Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 101 Publications in Labor & Monopsony
TOTM Former U.S. Labor Secretary Gene Scalia games out the future of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recently proposed rule that would ban the use of . . .
Former U.S. Labor Secretary Gene Scalia games out the future of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recently proposed rule that would ban the use of most noncompete clauses in today’s Wall Street Journal.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Happy New Year? Right, Happy New Year! The big news from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is all about noncompetes. From what were once the realms of . . .
Happy New Year? Right, Happy New Year!
The big news from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is all about noncompetes. From what were once the realms of labor and contract law, noncompetes are terms in employment contracts that limit in various ways the ability of an employee to work at a competing firm after separation from the signatory firm. They’ve been a matter of increasing interest to economists, policymakers, and enforcers for several reasons. For one, there have been prominent news reports of noncompetes used in dubious places; the traditional justifications for noncompetes seem strained when applied to low-wage workers, so why are we reading about noncompetes binding sandwich-makers at Jimmy John’s?
Amicus Brief Interest of Amicus Curiae[1] The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the . . .
The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates and has longstanding expertise in antitrust law.
Amici also include twenty scholars of antitrust, law, and economics at leading universities and research institutions across the United States. Their names, titles, and academic affiliations are listed in Appendix A. All have longstanding expertise in antitrust law and economics.
Amici respectfully submit that their amicus brief will aid the Court in reviewing the order of dismissal by explaining that Plaintiffs did not plead and could not prove any plausible product or geographic market. This is a point that Plaintiffs attempt to elide in their appellate brief that warrants this Court’s attention. The foundation of almost every antitrust claim is a plausible market definition, yet Plaintiffs’ claims in this case are premised on a labor market—limited to one company (McDonald’s), but nationwide in scope—that has no basis in economic reality.
In addition, amici explain why Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to rule of reason scrutiny. This case involves a vertical, intrabrand restraint between McDonald’s and its franchisees, which promoted interbrand competition. It was not a naked restraint on trade, but rather an ancillary restriction that furthered McDonald’s procompetitive goal of creating a strong and stable brand. Treating such a restraint as per se unlawful, as Plaintiffs ask this Court to do, would stifle the type of legitimate cooperation that facilitates output and would ultimately harm consumers.
Until 2017, McDonald’s franchise agreements included a provision that prevented franchisees from hiring workers from other McDonald’s restaurants within the six-month period immediately following the workers’ prior employment. Two employees sued McDonald’s in a putative class action, alleging that this provision—which the parties refer to as “Paragraph 14”—was an unlawful agreement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, that harmed competition by artificially suppressing wages. Plaintiffs argued that Paragraph 14 was per se unlawful or failed “quick look” review; on appeal (but not below), Plaintiffs also argue that Paragraph 14 fails scrutiny under the rule of reason. Brief of Appellants at 31-33, Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA LLC, No. 22-2333 & 22-2334 (7th Cir.) (“App. Br.”).
Under the rule of reason, Plaintiffs had the burden to plead and prove the relevant product and geographic markets within which McDonald’s allegedly exerted market power and caused the alleged anticompetitive effects. Plaintiffs’ claim has always been premised—explicitly or implicitly—on a single-brand and nationwide labor market for McDonald’s employees. (§ I.A). Although Plaintiffs shy away from that market on appeal, it is the only one discernible from the record and the only one on which Plaintiffs’ claims could possibly be premised. But that market is fatally flawed along the two axes that typically delineate antitrust markets: (1) geography and (2) products or services.
First, the relevant labor market is local: there is no national market for fast-food restaurant employees, as Plaintiffs suggest. Low-skilled restaurant workers sell their labor in local markets, primarily to avoid long commutes or relocation. The economic (and commonsense) reality is that a person applying for a McDonald’s job in Chicago, Illinois is not also looking for a McDonald’s job in Florida or Montana; nor are local McDonald’s restaurants recruiting employees nationwide. (§ I.B). Second, there is no McDonald’s-specific labor market for restaurant employees. McDonald’s restaurants compete vigorously with other fast-food and quick-service restaurants—and with firms outside the restaurant industry—for labor. Empirical economic evidence refutes Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary. (§ I.C).
Further, Plaintiffs cannot avoid the rule of reason (or their burden to plead and prove a relevant market) by invoking per se scrutiny. (§ II). First, Paragraph 14 was not a horizontal restraint; it was a vertical, intrabrand restraint between McDonald’s and its franchisees. (§ II.A). Second, Paragraph 14 was not a naked restraint on trade but was instead “ancillary” to McDonald’s procompetitive endeavor of developing its brand. (§ II.B). Third, Paragraph 14 does not fall in the narrow class of restrictions—like price fixing—universally condemned as anticompetitive. Nor are there sufficient economic studies showing that restraints like Paragraph 14 have a demonstrable and negative impact on trade, such that there would be a basis to depart from the default rule of reason standard. (§ II.C).
Market definition enables courts to determine whether firms possess market power capable of restricting competition. The market provides a locus for the assessment of that market power and of whether that power has been exploited to harm competition and consumers.
Accordingly, “courts usually cannot properly apply the rule of reason without an accurate definition of the relevant market.” Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2285 (2018). The rule of reason requires a court to assess the “actual effect” that a defendant’s conduct has on competition. Id. at 2284 (quoting Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 768 (1984)). And without knowing the relevant market, “there is no way to measure the defendant’s ability to lessen or destroy competition.” Id. at 2285 (quoting Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 177 (1965)).[2]
In the district court, Plaintiffs did not clearly define the relevant market in which Paragraph 14 allegedly harmed competition; and that failure defeats their claim under the rule of reason. See Agnew v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328, 347 (7th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal where “[p]laintiffs appear to have made the strategic decision to forgo identifying a specific relevant market,” and rejecting “post hoc arguments attempting to illuminate a buried market allegation”).
Plaintiffs are wrong to assert that they can rely on “direct evidence” of anticompetitive harm to avoid establishing a relevant market. App. Br. at 31. Even if they had such evidence, Plaintiffs would still have the burden to sketch out the “rough contours” of the relevant market and to show that McDonald’s commanded a substantial share of that market. See Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., 381 F.3d 717, 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (“[I]f a plaintiff can show the rough contours of a relevant market, and show that the defendant commands a substantial share of the market, then direct evidence of anticompetitive effects can establish the defendant’s market power[.]” (emphases added)). But Plaintiffs never inform this Court what product or geographic markets are involved here, even “roughly” speaking. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ references to their supposed “direct evidence” of anticompetitive harm, without regard to any market boundaries, App. Br. at 31-32, do not suffice.[3]
Rather than define a market, Plaintiffs fault the district court for assuming that their claim “depended upon a single, nationwide geographic market.” App. Br. at 31. But that assumption came not from the district court but from Plaintiffs themselves—as that was the only market potentially discernible in their complaints. See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 117; Turner Compl. ¶¶ 109-13 (implying a single-brand, nationwide market). While Plaintiffs try to obscure their single-brand, nationwide market for McDonald’s labor on appeal, that is the only one that Plaintiffs rely upon in their opening brief, albeit obliquely. See App. Br. at 31 (arguing that Paragraph 14 “suppressed worker pay nationwide”); id. at 33 (arguing that McDonald’s and its franchisees were the “discrete group of buyers” that were able to “hold down wages”).
Plaintiffs’ proposed market is both implausible and economically unsound. Antitrust markets typically have two dimensions: (1) a geographic market and (2) a product or services market. See Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 324 (1962). Plaintiffs’ single-brand, nationwide market fails along both dimensions.
First, to identify a relevant geographic market, the court must make a “careful selection of the market area in which the seller operates, and to which the purchaser can practicably turn for supplies.” Republic Tobacco, 381 F.3d at 738 (citing Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327 (1961)). In labor markets, the “sellers” are workers or job applicants selling their services (like Plaintiffs), and “purchasers” are employers (like McDonald’s) that compete with other firms to hire, employ, and retain the workers.
As the district court correctly found, low-wage restaurant employees sell their labor locally and McDonald’s restaurants compete only with geographically proximate employers to purchase that labor. See D.E. 372 (“Class Cert. Op.”) at 20-21. Fast-food and quick-serve restaurant employees are generally low-skilled and/or entry-level workers who “are looking for a position in the geographic area in which they already live and work, not a position requiring a long commute or a move.” Id. at 21.
While some employees might relocate for other reasons first, and then seek a restaurant job, it is not economically plausible that they would “search long distances for a low-skill job with the idea of then moving closer to the job.” Id. The costs of relocation—in economic terms, the “search” costs and “transition” costs—would far exceed any cost-adjusted increases in pay and benefits.
