[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6278583,"mediaKeyId","2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34","parentId",2636789,"title","Bill to expand interest arbitration to small jurisdictions prompts debate over cost and fairness","audioSeconds",2877,"startMs",2881000,"endMs",3816,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34&start=2881&end=3","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34/thumbnail_2881000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6278583/Washington/Bill-to-expand-interest-arbitration-to-small-jurisdictions-prompts-debate-over-cost-and-fairness","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278583-29a740e0fd06f3a0c30ef19ff3159d94/orig.mp4?Expires=1771009122&Signature=cdAh6F~-e5CB2yKZ8AjPezpzoXAuYDeG6CD7dfNQWJliUHkF79NyiEjpMZgE9ZMNJY~afvSgDqPmzksqDCC8hT5qdk5dK5Rnc78IjxS0J43O~qhLr~Ue9kwBQKwJcimX00m2VUiJMC3vXJQaMlkHxlO8SsJ6aWfmqIzOcXlxLRbLxPLNseyabcjxxLHNC2fBoycrbPbkO7kAr~TXBglzLkALF~JidCqcqSXRRCCYPwK3yHwp2dz-3xpu8vTTAiueqTcKUOz~PoJ9mwvn3J-sxcTdJfIDNWOcQyEkohTtJGuLqLqYPrwv8R30CyqH~a4yCCdelfp7nAbrz4fAmZjB3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington Legislature","date","2025-03-14T00:00:00Z","article","At the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee hearing Friday, March 14, members heard testimony on substitute Senate Bill 5040, which would expand interest arbitration rights to uniformed law‑enforcement personnel in all cities, towns and counties regardless of population size and extend those rights to law enforcement employed by municipal airports.

Staff said the bill extends interest arbitration to municipal airports and small jurisdictions that currently lack access to binding interest arbitration, pointing to a history of changes in the population threshold that defines covered uniform personnel. Opponents representing small cities and counties, including the Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties, said the change would impose disproportionate costs on the smallest jurisdictions. Candace Bach of the Association of Washington Cities noted that some affected cities have general funds under $1 million and that arbitration can cost jurisdictions tens of thousands of dollars in advisory and arbitration expenses.

Mayors and county officials testified about local budget impacts. Matthew Lund, mayor of Cle Elum, said his municipal police department’s budget already comprises over 50% of the general fund and estimated arbitration costs could equal the annual wages of one to two officers, creating “real issues for public safety.”

Police and public‑safety labor representatives urged passage, characterizing the bill as an equity measure because uniform personnel lack a right to strike. Jeff DeVere of the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs said the measure provides a process — including mediation through PERC — and that only two interest‑arbitration cases between police and local governments had moved forward in the last five years. Brenda Weist of Teamsters Local 117 said interest arbitration addresses a bargaining power imbalance for small jurisdictions and noted similar recent extensions (for example, 911 operators) that provide comparable remedies to adjacent classifications.

Committee members questioned budget and implementation details; witnesses emphasized the bill’s role in creating parity for uniform personnel who cannot strike. The hearing record shows the committee closed testimony on the bill after panels for and against presented their views.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Labor & Workplace Standards March 14, 10:30 am","oneSentenceSummary","At the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee hearing Friday, March 14, members heard Substitute Senate Bill 5040, which would expand interest arbitration to uniformed law‑enforcement personnel in all jurisdictions and to municipal airports.","taxTitle","Labor & Workplace Standards, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20266,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6278588,"Committee hears bill to ban blanket driver's‑license requirement for hiring with limited exceptions",1022,2316000,3338000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34&start=2316&end=3338","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34/thumbnail_2316000.jpg","/articles/6278588/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-ban-blanket-driverslicense-requirement-for-hiring-with-limited-exceptions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278588-9e33d7e0ace2cad362c9c3cda4d8c2e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771009122&Signature=BSMGstMBFBUH~qcEwkBZVrja32koWr0CaWCCMXR2i7gUSCTGViHG1TApagmbPG-XzOSxgUaqvb2e3taZWprcc74yf-bFDQ-rSn8tFQBBv3mB4i0iefxK2i8r4~k0nvARIBmfYdgsTCwRfP9OyBmNCE9AESFoZQa7nO8ET8BC~RTZvxyZrqmDxSzC4nyUcJ1~wpYCJeA~43MXASGWyX0GgrGlXaAs4XuLnOJ6mENHBnKJ20SjlqyyeOjlOg46I5QNyDpkgQaC8Bui5e-SazZkbGX-5Rl5XA~nvykaSh3cF-VWvlW4BrKU-TteIFeoNfxX7XUqNRVzTPaBD-FbV0vUng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee hearing Friday, March 14, staff briefed substitute Senate Bill 5501, a proposal to bar employers from requiring a driver's license as a condition of employment or stating a license is required in job postings, with two stated exceptions.

