The goal is to prevent a former employee from divulging trade secrets to a competitor after termating their employment relationship and can also be used to prevent an employee from opening a competing business. In order to assess whether such non-compete agreements are contrary to competition, it is necessary to understand the balance of power in the wage negotiation process and to know to what extent one of the two parties can exploit the other. This merits a specific discussion on the framework and principles to be applied to such an analysis. The study of demand-side concentration in the labour market could therefore run counter to the traditional role of competition authorities. In fact, no-poaching agreements allow companies to reduce their costs by reducing their personnel costs and can pass this reduction on to end consumers. The use of anti-poaching agreements has benefited employers for years. New employees need to be trained and participate in an onboarding process that is usually expensive and time-consuming. Anti-poaching agreements allow employers to protect their investments in existing employees. In addition, these types of agreements also help employers retain talented employees who might otherwise be sought after by competing companies. Cappelli, Johnson and Starr discussed the broader impact of revising non-poaching deals in fast food chains in the show Knowledge@Wharton on Wharton Business Radio on SiriusXM 111. (Listen to the podcast at the top of this page.) Since non-poaching agreements eliminate competition, the government generally considers them a violation of antitrust law.