In practical terms, an hourly McDonald’s worker in Apopka, Florida who does not otherwise desire to move to California would not uproot her life, and leave family and friends, for a McDonald’s job in Los Angeles—even if the Los Angeles franchisee offers to raise her wages a few dollars per hour. The employee has many alternative opportunities that do not require relocation and, in any event, the higher cost of living in Los Angeles would negate the benefits of the wage increase. The total costs of relocation likely outweigh the marginal wage gain.
For similar reasons, an employee is unlikely to commute long distances—for example, from Urbana to Chicago, Illinois—to work at a McDonald’s, even if the McDonald’s in Chicago pays slightly higher wages than the one in Urbana. A marginal wage increase would not offset the time and “commuting costs”—i.e., gas and mileage. See Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application ¶ 552 (5th ed. 2022) (explaining that “commuting costs” limit a supplier’s ability to operate in a distant geographic market).
Nor is it plausible that a McDonald’s franchisee in Apopka, Florida would recruit workers nationwide. That franchisee also faces search costs in the labor market. It must advertise its job openings, hire recruiters, and interview applicants, among other things. It would not be worthwhile to incur the substantial costs of a nationwide search for employees, when those employees would likely remain at the job for a relatively short time, and when there are many local workers with similar skills who could fill the role.
To be sure, some highly skilled employees in other industries—for example, corporate executives or professional athletes—undoubtedly search for high-paying or prestigious jobs nationwide. And their potential employers recruit nationwide. For those types of job-seekers, their decisions turn on the scarcity of those jobs, the substantial personal and financial investments (“sunk costs”) they have made to be qualified for such positions (which essentially “lock” them into the nationwide market), and the high salaries or total compensation that make relocation worthwhile. Likewise, for the hiring firm, the search is justified by the small number of qualified candidates, widely distributed across the country, and by the expected benefits. For example, it would be worthwhile for a firm to search far and wide for a new CEO, knowing that there are only a few people in the country with the skills and leadership ability to lead the company out of financial troubles.
These rarefied exceptions confirm that the vast majority of labor markets are “geographically quite small.” Herbert Hovenkamp, Competition Policy for Labour Markets, U. Pa. Inst. L. & Econ. ¶ 12 (May 17, 2019). Applicants for low paying and fungible jobs have fundamentally different incentives than do corporate executives and professional athletes. The former do not have adequate incentives for a national search, given the substantial costs, plus relocation or long-distance commuting.
These intuitive points are supported by data and established economic methods. Several recent economic studies demonstrate that, “in a wide range of industries[,] geographic markets for employment are rather small,” and that this is “particularly true of low-wage employees.” Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra ¶ 550b (collecting studies). One empirical study shows that “more than 80% of [all] job applications occur where the applicant and prospective employer are within the same ‘commuting zone.’” Ioana Marinescu & Roland Rathelot, Mismatch Unemployment and the Geography of Job Search, 10(3) Am. Econ. J. Macro. 42 (2018).
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) employs a methodology that confirms the district court’s findings with respect to localized markets. When BLS collects employment and unemployment statistics, it examines the “economically integrated geographic area within which individuals can reside and find employment within a reasonable distance or can readily change employment without changing their place of residence.” BLS, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Geographic Concepts, (Mar. 20, 2020). According to BLS, metropolitan and micropolitan areas are the “major” “labor market areas” (LMAs)—not the country as a whole. Id. The balance of the nation’s LMAs comprise a larger number of smaller geographic areas. Id. BLS identifies thousands of these small LMAs for each decennial census, based on its analysis of highly localized commuting flows. Id; see also Data.Gov, Commuting Zones and Labor Market Areas, (Nov. 10, 2020).
Plaintiffs’ own expert witnesses acknowledged that a nationwide market was implausible in this case. Dr. Peter Capelli conceded that restaurant workers are employed in local geographic markets, defined by commuting distances. Class Cert. Op at 22-23 (citing Capelli Dep. at 235-36, D.E. 302-1 at 608-09) (“My testimony is that for the restaurant employees in particular, the crew employees, there may be labor markets of different geographic size and that the key issue there might not even be size, it might be commuting distance.”). And Dr. Hal Singer calculated that only 8% of McDonald’s employees commute ten or more miles to work. Id. at 23 (citing Singer Rep. ¶ 64, D.E. 271-5 at 54).
Other evidence in this case also demonstrates that market conditions vary substantially by location. McDonald’s own guidelines on worker pay account for local conditions. D.E. 302-19 at -997; D.E. 302-19 at -432, -444; see also D.E. 380 ¶¶ 40-50. The guidelines do not set forth a single, rigid nationwide formula—which one would expect to see if McDonald’s understood that its franchisees were competing for labor nationwide.
As this Court recently explained, “[t]he antitrust statutes require a ‘pragmatic’ and ‘factual’ approach to defining the geographic market,” and “[t]he market must ‘correspond to the commercial realities of the industry.’” Sharif Pharmacy, Inc. v. Prime Therapeutics, LLC, 950 F.3d 911, 917 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 336). Plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide market is neither pragmatic nor factual. It ignores the obvious commercial reality that local McDonald’s franchisees do not compete nationwide for low-skilled labor, and it ignores the empirical evidence that McDonald’s employees (and similarly situated low-wage employees) do not commute long distances or relocate for these types of jobs.
The outer boundaries of a product market are defined by the “reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it.” Sharif Pharmacy, 950 F.3d at 918 (quoting Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 325). Cross-elasticity of demand, here, reflects the degree to which a significant increase or decrease in wages paid by alternative employers changes the number of workers hired or hours worked (quantity demanded) at the employer in question. In the classic company town, the cross-elasticity of demand is zero. When there are substitutes, it is positive, indicating that “consumers would respond to a slight increase in the price of one product by switching to another product.” Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191, 201-02 (2d Cir. 2001); IIA Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra ¶ 562a.
In a “buyer-side” labor monopsony, such as Plaintiffs have alleged, the market is defined not by the competing sellers (employees), but by the availability of competing buyers (employers). See Todd, 275 F.3d at 201 (citing Roger D. Blair & Jeffrey L. Harrison, Antitrust Policy and Monopsony, 76 Cornell L. Rev. 297, 297-301, 308 (1991)). Thus, the key question is whether employees would see the various employers as reasonable substitutes for one another, such that they would respond to compensation changes by seeking those substitutes. Id. If so, then any of the reasonable substitutes must fall within the market definition for the plaintiff’s market to be plausible. See Rock v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 928 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1021 (S.D. Ind. 2013) (“Plaintiffs’ proposed market is impermissibly narrow because it ignores the existence of [substitutes].”).
In a properly defined labor market, the greater the availability of substitute employers, the less “market power” each employer can have, as employees can go elsewhere when one employer lowers its wages or fails to meet wage increases by others. When a labor market is highly concentrated, by contrast, the employer may be able to exert monopsony buying power. For example, a pure labor monopsony might exist in the classic “company town,” where there is only one large employer—such as a lumber mill or coal mine—that has wide discretion to set wages without employees leaving for other jobs. Those employees are, in effect, “locked in” to selling their labor to the single employer. Cf. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 472-73, 476 (1992) (seller can “lock in” customer to aftermarket for equipment repairs, if customers already purchased equipment in the foremarket and switching costs are high). In the modern economy, however, such examples are rare; and the market for hourly restaurant employees bears no resemblance to a company town.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs here allege that McDonald’s is a monopsony buyer of labor—not just in a highly concentrated market, but in a single-brand market for McDonald’s labor. App. Br. at 7. In other words, McDonald’s allegedly has monopsony power to set the wages at which it hires and retains employees because employees (or applicants) generally would not see any non-McDonald’s employment opportunities as reasonable substitutes.
Plaintiffs’ theory thus depends upon implausible assumptions about McDonald’s market power and the elasticity of demand: that substantial wage increases by alternative local employers—including, but not limited to, fast food or quick-service restaurants like Wendy’s, Burger King, KFC, and Subway—would have little or no impact on the ability of a local McDonald’s franchise to hire or retain workers at a given antecedent wage. That is not only implausible in this case, but there is no evidence that it is the norm across low-wage labor markets. See, e.g., Jordan D. Matsudaira, Monopsony in the Low-Wage Labor Market? Evidence from Minimum Nurse Staffing Regulations, 96(1) Rev. Econ. & Statistics 92, 102 (2014) (empirical data in low-wage labor markets are “difficult to reconcile with the notion that low-wage labor markets such as those for fast food workers are monopsonist”).
These assumptions underlying Plaintiffs’ alleged market defy basic economic principles and common sense. Courts are highly skeptical of alleged single-brand markets with no substitutes at all, as those markets are almost always artificial and litigation-driven. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 530 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting single-brand market); Todd, 275 F.3d at 200 & n.3 (“Cases in which dismissal on the pleadings is appropriate frequently involve . . . failed attempts to limit a product market to a single brand, franchise, institution, or comparable entity….” (collecting cases)).
