Email
I have a different take on the right-to-work issue in New Mexico, one no doubt my conservative peers will find objectionable. But it’s a matter of practicality.
As long as a major part of New Mexico’s economy remains government-related, right-to-work is a moot point. The U.S. government is not going to walk away from literally hundreds of billions of dollars invested in world-class R&D and military infrastructure. That fact alone will make a political fight for right-to-work simply not practical or cost-effective in our small state.
Instead, I think we should look at a completely different aspect of New Mexico’s status as a non-right-to-work state. This aspect alone conveys a unique cachet for a different kind of economic recruitment strategy.
High-cost, unionized states like Michigan and California, especially, continue to pursue profoundly anti-business policies. Michigan will have a recent court-approved ballot initiative to guarantee collective-bargaining rights, now to be written into the state’s constitution upon passage. And California is very close to passing a required “parallel social-security system” that mandates employer contributions to a state-run retirement scheme for businesses that do not offer their employees such.
You can bet your last nickel on Earth there are union employers and union businesses, in both these highly unionized states, and others, who wish they could find a place to go or relocate, where costs were significantly lower, and they would not be hauled into court or arbitration for “union busting.”
This is where New Mexico’s unique status comes into play. Aside from California, we are the only state in the southern half of the United States that is not right-to-work. I think this distinction could be turned into a significant advantage when recruiting unionized industries in regions that have allowed themselves to become high-cost environments. Especially where the industry itself has a productive symbiotic relationship with organized labor, and never intends to “bust the union.”
For those worried that increased unionization of New Mexico’s private sector is way too dangerous, consider the following as an inherent regulator: the proximity of adjacent right-to-work states, as well as Mexico.
Admittedly, it is a different kind of strategy, one that specifically targets a company or industry on the basis of its unionized predicament, not on the basis of being the very low-cost, low-wage place to relocate. The latter is a destructive race to the bottom for everybody.
This strategy also implies strong oversight for obtaining significant up-front investment commitments, with equally strong clawback provisions.
No doubt, my fellow conservatives and pro-growth advocates will continue to pine away for the siren-song of right-to-work as that one New Mexico economic panacea, that “if we only had…” They’ve been doing this for the last 30-plus years, and a lot of good it’s done.
Meanwhile, companies or industries came or started here for entirely different reasons. Maybe it’s time to take a second look at the holy grail of right-to-work.
William T. Sellers is the vice president of the Los Alamos Entrepreneurs Network. This commentary is his personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion or policies of that organization.
