In this chapter, we point out that private damage suits are not available to all victims of monopsonistic exploitation. In addition to the underpaid employees who have standing to sue, there are five groups that do not have standing: (1) employees who have been priced out of the market, (2) indirect suppliers of labor services, (3) umbrella employees, (4) suppliers of complementary inputs, and (5) buyers from the cartel.

This chapter deals with agreements among rivals not to hire one another’s employees. These agreements are known as “no-poaching” agreements and have been found in a number of labor markets. There have been numerous instances of employers agreeing to refrain from hiring one another’s employees. This, of course, depresses the demand for these employees and thereby puts a lid on compensation. In this chapter, we review some prominent cases involving (1) hardware and software engineers, (2) digital animators, (3) medical school faculty, (4) physical therapists, and (5) professional athletes.

For the most part, the suits filed by the Department of Justice have been resolved. Many of the private suits filed by the antitrust victims have been settled, but some are still pending. The chapter also explores the enforcement policies of the antitrust agencies which are provided in the Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals. We will also provide an extended analysis of no-poaching agreements in professional sports.

The exercise of monopsony in labor markets is limited to one degree or another by public policy. Employer conduct aimed at creating monopsony power is governed by the Sherman Act of 1890, which forbids collusion among employers as well as competitively unreasonable conduct by a single employer.

This chapter discusses private suits and the prohibition of §1 and the sanctions for violations. Corporations are subject to fines while individuals may be fined and/or imprisoned. Section 1 forbids collusive restraints of trade. In the past, there was some confusion regarding the applicability of §1 to labor markets. These days are gone. The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have issued their Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals in which the agencies make it crystal clear that they will pursue criminal convictions for collusion in labor markets. In addition to public sanctions, §4 of the Clayton Act provides a private right of action for antitrust victims.

Mergers that involve issues of monopsony are addressed in this chapter. In some cases, a merger may be procompetitive or competitively neutral. In others, however, a merger may be anticompetitive and, therefore, should be barred. Horizontal mergers combine two (or more) firms that operate in the same output market. Since they employ similar workers, the merger may create monopsony power. Antitrust policy regarding horizontal mergers is provided by §7 of the Clayton Act and its judicial interpretation. Typically, the focus is on concentration in the output market, but there has been some recent recognition that a merger may have ill effects in the labor market. We examine this recent concern and provide some examples.

In this chapter, we turn our attention to labor unions and their role in providing countervailing power. Congress recognized the consequences of individual employees having to negotiate with large employers. For the most part, individual employees have no bargaining power and face all-or-nothing offers that reflect monopsony power. Consequently, Congress passed legislation that would permit employees to unionize and thereby create a labor monopoly. The idea was to level the playing field so workers could not be abused. This chapter provides a brief review of the statutes and the scope of the labor exemption.

The formation of a union converts a monopsony into a bilateral monopoly. The economic effects of a bilateral monopoly are generally positive. Employment and output expand. Thus, both employees and consumers are better off. We explain this analysis and illustrate it with reference to professional sports. This chapter also explores the antitrust conundrum arising from bilateral monopoly.

We provide an overview of the empirical results with ample references to the literature. There is a substantial body of research that establishes the pervasive presence of monopsony in labor markets. The root cause of monopsony power lies in the fact that labor markets are imperfect. In other words, labor supply functions are positively sloped, which allows the dominant employers to depress compensation by reducing employment. Moreover, there are various frictions that reduce an employee’s ability to respond to alternative employment opportunities. These include costs of job search, turnover, and mobility barriers.

Here, we focus on non-compete agreements (NCAs). NCAs severely limit job mobility and reduce a worker’s opportunities to exploit their human capital. Most NCAs preclude a worker’s ability to obtain a position with a rival employer for six months to two years after separation. In addition, the former employee may not start their own business in the same industry. The economic result of these restrictions is to reduce the labor supply elasticity, which enhances an employer’s ability to depress employee compensation, other benefits, and working conditions.

Employers argue that they need NCAs for two primary reasons. First, upon separation, an employee could take the former employer’s trade secrets to a rival employer. An NCA may solve this problem because many trade secrets, such as short-run production plans, are short-lived. Second, employers often invest in an employee’s human capital with schooling or training. An NCA provides protection for such investments in human capital.

In this chapter, we examine the pros and cons of NCAs. We also examine the Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to ban all NCAs completely.

We begin with the basic economic theory of monopsony. In this chapter, we present the economic models of (1) pure monopsony, (2) the dominant employer, and (3) oligopsony. In these cases, we show that profit maximization results in ill effects for workers. These include reduced compensation, reduced employment, and the redistribution of wealth from workers to employers. We also show that social welfare is reduced below the level that society would have experienced in the absence of monopsony.

In our final chapter, we summarize the antitrust law and economics of monopsony in the labor market. We provide some policy recommendations that are consistent with economic principles and empirical reality.

In this chapter, we present an economic model of employer collusion that explores the economic consequences of concerted efforts to depress wages and other forms of compensation. This chapter spells out the organizational challenges of building and implementing an employer cartel. It also examines the incentives to cheat on the cartel agreement. Our central focus is on the harm done to employees as well as the impact on social welfare.

In this chapter, we review an assortment of antitrust cases that alleged collusion on the wages paid and other terms of employment. These examples include hospital nurses, temporary duty nurses, college athletes, and highly talented college students. Finally, we explore the unintended consequences of collusion in the labor market – higher prices for consumers.

Monopsony is the label that Joan Robinson attached to a market in which a single employer faces a competitively structured supply of labor. For some reason, her early theoretical analysis, along with the insights of A. C. Piguo and J. R. Hicks, did not gain much traction. Recently, however, economists and policymakers have recognized the ill effects of monopsony and have offered some actions aimed at mitigating – if not eliminating – the monopsony problem. In our view, vigorous enforcement – both public and private – of the antitrust laws can play a large role in reducing the ill effects of monopsony power in the labor market.