McDonald’s does not have monopsony power in any relevant market because, from an employee’s perspective, there are many reasonable substitutes in the geographic areas in which a given McDonald’s franchisee operates. McDonald’s franchisees compete vigorously for labor with other local employers within and without the quick-service industry. As the district court observed, there are multitudes of adequate, substitute employers for low-wage employees—including (1) other quick-serve restaurants, like Burger King, Wendy’s, Arby’s, KFC, Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, Chipotle, and Jimmy John’s; (2) other restaurants, like Applebee’s; (3) larger retailers, like Walmart, Sam’s Club, and Costco; and (4) a host of other businesses like grocery stores and hotels. Class Cert. Op. at 21-22.
Even narrowing substitutes to just quick-service restaurants, the district court found numerous (even hundreds of) substitute employers within close geographic proximity to each of the named Plaintiffs, and the number of alternative quick-service restaurants dwarfed the number of McDonald’s franchises in the same area. Id. at 6.
Plaintiffs’ claim of monopsony buying power thus depends on the far-fetched premise that McDonald’s can suppress wages, notwithstanding hundreds of non-McDonald’s quick-service restaurants—and numerous other alternative employers—near Plaintiffs and other putative class members. In reality, if McDonald’s lowered its wages (or other employers raised theirs, and McDonald’s did not match), McDonald’s would lose its supply of labor. See Madison 92nd St. Assocs., LLC v. Courtyard Mgmt. Corp., 624 F. App’x 23, 29 (2d Cir. 2015) (in labor markets involving entry-level work, “it is beyond doubt that [employers] would have to increase their wages to retain any employees” if nearby employers “suddenly doubled the wages they paid to their employees”).
To evade this economic and commonsense reality, Plaintiffs and their expert, Dr. Singer, attempted to attribute monopsony power to McDonald’s as a structural feature of the labor economy in general. In other words, in their view, all employers of low-wage workers enjoy monopsony power in their labor markets, and, ipso facto, McDonald’s has market power in a single-brand market nationwide (or in each and every local labor market) because it employs low-wage workers.
In his expert report, for example, Dr. Singer characterizes economic literature as arguing that the ability of firms to suppress wages is “surprisingly common throughout the economy.” D.E. 271-5 (Singer Rep. ¶ 17). Thus, he stated, it “would be consistent with this literature . . . [t]hat McDonald’s-branded restaurant owners also face a low elasticity of labor supply[.]” Id.; see also id. ¶ 39 (“In light of [the economic literature], it is likely that both McDonald’s Franchisees and the McOpCos would continue to exercise some degree of monopsony power over their employees, even in the absence of the No-Hire Agreement.”).
On appeal, Plaintiffs point to Dr. Singer’s opinions about labor monopsonies, in general, as evidence that McDonald’s, specifically, had market power and could suppress wages in a proposed single-brand market for McDonald’s labor. See App. Br. at 30-33 (arguing that Plaintiffs “buttressed their direct proof of detrimental effects with substantial economic scholarship showing that low?wage employers, including those in the fast food sector, possess market power over their employees”); see also id. at 51 (arguing that “an overview of economic research demonstrat[es] that employers exercise significant monopsony power over their employees”).
Whatever the “structural” features of broader markets—comprising many low-wage employers and firms—those features say nothing about one company’s individual market power and ability to harm competition in a properly defined market. In any event, even if such a sweeping claim could suffice to carry one’s burden of proof as to a specific defendant, the claim is still inaccurate and inconsistent with the economic features of the quick-service restaurant industry. That industry is characterized by low barriers to entry for employees, extremely high turnover rates, and substantial wage growth.[4]
First, “[f]ood and beverage serving and related workers typically have no requirements for formal education or work experience to enter the occupation.” BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Food and Beverage Serving and Related Workers, (Sept. 8, 2022). Unlike corporate executives and professional athletes, fast-food restaurant employees do not make large investments to obtain restaurant positions. Thus, they are not “locked in” to any one restaurant or even the restaurant industry, contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument that there are “high switching costs” for restaurant employees. App. Br. at 34.
Indeed, recent data show that the turnover in the quick-service sector is incredibly high, at around 144%—which means that if a restaurant has a total of 30 people on staff at any given time, it faced about 43 departures in the last year alone. See Daily Pay, The Turnover and Retention Rates for QSR Businesses (Nov. 15, 2022). BLS also recently found that the seasonally-adjusted “quit rate” for the accommodation and food services industry was 5.8% as of October 2022—higher than any other industry. See BLS, Economic News Release, Job Openings and Labor Turnover, Table 4, Quits levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted (Jan. 4, 2023). When restaurant workers quit, moreover, they frequently leave the restaurant industry altogether, creating high numbers of job openings for new entrants into restaurant sector employment. See BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Food and Beverage Serving and Related Workers, (Sept. 8, 2022).
Moreover, fast-food workers in 2021, on average, benefitted from a 10% wage increase from 2020. See Dominick Reuter and Madison Hoff, A 10% pay increase and 8 other stats show how crazy it is to work in fast food right now, Business Insider (Aug. 24, 2021). Such rapid wage growth undermines Plaintiffs’ claim that monopsony power is a structural feature of the restaurant industry. To the contrary, this wage growth suggests that normal market factors of supply and demand are at play. Cf. Richard A. Epstein, Antitrust Overreach in Labor Markets: A Response to Eric Posner, 15 NYU J. L. & Liberty 407, 432 (2022) (“There is no global evidence, given the chronic fluctuations and frequent shortages, to believe that labor markets are rife with hidden pockets of monopsony power that function as economic black holes.”).
Finally, the most robust study of the relationship between wages and hours worked in fast-food labor markets yielded results that are consistent with competitive labor markets, rather than a monopsony model. See David Neumark and William Wascher, Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Comment, 90 Am. Econ. Rev. 1362, 1382 (2000) (critiquing the famous Card & Krueger minimum-wage study using direct data, rather than surveys, and looking at hours worked rather than overall employment; and finding that fast-food employers make wage and hour decisions consistent with “the prediction of the textbook [competitive] model”); see also David Neumark and William L. Wascher, Minimum Wages 106 (MIT Press 2007) (reviewing literature on low-wage restaurant workers and concluding that “the low-wage labor market can be reasonably approximated by the neoclassical competitive model”).
Overall, the empirical data show that the labor markets in which restaurants participate are dynamic and competitive, not dominated by monopsonists with the power to suppress wages at will.
Plaintiffs cannot avoid their burden to plead and prove a market by insisting on per se analysis or even “quick look” review of Paragraph 14. The rule of reason governs Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims with respect to Paragraph 14 for at least three reasons. First, the restriction was a vertical, intrabrand restraint, not a horizontal one. Second, even if it were horizontal, it was still ancillary to the procompetitive franchise agreement. Third, Paragraph 14 does not fall within that narrow class of restrictions—such as price fixing—universally and historically condemned as anticompetitive. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2155-56 (2021) (explaining “spectrum” of antitrust analysis).
As noted above, McDonald’s vigorously competes with numerous firms in both labor markets and the output market. Its competitive efforts have included various intrabrand restraints among its franchisees that foster a strong, consistent brand identity, along with shared marketing and product development. That successful brand identity is what attracts individual franchisees to open and operate McDonald’s restaurants. Because Paragraph 14 was such a vertical restraint, and ancillary to McDonald’s procompetitive objectives, it cannot be per se unlawful. Rather, it is subject to full rule of reason analysis.
Paragraph 14 is a vertical, not horizontal, restraint. It was conceived and imposed by the franchisor, McDonald’s—not competing franchisees.
In 1955, McDonald’s included in its franchise agreement the predecessor to the Paragraph 14 restriction as part of an initial bundle of brand standards. That original franchise agreement also included limits on, among other things, product offerings and territorial exclusivity, as many franchise agreements do. D.E. 380-20. The terms of the agreement were consistent across franchisees, and were designed, insisted upon, and monitored by McDonald’s itself. Paragraph 14 was not created as part of an agreement among horizontal competitors, nationally or in any particular geographic labor market. Indeed, the large national (and subsequently international) network of McDonald’s franchises did not yet exist when the key elements of the franchise agreement were established.
Plaintiffs suggest the restraint was per se unlawful because corporate-owned restaurants, McOpCos, were horizontal competitors with independently owned franchisees. See App. Br. at 25, 44. In those local markets comprising both McOpCos and independently owned franchises, the district court found the restraint horizontal, but ancillary and subject to the rule of reason. Op. at 9. But the district court also identified vertical aspects to the terms that, in fact, obtain in most geographic markets. Id. at 4-5.
