workers, and this agreement holds major fast food franchises accountable,” said Shapiro. “These companies did the right thing by coming to the table and working with attorneys general to find solutions, and I hope that other food chains will also step up and follow suit.”

Under the terms of the settlements, the chains will stop including “no-poach” provisions in any future franchise agreements and stop enforcing the clause in any franchise agreements already in place.

Paul Guggenheimer is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-226-7706 or [email protected].

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.