The Commonwealth Foundation, the Rio Grande Foundation’s sister think tank in Pennsylvania, has released a useful — if depressing — examination of laws and regulations covering states’ government unions.
“Transforming Labor: A Comprehensive, Nationwide Comparison and Grading of Public Sector Labor Laws” explores “11 key measures that directly affect taxpayers and public employees.”
It won’t surprise many, but New Mexico ranks among the 20 states with “collective bargaining that is either legal or required,” as well as “card check” certification, and “some form of binding arbitration during contract negotiation impasses.” New Mexico also permits “release time,” which the American Legislative Exchange Council defines as “the practice of paying a public employee a public salary for time spent in union recruiting and representation activities.”
As the map above indicates, New Mexico’s overall grade of “D” was the worst in our region. Texas received an “A+” and Arizona scored a “B.” Three of our neighbors were “C” states: Utah, Oklahoma, and Colorado.
With state finances a mess and government employment claiming so large a section of the budget — either directly, or through subsidies to counties, municipalities, and school districts — the report arrives at an important time. Serious reforms of “labor” law pertaining to government “service” in New Mexico are a must. Waiting only makes the problem grow larger.
It’s way past time for labor law reform in NM. Too many businesses have suffered from our outdated laws. In the long run, we all lose. Businesses close and jobs and services are lost.
Any public agency with any form of civil service protection written into its charter or adopted since should have NO public sector unionism. This evil, perpetrated long ago and reinforced during the Kennedy years, should go by thew wayside. They have created a largely unwilling monster (In terms of forced participation), especially in education around the country, forcing a mediocrity of 70% “effective” teachers and 70% non-effective pupils (these are not “students”)