Paragraph 14 was necessarily a vertical restraint in the twenty states in which there were no McOpCo restaurants at all. Class Cert. Op. 17. In the remaining states, Paragraph 14 still operated as a vertical restraint in the local labor markets that had only independently owned franchisees or McOpCos, but not both. In other words, it was impossible for the restraint to operate horizontally on a national level, because the putative competition between independent franchisees and McOpCos could not have occurred in the many labor markets in which there were no McOpCos. Id. (finding that Plaintiffs have “not [ ] put forth evidence that McOpCos compete with franchisees in every part of the United States”).
Vertical restraints, like Paragraph 14, are generally evaluated under the rule of reason because they often foster interbrand competition. Thus, for decades, the Supreme Court has whittled down the types of vertical restraints that are subject to per se condemnation. In 1977, the Court refused to extend per se illegality to vertical non-price restraints, noting that vertical restrictions tend to promote interbrand competition, “the primary concern of antitrust law.” Cont’l T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 49, 52 n.19, 58 (1977). A decade later, the Court observed that “a rule of per se illegality for vertical nonprice restraints was not needed or effective to protect intra brand competition.” Bus. Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elects. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 725 (1988). And, in 2007, the Court repudiated the prohibition of vertical price restraints that it had adopted nearly a century earlier. See Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007) (overruling Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), and subjecting vertical price restraints to rule of reason analysis).
In these decisions, the Court repeatedly emphasized that any departure from the rule of reason “must be based on demonstrable economic effect, rather than . . . upon formalistic line drawing.” Bus. Elecs., 485 U.S. at 724; see also Leegin, 551 U.S. at 889 (applying rule of reason in part because “economics literature is replete with procompetitive justifications for a manufacturer’s use of resale price maintenance”).
While Plaintiffs seek a departure from the rule of reason here, economic research confirms that vertical restraints—including franchisor-franchisee restraints—tend to be procompetitive. Reviewing the empirical and theoretical literature on vertical restraints, Lafontaine and Slade observed that:
[T]he empirical evidence concerning the e?ects of vertical restraints on consumer wellbeing is surprisingly consistent. Speci?cally, it appears that when manufacturers choose to impose such restraints, not only do they make themselves better o? but they also typically allow consumers to bene?t from higher quality products and better service provision.
Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, Exclusive Contracts and Vertical Restraints: Empirical Evidence and Public Policy, 10 Handbook of Antitrust Economics 391, 408-09 (Buccirossi ed., 2008); see also Francine Lafontaine & Margaret E. Slade, Transaction Cost Economics and Vertical Market Restrictions—Evidence, 55(3) The Antitrust Bulletin 587 (2010).
The rule of reason is especially appropriate here because Paragraph 14 is not only a vertical restraint, but an intrabrand one as well. And intra-franchise no-hire agreements are fundamentally different from inter-company restraints for two principal reasons.
First, intra-franchise labor restraints do not restrict output or price in the labor market because they do not affect the ability of alternative employers to compete for workers—whether those employers operate other types of quick-service restaurants or any of the myriad establishments that compete for the same pool of lower-skilled workers.
Second, even if McDonald’s did have the ability to confer labor monopsony power on local franchisees (it does not, see infra), it had no economic incentive to do so. Creating local labor monopsonies would suppress wages in those areas. That would reduce the quantity of labor employed and, in turn, suppress output in the downstream product market (i.e., food sales). See, e.g., Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Worker Welfare and Antitrust, __ U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 10, 13 (2022) (“[T]he demand for labor as an input is closely correlated with the amount of product or service output that the firm is generating.”). But McDonald’s as a franchisor depends on product output for royalties; it has no desire to reduce its royalties by creating dysfunction in the labor market.
Because Paragraph 14 is a vertical and intrabrand restraint, it must be subject to the rule of reason.
Paragraph 14 is also subject to scrutiny under the rule of reason (rather than per se or quick look analysis) because it was “ancillary” to a procompetitive franchise agreement. In other words, there was a clear procompetitive rationale for the entire bundle of vertically imposed restraints embodied in the McDonald’s franchise agreement: brand quality and consistency. Paragraph 14 promoted that larger endeavor and was not a naked restraint on trade.
For example, Paragraph 14 limited the ability of individual franchisees to free-ride on training investments by McDonald’s and other franchisees. That in turn encouraged investment in employee development and training, and in the McDonald’s system and brand more generally. Limits on intrabrand employee raiding foster brand consistency and stability, which also are advantageous for the growth of a nationwide brand. See, e.g., Gregory J. Werden, The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine after Dagher, 8 Sedona Conf. J. 17, 21 (2007).
Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that Paragraph 14 cannot be regarded as ancillary because it was not “reasonably necessary” to the procompetitive goals of the franchise agreement, purportedly demonstrated by the fact that the cessation of the restraint in 2017 was not fatal to McDonald’s franchise system. App. Br. at 23. That argument claims too much and shows too little.
As a legal matter, ancillarity does not require a showing that restraints are strictly necessary, but only that they “may contribute to the success of a cooperative venture.” Polk Bros., Inc. v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 776 F.2d 185, 189 (7th Cir. 1985). A restraint is ancillary, in other words, if, “at the time it was adopted,” it bears a reasonable relationship to the joint venture’s success. Id. (emphasis added); see also Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290, 339-40 (2d Cir. 2008) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). By pointing to the fact that McDonald’s was still able to sign franchisees after 2017, Plaintiffs implicitly argue that a restraint can be ancillary only if its removal destroys the entire endeavor. That is not the law. In other words, a company’s decision to remove one part of a bundle of its practices does not mean the part that was removed never contributed to success of the business. Moreover, to require that businesses precisely calibrate the timing of their policy changes and the substance of those changes would chill the ability of businesses to develop and test new policies and business models. Cf. Werden, supra, at 23-24 (comprehensive analysis by DOJ economist rejecting strict-necessity test).
Paragraph 14 is not one of those few restrictions—such as price fixing and boycotts—that have been universally and historically condemned as anticompetitive; we are aware of no cases holding that this restraint is per se unlawful, and Plaintiffs cite none. See App. Br. at 25 (citing only inapposite decisions and Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc., 47 F.4th 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2022), which held that a no-hire agreement was “concerted activity” under Section 1 of the Sherman Act but instructed the district court “in the first instance” to determine the level of scrutiny). Accordingly, there is a strong presumption that the rule of reason applies. Bus. Elecs., 485 U.S. at 726; see also Alan J. Meese, In Praise of All or Nothing Dichotomous Categories: Why Antitrust Law Should Reject the Quick Look, 104 Geo. L.J. 835, 878-79 (2016) (“Declaring all horizontal restraints inherently suspect would presumptively condemn all manner of cooperation necessary to allocate resources to their highest valued use, relegating economic actors to cooperation achieved through atomistic interaction in the spot market or complete integration.”).
Plaintiffs do not offer any reason to depart from that standard, nor is there one. As the Supreme Court has held, a departure from rule of reason must be “justified by demonstrable economic effect.” Id. Yet there is a dearth of economic studies on the effects of this type of intrabrand no-hire or no-poach agreement on the labor market. Indeed, the Ashenfelter and Krueger study, on which Plaintiffs’ expert relied, states that “systematic evidence on the impact of no-poaching agreements on workers’ pay and within-franchise job mobility is unavailable.” Ashenfelter & Krueger, supra n.4, at 21. Moreover, to evaluate the impact of no-poach agreements on pay and mobility, one would have to control for a number of important variables—e.g., inter-firm variation in the terms of no-poach agreements, inter-firm variation in the bundling of employment restrictions, and interstate variation in the enforceability of employment restrictions. The only study we are aware of that attempts to do so concludes that elimination of no-poach clauses “causes minimal reductions in job concentration and no increase in wages.” Daniel S. Levy, et al., No-Poaching Clauses, Job Concentration and Wages: A Natural Experiment Generated by a State Attorney General, Advanced Analytical Consulting Group, Inc., at 1 (Jan. 23, 2020).
While the Court has said that a departure from the rule of reason should not be based on “formalistic line drawing,” that is precisely what Plaintiffs (and amici Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Dept. of Justice) propose. For example, Plaintiffs argue that per se treatment is appropriate because (1) in a small number of geographic markets, there are both McOpCos and independently owned franchisees,[5] and (2) interbrand no-poach agreements have been found by some courts analogous to market allocation agreements. App. Br. at 25, 44. But two analogies do not an equivalence make. Even in the limited and atypical markets comprising both McOpCos and independently owned McDonald’s franchises, there is still no evidence of monopsony power over the labor market. As the district court noted regarding Plaintiff Deslandes, alternative employers outnumbered McDonald’s franchises by more than a factor of twenty.
Judicial inexperience and limited economic literature, as well as the facts on the ground, all suggest that this was precisely the type of business practice for which more elaborate economic study is needed before subjecting it to per se condemnation.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm.