Jim Morishima, staff to the committee, said the bill allows exceptions where driving is an essential job function or where driving relates to a legitimate business purpose. The Department of Labor & Industries would enforce the prohibition; remedies for a prevailing employee would include actual and statutory damages (at least $5,000), interest, costs, and attorney fees. L&I could levy civil fines of up to $500 for a first violation and up to $1,000 or 10 percent of damages for subsequent violations, staff said.

Supporters at the hearing included disability advocates and workforce organizations who said removing blanket license requirements would open jobs to people who rely on public transit or who cannot drive because of disabilities. John Lemus of AtWork said he relies on public transit and that the bill would be “a door opener for people with disabilities.” Bryce Yaden of Disability Rights Washington likewise supported the negotiated senate language, saying the compromise preserves safeguards while expanding access to employment.

Business groups including the Building Industry Association of Washington, the Washington Trucking Association, the Washington Retail Association, the Associated General Contractors, and others told the committee they worked with sponsors to reach negotiated language and asked the committee to respect that compromise. Mike Ennis (BIAW) and Amber Carter (Washington Retail Association) said the senate version represents a middle ground intended to be consistent with approaches in neighboring states and to reduce compliance problems for border communities.

Committee members from agricultural and rural districts asked about impacts on farm and seasonal workers who travel between fields; proponents and supporters said the senate compromise and its exceptions were intended to preserve legitimate business needs while removing blanket, non-job-related requirements. The committee closed testimony and moved on to other items.","Substitute Senate Bill 5501 would prohibit employers from requiring a driver’s license as a condition of employment or listing one in job postings except when driving is an essential job function or related to a legitimate business purpose; enforcement would be through L&I with statutory damages and civil fines.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6278593,"Committee advances change to PFML employer definition for dock workers' payroll reporting",1029,620000,1649000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34&start=620&end=1649","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34/thumbnail_620000.jpg","/articles/6278593/Washington/Committee-advances-change-to-PFML-employer-definition-for-dock-workers-payroll-reporting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278593-6c8b2e76f39a4a1e41620f79bc864739/orig.mp4?Expires=1771009122&Signature=LC21PhrgPXNkv0wvFcz14DwVqJTOzz3wLs0cYgWFlvbYEhQ0IePCEaMnqZsn0q~teQQUyf8W5Tq07baqxfBuhGbuLyo4GswIT6UtOjwHJAfQzbUzTMwof4E8XX660M-g7V3sF7~ge5dUitsVYVtwkG5OwzxWgpSRiL8t~SAhGBHQ3ERP1-X2nRTV~EIHSLERS3O~bZ2O7yc8TjTzpD2bH2H50FRneGojw0DtW2mLdJMLdc8tdH~N6clT~Og-NDtwAboDMvgY8g1rHgSEllY8z1CU2XhEXMHXYffZ8IXq8TRBpFsAN97L7pbszzGp2iN5OkhnU4ELyPQomCFeVLAADA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee hearing Friday, March 14, senators and industry representatives discussed substitute Senate Bill 5191, which would modify the Paid Family & Medical Leave (PFML) program’s definition of “employer” to cover representatives that report and remit premiums for dock workers who typically work for multiple employers interchangeably under collective bargaining arrangements.

