From Handshakes to Union Hooks: The Heavy Hand on License Owners
House Bill 331, introduced in the 57th New Mexico Legislature's first session of 2025, aims to tighten the reins on the industry by mandating labor peace agreements. This bill requires licensed establishments with ten or more employees to enter into, maintain, and adhere to the terms of a labor peace agreement with a bona fide labor organization. For those establishments with fewer than ten employees, the bill stipulates that they must commit to such an agreement within sixty days of hiring their tenth employee. Non-compliance isn't taken lightly; it could lead to the suspension or revocation of the establishment's license. The bill also tasks the relevant division with enforcing these provisions and crafting rules to ensure compliance.
The driving forces behind this legislation are Representatives Andrea Romero (D), Javier Martínez (D), and Christine Chandler (D). Andrea Romero, representing Santa Fe's 46th district since 2019, is known for her progressive stance on gun safety, climate change, and Canna-legalization. Javier Martínez, serving the 11th district since 2015, has focused on social justice and community development. Christine Chandler, representing the 43rd district since 2019, has consistently advocated for transparency and accountability. Together, these legislators are steering House Bill 331 forward to ensure that as the industry grows, it does so with fair labor practices and mutual respect between employers and employees.
High Hopes, Higher Barriers
New Mexico is not alone in implementing labor peace agreement (LPA) requirements for businesses. Several states have adopted similar mandates:
California: Requires businesses with 20 or more employees to enter into LPAs. Businesses that fail to comply risk losing their state licenses.
New York: Requires all applicants seeking a license to have an LPA in place, with failure to maintain the agreement leading to license revocation.
New Jersey: Most businesses must sign an LPA attestation as a condition of licensure.
Connecticut: businesses must sign an LPA before receiving a license, ensuring negotiations with labor organizations.
Illinois: Craft growers, infusers, and transporters receive higher licensing scores if they have an LPA.
Rhode Island: Requires LPAs for businesses with ten or more employees, similar to New Mexico's proposal.
Sticky Fingers, Stickier Regulations
While LPAs aim to create labor stability, their reception has been mixed. Some states, such as California and Rhode Island, have faced lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of LPAs, arguing that they conflict with federal labor laws. In April 2024, Ctrl Alt Destroy, Inc. sued California, claiming its LPA mandate was unconstitutional and preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Similarly, Greenleaf Compassionate Care Center, Inc. challenged Rhode Island's LPA requirement in federal court, raising concerns about states overstepping their regulatory bounds. In Connecticut, debates have emerged about balancing union access with employer rights, while in New York and New Jersey, LPAs have received support from labor organizations but have raised concerns among business owners about operational constraints.
New Mexico’s House Bill 331 aligns with the national trend of using LPAs to protect workers and promote unionization within the industry. With a lower employee threshold than California’s 20-employee requirement, New Mexico's bill represents one of the stricter labor-friendly regulations. However, given the legal challenges seen in other states, its future could depend on how courts view the intersection of state-imposed labor mandates and federal labor laws. While some view these policies as labor-friendly, others see them as heavy-handed regulations that could burden small businesses and limit their ability to grow in a competitive market.