Dirk Auer is the Director of Competition Policy at the International Center for Law & Economics and Adjunct Professor at the University of Liege in Belgium.
Jonathan M. Barnett is the Torrey H. Webb Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.
James C. Cooper is a Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.
Richard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University School of Law.
Luke M. Froeb is the William C. Oehmig Chair in Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship at Vanderbilt University Owen School of Management.
Harold Furchtgott-Roth is a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Daniel J. Gilman is a Senior Scholar at the International Center of Law & Economics.
Janice Hauge is a Professor of Economics at the University of North Texas Department of Economics.
Justin (Gus) Hurwitz is a Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law.
Stan J. Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Abbott (Tad) Lipsky, Jr. is an Adjunct Professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Daniel A. Lyons is a Professor & Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at Boston College Law School.
Geoffrey A. Manne is President and Founder of the International Center for Law & Economics and a Distinguished Fellow at the Northwestern University Center on Law, Business & Economics.
Scott E. Masten is a Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business.
Alan Meese is the Ball Professor of Law and Dean’s Faculty Fellow at William & Mary Law School.
Paul H. Rubin is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economic Emeritus at the Emory University Department of Economics and Law School.
Vernon L. Smith is the George L. Argyros Endowed Chair in Finance and Economics at the Chapman University Argyros School of Business of Economics. Professor Smith was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2022.
Michael E. Sykuta is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri.
Gregory J. Werden is a retired economist at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
John M. Yun is an Associate Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.
[1] All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(4)(E), counsel for ICLE represents that no counsel for any of the parties authored any portion of this brief and that no entity, other than amicus curiae or its counsel, monetarily contributed to the preparation or submission of this brief.
[2] See Gregory J. Werden, Why (Ever) Define Markets? An Answer to Professor Kaplow, 78 Antitrust L.J. 729, 741 (2013) (“Alleging the relevant market in an antitrust case . . . identifies the competitive process alleged to be harmed.”); Jonathan B. Baker, Market Definition: An Analytical Overview, 74 Antitrust L.J. 129, 129 (2007) (“Market definition is often the most critical step in evaluating market power and determining whether business conduct has or likely will have anticompetitive effects.”).
[3] Cf. Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F.3d 928, 937 (7th Cir. 2000) (“direct evidence” suffices where the parties agreed on a nationwide market, and the defendant held “20% of the national wholesale market and up to 49% of some local wholesale markets”).
[4] Dr. Singer misconstrues a key study in the limited economic literature regarding franchise hiring terms. That study—Orley Ashenfelter & Alan B. Krueger, Theory and Evidence on Employer Collusion in the Franchise Sector, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 11672 (July 2018) (cited at Singer Rep. ¶¶ 20, 23)—did not employ a causal design, and it did not establish—nor even purport to establish—that employers generally have or exercise antitrust-relevant market power, as Dr. Singer suggests. Singer Rep. ¶ 23. The study also found widespread use of no-poach terms among many brands that did not enjoy significant market, indicating that market power is not a prerequisite for a franchise to impose no-poach agreements.
[5] FTC and DOJ argue that assessing the horizontality of “employee-allocation agreements in the franchise context . . . requires a fact-bound evaluation of whether the agreement limits rivalry between actual or potential competitors.” DOJ & FTC Br. at 26-27 n.8. But, as noted above, there is undisputed evidence that in several states and local markets there was no competition between independently owned franchisees and McOpCos. Class Cert. Op. 17.
TOTM The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Jan. 5 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Non-Compete Clauses” (NPRMNCC) is the first substantive FTC Act Section 6(g) “unfair methods . . .
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Jan. 5 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Non-Compete Clauses” (NPRMNCC) is the first substantive FTC Act Section 6(g) “unfair methods of competition” rulemaking initiative following the release of the FTC’s November 2022 Section 5 Unfair Methods of Competition Policy Statement. Any final rule based on the NPRMNCC stands virtually no chance of survival before the courts. What’s more, this FTC initiative also threatens to have a major negative economic-policy impact. It also poses an institutional threat to the Commission itself. Accordingly, the NPRMNCC should be withdrawn, or as a “second worst” option, substantially pared back and recast.
Presentations & Interviews ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was a guest on the Mornings with Brian Haldane show on Talk 107.3 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to discuss the . . .
ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was a guest on the Mornings with Brian Haldane show on Talk 107.3 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to discuss the Federal Trade Commission’s challenge to Facebook parent Meta’s proposed acquisition of virtual-reality app-maker Within. The full interview is embedded below.
https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Mornings-with-Brian-Haldane-Brian-Albrecht-01-09-2023-Tal.mp3
TOTM One of my favorite books is Thomas Sowell’s Knowledge and Decisions, in which he builds on Friedrich Hayek’s insight that knowledge is dispersed throughout society. Hayek’s . . .
One of my favorite books is Thomas Sowell’s Knowledge and Decisions, in which he builds on Friedrich Hayek’s insight that knowledge is dispersed throughout society. Hayek’s insight that markets can bring dispersed but important knowledge to bear with substantial effectiveness is one that many of us, especially economists, pay lip service to, but it often gets lost in day-to-day debates about policy. Sowell uses Hayek’s insight to understand and critique social, economic, and political institutions, which he judges in terms of “what kinds of knowledge can be brought to bear and with what effectiveness.”
TOTM On Jan. 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to prohibit employers from entering non-compete clauses with workers. The proposed rule . . .
On Jan. 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to prohibit employers from entering non-compete clauses with workers. The proposed rule would extend to all workers, whether paid or unpaid, and would require companies to rescind existing non-compete agreements within 180 days of publication of the final rule. The FTC will soon publish the NPRM in the Federal Register, triggering a 60-day public comment period.? The rule could be finalized by the end of the year; court challenges to the final rule are likely to follow.
Popular Media President Joe Biden’s antitrust enforcers were desperate for a win. While claiming to be tough on antitrust, their track record has been far from impressive. . . .
President Joe Biden’s antitrust enforcers were desperate for a win. While claiming to be tough on antitrust, their track record has been far from impressive. The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department have challenged fewer mergers than they did during the Trump administration, and their challenges have rarely been successful. Now, the DOJ’s antitrust division has succeeded in blocking the merger of two publishing houses: Penguin–Random House and Simon & Schuster. Three weeks after the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., handed down an order halting the deal, Penguin’s corporate owner Bertelsmann made it official: the $2.2 billion merger has been scrapped.
ICLE Issue Brief Introduction Over the past few years, several pundits and politicians have proposed introduction of German-style “sectoral bargaining” in the United States. In such a system, . . .
Over the past few years, several pundits and politicians have proposed introduction of German-style “sectoral bargaining” in the United States. In such a system, unions representing all employees in a sector bargain over the terms and conditions of employment for employees at all firms in that sector.
Several candidates in the 2020 U.S. Democratic Party presidential primaries included proposals for labor-market reforms that were based explicitly on such ideas.[1] Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act (FAST Act), which creates a “fast food council” comprising a mix of government officials, fast-food franchisors and franchisees, and representatives of fast-food workers.[2] Among other duties, this council would be responsible for determining wages and working conditions in the fast-food industry.[3] If implemented, such government-mandated industry-level bargaining would be unique in the United States and, as we discuss in this issue brief, borrows important features from European sectoral-bargaining models, even as such models have been falling out of favor in Europe.
The premise of such proposals is that “sectoral bargaining” is better for workers and could even protect the economy from adversarial labor-market disputes. But would Americans really be better off under sectoral bargaining?
This brief, released in conjunction with a companion piece on the German experience with sectoral bargaining,[4] considers the evidence for and against the introduction of German-style sectoral bargaining in the United States. It begins with a brief explanation of the differences between U.S. and German collective-bargaining systems. Sections 2 and 3 outline the advantages and disadvantages of German-style sectoral bargaining. It should be stressed at the outset that Germany’s experience is very much a function of that nation’s history and constitution. But even in Germany, sectoral bargaining has been forced to adapt to the changing nature of employment over the past half-century.
Germany’s unique experience is explored further in Section 5, which contrasts it with other jurisdictions that have implemented sectoral bargaining. This is followed, in Section 6, with a discussion of the prospects for implementing sectoral bargaining in the United States. The discussion focuses on both legal and practical issues that would affect the potential for successful implementation. Finally, Section 7 discusses the likely outcome of implementing U.S. sectoral bargaining.
In the United States, the vast majority of employees in most areas of economic activity are employed under at-will contracts negotiated directly between the employer and the employee.[5] Only about 16 million Americans, 11.6% of employees, currently have their employment contracts negotiated by a labor union.[6] Union membership as a proportion of U.S. employees peaked in 1954 at about 35%.[7]
By contrast, in Germany, the employment contracts of about 52% of the nation’s employees are governed through agreements negotiated by labor unions.[8] Meanwhile, about 40% of German employees have representation in works councils.[9] (These groups likely overlap considerably.)