Staff described the change as limited in scope: employer representatives would be required to fulfill PFML obligations for dock workers covered by a collectively bargained agreement; representatives would not be required to report workers who are not covered by that collective bargaining agreement. The change mirrors how the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) currently functions as a payrolling and administrative agent for its member companies, proponents said.

Senator Steve Conway, sponsor of the bill, said the measure addresses administrative barriers for longshore workers who have multiple employers in a week and that using a single labor‑management committee for reporting would simplify PFML claims. Testimony from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and PMA emphasized the practical payroll and tax reasons for the change: PMA’s representative role allows dock workers to receive a single paycheck and avoids excessive tax withholding across multiple employers.

Douglas Deetz of ILWU Local 21 described workers who may load logs one day and grain the next, arguing the single‑reporting approach would reduce tax over‑withholding and ease PFML administration. Cameron Williams of the ILWU Coast Longshore Division said the bill “would allow our dock workers to continue to receive their payroll in the manner that they've historically received it and create efficiencies for the parties to administer…paid family medical leave contributions.” Kristen Oliveira of the Pacific Maritime Association said PMA is not the employer of longshore workers and that the amendment would not change employment status but would permit premium calculations to be based on combined annual wages.

Committee members had no recorded questions in the hearing transcript; the committee later closed testimony on the measure and continued with other items.","Senate substitute Bill 5191 would modify the Paid Family & Medical Leave employer definition to allow labor‑management representatives (PMA/representatives) to fulfill employer premium-reporting obligations for dock workers who work interchangeably for multiple employers.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6278598,"Committee hears bill to ban employer coercion based on immigration status and add penalties",2035,245000,2280000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34&start=245&end=2280","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34/thumbnail_245000.jpg","/articles/6278598/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-ban-employer-coercion-based-on-immigration-status-and-add-penalties","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278598-f97c1eac1780b000253fd52ef1f30eae/orig.mp4?Expires=1771009122&Signature=MuN1z1uL1MasGQIQ0UVEDLl~04O03WID22MtxyzdsnmdxVLhZqzQvrsyQ0ohVi5335kpYNPGV0sPsrsLF3JxOLzIvW~elOl0wQCdoXDC0PfzAdsm-5N0MwkfRKa2b5bLPkPn0JNdUwRMmytJv4enHPeBboLWTP-rxby-0EIqtTZVq0WXlMrqkAHjGM1kgBye3bXpSHdFesYb1fN-Mdpm0uaHxvJVEDJdv6L3U8daabfjqjE~W9Qz39EFewq~Nk7kii5AAv2XO3f0FV30NRWj8sTDN9zzQ2lij-2-3vVBQBvZVjzKxcAVcdbpV7sp16ME-EYNM8hHm6yCW84OYOgRXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee hearing Friday, March 14, members heard testimony on substitute Senate Bill 5104, a measure to prohibit employers from coercing employees by threatening or referencing immigration status to deter protected workplace actions.

The bill would expand L&I’s enforcement tools to cover coercive acts and allow L&I to assess civil penalties of up to $1,000 for a first violation, $5,000 for a second violation, and $10,000 for subsequent violations, with the department required to assess the higher penalty if the conduct also violates existing anti-retaliation rules, a staff briefing said (Kelly Leonard, staff to the committee). The measure applies where coercion facilitates or furthers a violation of wage, hour, or related labor statutes.

Proponents, including students and clinicians from Seattle University’s Workers’ Rights Clinic and advocacy groups, told the committee they see coercion as a distinct problem that silences workers before they can file complaints. Angelo Tadros, a Seattle University law student, said, “This bill is important because it gives LNI a tool to hold accountable employers who coerce their employees based on their immigration status.” Yasmin Hamoud, another student testifier, described a hypothetical worker who was told on her first day she would be paid below minimum wage and warned the employer “had a friend in immigration” if she complained.

