It was among the first questions he was asked after he decided to give up a safe seat in the U.S. House of Representative to enter a contested primary for Minnesota attorney general.

Why?

After all, Keith Ellison was a 12-year member of Congress from Minneapolis whose party was on the verge of regaining majority control of the U.S. House. He could well have been a committee chair after being in the political minority for years. Why give that up for an uncertain campaign for statewide elected office? His answer was always the same: poaching.

In Congress, Ellison had introduced a bill to make it illegal for fast-food companies and other chain retailers from having agreements that block one franchisee from hiring workers from another franchisee. Reducing workers’ mobility by not competing for employees, Ellison said, made it easier for those companies keep wages down.

Article continues after advertisement

But the bill was going nowhere. It hadn’t been scheduled for a hearing and likely wouldn’t be for some time, if ever. And yet, while his bill languished in Washington, attorneys general in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began investigation fast-food companies, eventually winning settlements to end the practice of poaching.

That, Ellison said, showed the difference between what you could do as one of 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives and what you could do as a state attorney general.

Elllison, of course, went on to win the election, and was sworn in as AG in January. And earlier this month, he was able to make an announcement that harkened back to his original rationale for running for the job in the first place: His office had reached a settlement with four fast-food companies regarding anti-poaching requirements for franchisees.

The agreement covers Dunkin’, Arby’s, Five Guys and Little Caesars, and stems from investigations begun by the state of Massachusetts last summer, which Minnesota and 12 other states later joined. Under terms of the agreement, the franchising companies have agreed to stop including no-poaching requirements in their agreements with franchisees, which stopped the franchisees from hiring workers from other fast-food chains. The agreement also requires the companies to stop including such language in future agreements and to post signs in workplaces to let employees know of the settlement and their right to apply elsewhere.

Even with historic low unemployment rates in the U.S., wages have not increased as economists would expect. “How come they don’t? Well because of stuff like no-poaching agreements,” Ellison said Tuesday. “A lot of little things that employers get to do that they’re not called on add up to stagnant wages for working people.”

Ellison said there is more he wants to do on that front, including addressing noncompete clauses for workers without especially rare skills or who don’t possess trade secrets. “They restrict people from being able to compete in the labor market,” Ellison said. “I don’t think our economy does best with a low-wage model.”

The existence of such clauses in franchise agreements — and their effect on wages — came to light in a 2017 New York Times article, which was in turn based on the work of economist Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Obama Administration. Krueger died last week.

Under the anti-poaching agreement, the fast food companies must notify the attorneys general if one of their franchisees tries to restrict any employee from moving to another restaurant and are subject to penalties of up to $100,000 for breaches of the settlements.

In addition to Minnesota, the states of California, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, and the District of Columbia are parties to the settlement.