In the United States, negotiations between labor unions and employers typically occur either at the single-unit level (e.g., a manufacturing plant, warehouse, or other location-specific entity) or sometimes at the firm level. In practice, this means that workers at a particular jobsite or firm delegate responsibility to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment to a representative or group of representatives, who then undertake such negotiations with the management of that jobsite or firm.
While there are state and national-level organizations representing unionized workers in various U.S. economic sectors (e.g., utilities, transportation, warehousing, movie production), unlike their German counterparts, such groups do not participate in negotiations with state or national employer groups over the terms and conditions of employment. In this context, their role is primarily political. For example, unions persuaded Congress to pass the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, which established certain statutory protections for employees, including the “right to strike,” which amounts to a prohibition on employers from firing employees who refuse to work under certain circumstances.[10] For many years, state legislatures also empowered unions to require employers to garnish the wages of both unionized and non-unionized employees to cover union dues. In 2018, this was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.[11]
By contrast, negotiations between German labor unions and employers often occur at the sectoral level.[12] As a result, in many cases, both labor unions and firms have organized themselves into sector-based coalitions, at least for the purposes of negotiating the terms and conditions of employment. In other words, workers effectively delegate responsibility to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment to an organization that represents workers in various fields from various companies. Firms likewise delegate negotiating responsibility to industry groups that may include firms offering a range of products and services that use various technologies.
In addition to sectoral bargaining via unions, German employees have established local (plant) and/or firm-level representation through “works councils.” These councils are independent of the unions and negotiate with individual firms to establish variations from national sectoral arrangements.[13] Furthermore, German companies with more than 500 employees, are in, general required to have employee representation on their supervisory boards (equivalent to boards of directors) as part of a process known as “co-determination.”[14]
Advocates of sectoral bargaining argue that it has numerous advantages over plant or firm-level bargaining. As noted in the companion piece to this brief by Matthias Jacobs and Matthias Münder, the primary reasons for this are:
Figure 1: Comparing German, US, and OECD Labor Markets
Advocates argue that these advantages of sectoral bargaining have generated substantial economic benefits. In particular, they point to the following facts about the German economy:
While sectoral bargaining and other features of Germany’s system of employee representation may have certain advantages and related economic benefits, it also has disadvantages and associated economic costs. The main disadvantages, as noted in the companion piece, are:
These disadvantages of sectoral bargaining have contributed to Germany experiencing several economic costs relative to the United States. Most notably:
Not all the benefits and costs described in Sections II and III can necessarily be ascribed to Germany’s system of sectoral bargaining. Co-determination through works councils and employee membership of company boards likely also played significant roles, as have features of German culture. Unfortunately, it is difficult to parse the roles each of these mechanisms play at a macro level without looking at the micro-level detail, either through cross-sectional comparisons (see Section 5) or by looking at the effects of changes over time.
Figure II: Comparing German, US, and OECD Output per Capita
SOURCE: World Bank. Figures are GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP) in constant 2017 international dollars.
Germany’s system of sectoral bargaining has undergone some substantial changes over the course of the past quarter-century. Since 1996, the proportion of German employees working under a sectoral-bargaining agreement has fallen by more than 35%.[34] The main drivers of this reduction have been the changing nature of work and increasing exposure of German markets to international competition. Employers have responded in four primary ways:
First, there has been a shift away from formal participation in collective-bargaining agreements and toward more informal “orientation” to such agreements. As noted above, about 20% of establishments report adopting this approach, which provides employers with considerably more flexibility, because the formal rules do not apply.
Second, employers are increasingly choosing to include specific flexibilities in their sectoral-bargaining agreements that allow them to reduce the wages they offer below the formally agreed-upon levels. There are two main types of such flexibility:
Third, many larger firms now outsource work that previously was done by low-paid in-house workers. For example, a 2017 study found that the proportion of retailers employing in-house janitorial staff fell from 82% in 1975 to 20% in 2009.[35]
Fourth, there is a strong correlation between firm size and adoption of collective-bargaining agreements. Fewer than 20% of firms with less than 100 employees are covered by such agreements, while more than 50% of firms with more than 500 employees are covered.[36] This suggests that smaller, more dynamic firms in Germany’s innovative Mittelstand (SME) sector, which accounts for more than 99% of companies in the country, are increasingly avoiding collective-bargaining agreements.[37]
With the decline in sectoral bargaining, the inclusion of hardship and opening clauses in new agreements, and the outsourcing of low-wage jobs, many of the putative advantages of the German system have been eroded. For example:
At the same time, the decline in rigidly enforced sectoral bargaining likely has helped Germany to avoid the problems experienced in jurisdictions with more rigid approaches, such as France and Italy, as Germany has experienced more robust economic growth over the past two decades (see Figure 3). It is also notable, however, that France (since 2008) and Italy (since 2011) likewise have begun to shift away from sectoral bargaining and toward firm-level bargaining.[40]
Figure III: Output per Capita in Germany, France, and Italy
Source: World Bank. Figures are GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP) in constant 2017 international dollars.
Nonetheless, some attempts to make the German system more flexible have been thwarted. For example, a recent proposal by the Confederation of German Employers Associations to break down complex agreements into modular elements—which would have enabled employers to adopt only those elements that are most relevant to their firms, plants, and employees—was rejected by IG Metall, Germany’s largest labor union.[41]
As noted in the introduction, there has been a recent push to introduce sectoral bargaining in the United States. This section examines whether German-style sectoral bargaining could be introduced here, with particular attention to the legal constraints.
German sectoral bargaining relies, in part, on the existence of national-level bodies to represent employees, on one side, and employers, on the other. Without such national-level representation, there would be incentives for regional organizations to agree to terms and conditions of employment that favored firms and employees in that region. Competition among regional groups would be expected to drive down wage levels and other employment benefits, as each regional group would seek terms and conditions that are likely to attract business locally. With national representation, labor unions and employer groups can negotiate region-specific terms and conditions that limit such competition.
The functioning of such national-level bodies and associated agreements are facilitated by German federal law; specifically the Collective Agreements Act, which is explained in the companion piece to this brief.[42] In the United States, some federal protections—including the First Amendment—guarantee the rights of individuals to associate, and hence to join unions. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) established a federal right to strike and reasserts the right of individuals “to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”[43] As such, employees could delegate their rights to bargain over terms and conditions of employment to sectoral unions at state, regional, or national levels.
Notwithstanding these rights to associate, however, there is a strong possibility that agreements made by sectoral unions with groups of firms that otherwise compete on the market would run afoul of U.S. antitrust law.
U.S. antitrust law, broadly speaking, prohibits competitors from coordinating their behaviors in ways that set prices or that otherwise manipulate the competitive landscape in ways that cause anticompetitive harm to consumers.[44] The early history of the U.S. labor movement illustrates the basic problem. For decades, U.S. labor activists ran up against “antitrust law and its common law precursors, which established a baseline presumption in favor of competition within labor markets.”[45]
The result was a consistent onslaught of criminal and civil charges, usually resulting in injunctions that prevented workers from organizing in order to “restrain trade or competition within the labor market” through collective bargaining.[46] The U.S. Supreme Court even held that the terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act—nominally focused on business trusts—covered any combination in restraint of trade, including labor-union activities.[47] With passage of the Clayton Act, Congress created an explicit exception to the antitrust laws for the organizing activities of labor unions.[48] This protection was expanded with passage of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the National Labor Relations Act, both of which clarified and expanded the statutory antitrust exemptions that applied to labor unions.[49]
Agreements between competitors—that is, the employer side of the sectoral-bargaining analysis—do not have any such explicit exemptions in U.S. law. Indeed, the current position of both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) is that such agreements likely violate the law.[50] Indeed, both federal antitrust agencies have brought cases on the basis of impermissible collusion among employers to set wages and other employment conditions.[51]
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized some non-statutory antitrust exceptions that could be extended to employers. Two examples of non-statutory exemptions are particularly relevant here. In Brown v. Pro Football Inc, the Supreme Court recognized an exception for employers that collectively bargain with a labor union.[52] Brown arose when the owners of National Football League teams were unable to reach an agreement with the football players’ union over the creation of “development squads” that could provide substitute players to the teams.[53] The union wanted players on those squads to be able to negotiate their salaries, but the club owners wanted to set the weekly rate at $1,000.[54] When talks stalled, the club owners went ahead with the proposed plan.[55] The players’ union sued, alleging that the agreement among employers to set the wage rate was a restraint of trade that violated the Sherman Act.[56] The Supreme Court disagreed with the union because the agreement:
…took place during and immediately after a collective-bargaining negotiation. It grew out of, and was directly related to, the lawful operation of the bargaining process. It involved a matter that the parties were required to negotiate collectively. And it concerned only the parties to that collective-bargaining relationship.[57]
The facts of Brown counsel caution when trying to construe this precedent more broadly beyond professional sports, let alone at the level of an entire sector of the economy. First, as noted above, the Supreme Court construed the labor non-statutory exemption as extending to the group of employers that were already involved in the collective bargaining in question. That is, the nature of professional football is that there are member teams that are bound by the collective bargaining of the football players. Thus, the employers are already compelled to partake in the collective activity. Further, although not explicitly an aspect of that case, it is nonetheless true that the small collection of employers involved were all identical and similarly situated, and all generate the same output of “professional football.”