Senator Hasegawa, who brought the bill to the committee, said the proposal grew from work by the Seattle University Law Clinic and cited examples of employers withholding pay and threatening immigration enforcement; he also framed the policy as protecting workers and the state’s economic interests. Supporters from the Fair Work Center, Washington State Association for Justice, the Washington State Catholic Conference, and community witnesses described repeated patterns where employers used immigration threats to suppress wage and hour claims.

Committee members asked how L&I investigations would be initiated and how the law would reach workers who fear retaliation or exposure. Staff and witnesses said L&I investigations would generally be complaint‑driven; the bill would create a discrete civil penalty L&I could assess when it finds coercion in the course of its wage and hour enforcement work. Staff clarified the coercion penalty is only applied where an underlying labor-law violation is found.

Supporters urged that the penalty and enforcement authority would create a deterrent and make it easier for L&I to address conduct that currently falls outside retaliation statutes. Opposing testimony on this item was limited in the hearing record. The committee closed testimony on the bill after public comment and moved on to other agenda items.

The bill’s text and any later amendments will determine the scope of protected activity, procedural rules for L&I investigations, and whether additional outreach or confidentiality protections are added to encourage complaint filing.","The Labor & Workplace Standards Committee heard testimony for substitute Senate Bill 5104, which would make coercion tied to an employee’s or family member’s immigration status a punishable labor violation enforceable by the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) with tiered monetary penalties.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6278578,"Senator Ramos briefs committee on bill reorganizing Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act",129,21000,150000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34&start=21&end=150","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2636789-76dc6f4c085625d062acb2a823b90e34/thumbnail_21000.jpg","/articles/6278578/Washington/Senator-Ramos-briefs-committee-on-bill-reorganizing-Public-Employees-Collective-Bargaining-Act","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278578-a43b7f1be9a78153251c298d7507c94b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771009122&Signature=aHQanEKxBeMVU8RAdlfl-0P91aM3-o7HrlVFJ4pa3V3owXgTxlUxVPceBSyFw0ZAmYLcGFAqlhLc2xA48miiQtYliCoiWASjUmhtyqm2hgNatYmQawgCs7PHzBO8Q9fIiU49weTvUovmTkrnYvPRGLTKPRSZqws-5XRt7sC744E8Ic97h6juoxYXH3DZGAy6bQxshI6bvvMkhuOi2oMDnWwSwoYeAMUqw6~WVkM63QVllkHJpbiR803yx9imjMIntNhgp-h1fxzAJLMZtEF3N9pE7ZRcugObtr89oe8yEZZj4hTtEsk~qeedoKLDL8AFkUWluYz-72DzKy3KvWV7Ow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee hearing Friday, March 14, Senator Ramos presented a reorganization bill intended to restructure the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act into chapters and subheadings to improve readability and statutory clarity.

Ben McCarthy, staff to the committee, briefed the bill and said it “reorganizes and adds sub chapter headings to the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act” and noted the act covers collective bargaining for city and county employees, municipal corporations, certain state uniformed personnel, some higher‑education employees, and particular categories such as adult family home providers and childcare workers who are treated as public employees only for collective‑bargaining purposes. Staff also said the bill would repeal two sections—one an emergency clause and the other a cross‑reference section.

Senator Ramos described the proposal as non‑policy housekeeping to make the statute easier to read after many incremental changes over the years. He said, “there's no policy change here involved whatsoever. It's really just so that folks can more easily read the act, follow, and make sure everything's connected.” The committee recorded no public testimony on the item and no amendments were reported in the hearing record.","Senator Ramos presented a technical reorganization bill (recorded as Senate Bill 34/54 35 in the hearing) that would add subchapter headings and repeal two sections of the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act without making policy changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to expand interest arbitration to small jurisdictions prompts debate over cost and fairness

Committee hears bill to ban blanket driver's‑license requirement for hiring with limited exceptions

Committee advances change to PFML employer definition for dock workers' payroll reporting

Committee hears bill to ban employer coercion based on immigration status and add penalties

Senator Ramos briefs committee on bill reorganizing Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act