Mini-Case Employer \"No-Poaching\" Cartels How would you get a higher wage than your current employer is paying? Probably you'd seek a job offer from another firm in the same field. But, if that other firm agrees not to hire anyone employed by your current firm, you're out of luck. That's what happened to many skilled engineers. Such an employer conspiracy is an example of a buyers' cartel, which is similar to the sellers' cartels we've been discussing. In 2005, when demand for Silicon 1v'alley engineers was skyrocketing, Apple's Steve Jobs agreed on a secret, illegal \"nopoaching" deal with Google's Eric Schmidt (who was also on Apple's board of directors} to keep their employees' wages low by agreeing not to recruit each other's workers, by sharing wage information, and by punishing a firm that violated the agreement. Intuit, Pixar, and Lucasfilm joined the cartel. It is alleged that many other major tech firms also joined, affecting over a million employees. In 2014, Intuit, Pixar, and Lucasfilm agreed to a $20 million settlement of a classaction lawsuit alleging that they conspired to suppress wages. In 2015, Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe agreed to pay $415 million to settle a similar lawsuit. A similar cartel affected animation workers. In 201?, these workers obtained a $100 million settlement with the Walt Disney Company, Pixar, and Lucasfilm from a class action lawsuit concerning wage fixing using nonpoaching agreements. Krueger and Ashenfelter {201 T) found nopoaching agreements in 58% of major franchisors' contracts across a wide range of industries including firms such as Jiffy Lube and H&R Block, as well as fast-food restaurants. Starr, Prescott, and Bishara (2018] concluded that nearly one in five U.S. workers was bound by noncompete clauses that limit the other firms for which they can work, and that nearly 40% had signed at least one noncompete clause in the past. In 2018, seven fast-food chainsincluding arby's, Cinnabon, and McDonald'sagreed to end nopoaching rules. These rules prevented employees from moving between franchises within a restaurant chain, affecting an estimated 25,000 U.S. restaurants. By settling these lawsuits rather than risk losing in a trial, these companies avoid the costs of a trial and the risk of larger fines