Although it’s possible to imagine stretching this exemption to cover an entire sector—where all unions in that sector simultaneously engage in a collective-bargaining negotiation and all firms in that sector have sufficiently similar interests that they also can collectively bargain—it appears very hard to square with U.S. antitrust law. Decades of antitrust precedent push against the notion that firms that are otherwise competitors can jointly negotiate on wage and related restrictions, rejecting even “special case” exemptions such as those for the “learned professions.”[58] Particularly since a “sector” can encompass a wide variety of firms with differing working conditions, safety concerns, cost drivers, and customers. To easily fit into a similar exemption, a legally relevant “sector” would have to be highly constrained. There would also be a host of fraught questions that attend determining how to decide what a relevant “sector” is, what entity gets to make that decision, and what to do about firms that uncomfortably straddle different sectoral classifications.
The “state action” doctrine in U.S. antitrust law also provides a potential means to develop a sectoral-bargain scheme—though here, too, the path is not easy (to put it mildly). In Parker v. Brown, the Supreme Court held that a California state agriculture program that set certain agricultural prices:
…was never intended to operate by force of individual agreement or combination. It derived its authority and its efficacy from the legislative command of the state and was not intended to operate or become effective without that command. We find nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history which suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature.[59]
The state action doctrine has been extended in some ways over the years since Parker v. Brown. Relevant here, under certain circumstances, is that it may permit not only anticompetitive conduct by the sovereign state itself—paradigmatically, acts of the legislature—but by lesser state authorities and state-authorized commissions and boards dominated by market participants, but acting under the color of delegated state authority.[60] Otherwise anticompetitive conduct of state-authorized boards can qualify for the state action exemption only if both prongs of the test articulated in California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum Inc are satisfied.[61] They are, respectively, that the challenged anticompetitive conduct must be “one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy” and that the policy is “actively supervised” by the state itself.[62] The Court’s unanimous opinion in Phoebe Putney further strengthened Midcal’s clear articulation prong, which applies to both lesser state agencies and independent boards dominated by active market participants.[63]
More recently, however, the Supreme Court has suggested that the active supervision prong must be more than merely pro forma. In N. Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. F.T.C., the Court held that “[i]mmunity for state agencies… requires more than a mere facade of state involvement, for it is necessary in light of Parker’s rationale to ensure the States accept political accountability for anticompetitive conduct they permit and control.”[64] Notably, the Court in N.C. Dental focused on the fact that a controlling number of decisionmakers on the board in question were active market participants.[65] It also described the problem before the Court as considering when “a State empowers a group of active market participants to decide who can participate in its market, and on what terms.” This suggests that the active oversight requirement may apply more broadly.[66]
Thus, any attempt to bring sectoral bargaining to the United States would need either 1) an explicit statutory exemption from Congress or 2) to qualify for one of the existing non-statutory exemptions. Assuming that Congress is not going to enact such an exemption any time soon, the latter option would be required. California’s recently enacted FAST Recovery Act, mentioned above, is one such attempt to thread this needle by qualifying for the state action exemption, and hence to immunize a council against federal antitrust scrutiny.
Section 1471(a)(1) of the California law establishes a “Fast Food Council” consisting of four individuals that own restaurants or franchises, four individuals that represent employees, one representative of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, and one representative from the state Department of Industrial Relations.[67] The council would have the power to “promulgate minimum fast food restaurant employment standards, including, as appropriate, standards on wages, working conditions” as well as other worker-welfare goals.[68] The FAST Recovery Act requires the council to submit reports to relevant committees of the California Legislature regarding any standards or rules it proposes, in order to give lawmakers the opportunity to enact legislation that would put the proposed change into effect.[69]
But, as noted above, merely putting formal requirements into law will likely be insufficient to satisfy the “active supervision” requirement. For example, it will matter whether the council is regarded as closely affiliated with the state government or if it is more like an independent organization populated largely by industry participants and only superficially overseen by the state.[70] Almost certainly, this law will draw legal attention, very possibly from the FTC or DOJ, and resolution of litigation will turn on very specific factual inquiries into the program’s implementation and operation.
In the decades after World War II, the combination of sectoral bargaining and co-determination appear to have created a more commodious relationship between German employers and employees than was the case in the United States, resulting in fewer industrial disputes and fewer days lost to strikes. As international competition intensified, however, the German system was forced to adapt, with the addition of clauses permitting both temporary and permanent exceptions. Nonetheless, sectoral bargaining has been on the decline in Germany and is now limited primarily to a relatively small number of large firms. While 50-60% of firms with more than 500 employees participate in sectoral-bargaining agreements, less than 20% of firms with fewer than 100 employees do.
Given the waning fortunes of sectoral-bargaining agreements in Germany—and, indeed, throughout Europe—it is ironic that U.S. politicians would now contemplate such a model for American workers. Yet, with California’s passage of the FAST Act, the issue is very much on the table.
The FAST Act applies to establishments that are members of a “fast food chain,” which is defined in the statute as “a set of restaurants consisting of 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services.”[71] By setting minimum wages and working conditions at such establishments, the act is intended to improve the prospects for workers. Unfortunately, it is likely—in many, if not all, cases—to have the opposite effect.
If the council setting wages and working conditions for fast-food chains follows the typical German sectoral-bargaining arrangement, wages and conditions will be set according to the standards of the least productive third of establishments. This would limit the negative impact of the act on franchisees and might even lead to an overall reduction in wages in the sector, especially if such a statutory arrangement is deemed to be a permissible exception to minimum-wage laws.[72]
On the other hand, if the council setting wages and conditions decides to set wages significantly above current market rates, the consequences for franchisees and their employees could be disastrous. Faced with unsustainable wage outlays, franchisees would face a difficult choice: sell off, switch to become a franchise of a smaller chain, or automate.
It is notable that the first attempt to implement sectoral bargaining in the United States is proposed in a sector that is not subject directly to international—or even interstate—competition. But it is subject to technological competition. Already, some fast-food restaurants have begun to automate.[73] In part, this is happening to increase the speed, quality, and consistency of service. But it is also being driven by costs: as labor costs rise, the incentive to switch to more capital-intensive modes of production will increase.
It is, of course, possible that the council will prohibit such automation in an effort to maintain jobs. But doing so would merely make it more difficult for covered fast-food restaurants to compete with smaller chains that are not covered by the FAST Act. Beyond that competitive distortion, such action by the council would entail a covert tradeoff that further diminishes consumer welfare. Faced with other inflationary pressures, competitive threats from smaller chains not subject to the FAST Act, and ordinary cost increases, larger chains will be forced to raise prices. In the short term, this might shift surplus toward workers. Over the medium to long term, however, it would suppress demand, harming consumers by providing them with fewer goods and services than they would otherwise demand, and harming workers by shrinking the industry overall.
If the FAST Act is, indeed, a harbinger of the future of employer-employee bargaining in the United States, then the prospects for the U.S. economy look even bleaker than many portend. To see why, one need only refer back to Figure 3. Does the United States really want to shift toward a low-growth trajectory like those of France or Italy? Moreover, it bears repeating that, in an environment of international competition, Germany’s model required all manner of tweaks in order to make it “work.” Even then, Germany’s rate of economic growth has been considerably lower than that of the United States, as can be seen in Figure 2.
To address the other main argument made for a switch to sectoral bargaining: reduced numbers of days lost to industrial action. As demonstrated in Figure 4, the United States has already achieved that.
Figure IV: Annual U.S. Worker-Days Lost to Strikes, 1947-2021
Source: Work Stoppages, U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/web/wkstp/annual-listing.htm (last visited Aug. 23, 2022)
In short, if the United States were to import the German model of sectoral bargaining at this stage, it is unlikely to benefit from any of the advantages that the model offered to Germany early in its adoption. It would instead suffer the disadvantages and associated costs that Germany now seeks to avoid by unwinding this model at the margins. As the United States heads further into unstable economic times, it would be unwise to adopt a bargaining model that would make its labor market less flexible and more subject to the disruptive effects of competition from overseas and from new technology.
