New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law H.B. 85, which bars counties, municipalities and other political subdivisions of the state from prohibiting union security agreements in their areas of jurisdiction.
As efforts to pass “right-to-work” at the statewide level in New Mexico stalled, several counties followed Sandoval County in passing ordinances prohibiting agreements requiring membership in a labor union as a condition of employment. This spurred backlash from the state legislature and led to the recent legislation.
Supporters of the legislation argued local “right-to-work” zones create a patchwork network of regulations for employers to follow and that the authority, vested by federal law, lies with the state legislature and governor to decide a state’s “right-to-work” status.
Opponents of the legislation argued that employment shouldn’t be based on an individual’s decision to join or not join a labor union, and that passing “right-to-work” ordinances at the local level would create a more favorable business climate for employers in those areas.
Illinois lawmakers are currently considering a similar measure, S.B. 1474, that would prohibit the creation of local “right-to-work” zones. The bill has passed the full Senate and recently moved out of the House Labor & Commerce Committee and awaits a full House vote.
Ultimately, the issue of local “right-to-work” zones may be settled by the United States Supreme Court after the town of Lincolnshire, Illinois, filed a petition with the court in February. Lincolnshire, which passed a local “right-to-work” ordinance in 2015 that was subsequently struck down by a U.S. District Court and upheld in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider those decisions. A decision by the Supreme Court would clarify conflicting decisions that have come out of the 6th and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