No system is perfect, but U.S. labor markets have consistently outperformed those in Germany in terms of output per worker. The wider consequence of shifting to a German sectoral-bargaining model would be to push the United States behind much nimbler competitors, ultimately hurting both consumers and the workers that such otherwise well-intentioned reforms are intended to help.
[1] Alexia Fernández Campbell, The Boldest and Weakest Labor Platforms of the 2020 Democratic Primary, Vox (Oct. 29, 2019), https://www.vox.com/2019/9/5/20847614/democratic-debate-candidatelabor-platforms.
[2] Assem. Bill 257, Food facilities and employment, ch. 246 (2021-2022), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB257.
[3] Id. at 1471(d)(1)(A). Notably, this is not a pure sectoral-bargaining scheme, where there would be true negotiations between industry representatives on one side and labor representatives on another. Instead, it represents a hybrid approach that, at least theoretically, allows the bargaining to happen within the auspices of this council.
[4] Matthias Jacobs and Matthias Münder, A Worthy Import? Examining the Advantages and Disadvantages of Sectoral Collective Bargaining in Germany, International Center for Law & Economics (Sep. 25, 2022), https://laweconcenter.org/resource/a-worthy-import-examining-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-sectoral-collective-bargaining-in-germany.
[5] At-Will Employment, Betterteam, https://www.betterteam.com/at-will-employment#:~:text=At%2Dwill%20employment%20means%20that,are%20considered%20at%2Dwill%20employees (last visited Sep. 23, 2022).
[6] Union Members Summary, USDL-22-0079, US Dep’t of Labor (Jan. 20, 2022), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm.
[7] Drew Desilver, American Unions Membership Declines as Public Support Fluctuates, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Feb. 20, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/20/for-american-unions-membership-trails-far-behind-public-support.
[8] Simon Jäger, Shakked Noy & Benjamin Schoefer, The German Model of Industrial Relations: Balancing Flexibility and Collective Action 10, NBER Working Paper No. 30377 (2022).
[9] Id. at 23.
[10] 29 U.S.C. § 151–169; see also: The Right to Strike, National Labor Relations Board, https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes (last visited Sep. 23, 2022).
[11] Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 US 2448, (2018).
[12] See, generally, Jacobs & Münder, supra note 4 and Jäger, et al., supra note 8.
[13] Jäger et al. supra note 8, at 22.
[14] Id. at 20.
[15] Jacobs & Münder, supra note 12 .
[16] Id. at 7.
[17] Id.
[18] Jäger et al. supra note 8 at 11 and 12.
[19] Id. at 12
[20] Jacobs and Münder, supra note 4 at 8.
[21] Id. at 9.
[22] Jäger et al. supra note 8 at 11.
[23] Id. at 1.
[24] See, Hagen Lesch, Changes in Industrial Action: A Comparison Between Germany and Other OECD Countries, CESifo Forum 4, 68 (Dec. 2015) (From 1995-2014, an average of four days per 1,000 were lost to strikes in Germany; in the United States, the figure was 24 per 1,000 days).
[25] See Figure 1 above.
[26] Id.
[27] Robot Density Nearly Doubled Globally, International Federation of Robotics (Dec. 14, 2021), https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/robot-density-nearly-doubled-globally; Wolfgang Dauth, Sebastian Findeisen, Jens Suedekum & Nicole Woessner, The Adjustment of Labor Markets to Robots, 19 J. Eur. Econ. Ass’n 3104 (2021).
[28] Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets, 128 J. Pol. Econ. 2188 (2020).
[29] Figure 1, above.
[30] Id.
[31] Jäger et al. supra note 8, at 1.
[32] Jäger et al. supra note 8, at 11.
[33] See Figure 2 below.
[34] Jacobs & Münder, supra note 4, at 1.
[35] Deborah Goldscmidt & Johannes F. Schmieder, The Rise of Domestic Outsourcing and the Evolution of the German Wage Structure, NBER Working Paper No. 21366 (2015), https://www.nber.org/papers/w21366.
[36] Jäger et al. supra note 8 at 12.
[37] Morad Elhafed, Stuck in the Middle No More: How German Mittelstand Companies Can Break Out and Go Global, Forbes (Feb. 24, 2022), https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/02/24/stuck-in-the-middle-no-more-how-german-mittelstand-companies-can-break-out-and-go-global.
[38] Markus Grabka, Income Inequality in Germany Stagnating Over the Long Term, but Decreasing Slightly During the Coronavirus Pandemic, DIW (2021), https://d-nb.info/1238598374/34; Karl Brenke, Real Wages in Germany: Numerous Years of Decline, 5 German Inst. Econ. Rsch. 1 (2009).
[39] Id.
[40] Collective Bargaining, worker-participation.eu, https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/France/Collective-Bargaining (last visited Aug. 23, 2022); Collective Bargaining, worker-participation.eu, https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/Italy/Collective-Bargaining (last visited Aug. 23, 2022).
[41] Jacobs & Münder supra note 4, at 15.
[42] Id.
[43] 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, Section 7.
[44] See, e.g., 15 USC § 1 (“prohibiting any combination… in restraint of trade or commerce”). This language notwithstanding, the Sherman Act doesn’t prohibit “any… restraint.” Simple coordination may or may not be unlawful, for example, while horizontal agreements among competitors to fix prices or allocate markets is per se unlawful. See, e.g., United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc., 310 U.S. 150, (1940). See also, Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332, (1982); Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc., 340 U. S. 211, (1951).
[45] Cynthia L. Estlund & Wilma Liebman, Collective Bargaining Beyond Employment in the United States, 42 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol’y J. 371, 373 (2021).
[46] Id. at 373–74.
[47] In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895); Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908)
[48] 15 U.S.C. § 17.
[49] 29 U.S.C. § 151–169; 29 U.S.C. § 104; see also, United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219 (1941) (Reaffirming that legislation had created a strong antitrust exception for labor unions).
[50] Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals, DOJ Antitrust Division (October 2016), https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/903511/download (“An agreement among competing employers to limit or fix the terms of employment for potential hires may violate the antitrust laws if the agreement constrains individual firm decision- making with regard to wages, salaries, or benefits; terms of employment; or even job opportunities.”)
[51] See, e.g., United States and Arizona v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and AxHHA Service Corp., Case No. CV07-1030-PHX, (2007) (DOJ sued the Arizona hospital association for attempting to bargain collectively for most hospitals in the state in order to set rate schedules for per-diem nurses.); In the Matter of the Good Guys Inc., 115 F.T.C. 670 (1992) (FTC sued a group of nursing homes that had collectively agreed to not use the services of a particular nursing registry that had raised the prices it was charging for its per-diem nurse placement); Council of Fashion Designers of America, Federal Trade Commission (Jun. 9, 1995), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/1995/06/council-fashion-designers-america (FTC sued the council of fashion designers for colluding to reduce the prices of fashion models).
[52] Brown v. Pro Football, 518 U.S. 231, (1996).
[53] Id.
[54] Id.
[55] Id. at 234.
[56] Id. at 235.
[57] 518 U.S. at 250.
[58] See, e.g., Maricopa, Goldfarb, Professional Engineers, FTC v. AMA.
[59] Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350–51, (1943).
[60] N. Carolina State Bd. Of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 574 U.S. 494, (2015); California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum Inc., 445 U.S. 97, (1980).
[61] California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n, 445 U.S. at 105, (1980).
[62] Id.
[63] FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System Inc., 568 U.S. 216, (2013).
[64] N. Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 574 U.S. at 505.
[65] Id. at 511—12.
[66] Id.
[67] Assem. Bill 257, Food facilities and employment, ch. 246 § 1471(a)(1)(A)-(F) (2021-2022), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB257.
[68] Id. at (d)(1)(A)
[69] Id. at (d)(1)(B).
[70] This is particularly relevant considering NC Dental’s holding that focused on “the constant requirements of active supervision.” (574 U.S. at 515). See also, Brief for the United States as Amici Curiae, No. 19-12227 (2019), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/amicus_briefs/smiledirectclub-llc-v-battle-et-al/smiledirectclub-v-battle_ca11_usa_ftc_amicus_brief_9-25-19.pdf (FTC citing NC Dental as requiring a state to undertake the “constant requirement[] of active supervision”).
[71] California AB 257, at 5.
[72] See Id. at 10, s. (k)(1): “The minimum wages, maximum hours of work, and other working conditions fixed by the council in standards promulgated pursuant to subdivision (d) shall be the minimum wage, maximum hours of work, and the standard conditions of labor for fast food restaurant employees or a relevant subgroup of fast food restaurant employees for purposes of state law.”
[73] Felix Behr, The Big Ways Robots Are Quietly Taking Over Fast Food, mashed (Feb. 14, 2022), https://www.mashed.com/433837/the-big-ways-robots-are-quietly-taking-over-fast-food.
