[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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],{"_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",6108882,"mediaKeyId","2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316","parentId",2764979,"title","DFW captains and lieutenants seek interest arbitration and removal from coalition bargaining","audioSeconds",119,"startMs",4347240,"endMs",4467010,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316&start=4347&end=4467","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316/thumbnail_4347240.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6108882/Washington/DFW-captains-and-lieutenants-seek-interest-arbitration-and-removal-from-coalition-bargaining","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6108882-6b7812119cc0c0fa847d9dd5b0e507fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770493613&Signature=cB4P7Ut7bYaVGt5QdJ6zbik6rvD7hA4UvABFTUSWHrsjISVN3ryy~Wu3cWxixB-wE8j6vheeIFKRPzKWhPeOSyJoLo0vXg~A7dL06E68IDLVj-E8FW5h1PVrGXVepn1c5D1FgAMinSARpCMq1LCLar1SM3HuyeJuuDi29So5a3oiaVdpcXc8tm9ariYN-0-0iNFYJB65~Nb3P9bUStK9icB-hwoHbDzPdYCmw8WtqIzH-zecJUuvumv2~F-2w2kfsQJi7rZhyAQbzKUmgiHnPXIU5S8srNTHvF6jAfBpueXDXfUMfJ2xFJnxZB9LL5iz9pXFBDiRgQ-rt0em~bA24Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington Legislature","date","2025-03-25T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 5653 would remove Department of Fish and Wildlife captains and lieutenants from the coalition bargaining requirement under the Personnel System Reform Act (PSRA) and place them under the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA), granting interest arbitration rights.

Christopher Rosenberger, representing the Fish and Wildlife Lieutenants and Captains Association (affiliated with Teamsters Local 760), testified in support March 25 and described the measure as a “technical cleanup” that would align captains and lieutenants with officers and sergeants below them who already have interest arbitration rights.

Rosenberger told the committee the bargaining unit is small — 12 fully commissioned law‑enforcement officers — and that the change would streamline collective bargaining for both the state and the members. He noted that the unit’s members are fully commissioned police officers who attend the same police academy as municipal or county officers and enforce natural‑resource and public‑safety laws.

Why this matters: Moving the ranks into PECBA would remove the requirement that small exclusive bargaining representatives bargain as part of a single coalition of small bargaining units and would give captains and lieutenants access to interest arbitration, the dispute‑resolution mechanism available to other ranks in the enforcement program.

Committee response: Members asked clarifying questions about the unit’s history and law‑enforcement authority; Rosenberger confirmed that captains and lieutenants are commissioned officers with routine law‑enforcement responsibilities. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and had bipartisan support in prior committees, Rosenberger said.

No other proponents or opponents testified in the transcript. The committee closed the SB 5653 hearing after Rosenberger’s testimony; no vote was recorded in the transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Labor & Workplace Standards 10:30 AM March 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 5653 would move Department of Fish & Wildlife captains and lieutenants from the PSRA coalition requirement into PECBA bargaining with interest arbitration; the small, commissioned law‑enforcement group said the change is a technical correction that aligns their rights with lower ranks.","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},6108887,"Panel hears state WARN‑style bill to require 60‑day notice for mass layoffs and closings",671,3573770,4245180,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316&start=3573&end=4245","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316/thumbnail_3573770.jpg","/articles/6108887/Washington/Panel-hears-state-WARNstyle-bill-to-require-60day-notice-for-mass-layoffs-and-closings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6108887-8cc5cc2b1256a03461e5850dae809903/orig.mp4?Expires=1770493613&Signature=e0mC0-bmdtP62eq5uKUwJ7KjQ7XMfI4gK9jHUwfyY3Hm3lw2oKADFLhKqadjhRGzJNZgJ8qfWQZyqT8pJL7dVjx2MVecEef~BNq68LALhwJGqznmQikLEO4nBw6tk2Nl-vbWyXjLuP223ZgPIckAtzhVHAXcujjqgSkvmhizqsc0kGYD1~5HkIPjM6GEHOBrkbwPT~XU1pGp30KGOwkjcMXaA1ctONgpez0CyRZyugkl7ehKfj7mKSDcjUY4eg~7FOWWY4MnZrU83MEjeD6yZdRYP5ccAoMGHr73fXqvGfNs1a8UPIJuPX9HMhhOlbnVmfuAeNTLtguE8d7kCIkwyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 5525, titled the Securing Timely Notification and Benefits for Laid Off Employees Act in staff briefing, would create a Washington‑level WARN statute that requires covered employers to provide 60 days’ notice before a business closing or mass layoff and prescribes notice content, exemptions, and penalties.

Staff outlined the bill’s scope: a covered employer is a person with 50 or more full‑time employees in Washington (state and political subdivisions are excluded). A business closing or a mass layoff that causes employment loss for 50 or more full‑time employees in a 30‑day period would trigger the notice requirement. The bill largely parallels the Federal WARN Act but differs in several elements, including employer threshold and additional notice content required by the bill.

Notable provisions: The bill requires notice to unrepresented employees, union representatives of affected employees, and the Employment Security Department and adds specified content such as whether a temporary action is expected to be longer or shorter than three months, names of employees holding affected jobs, whether jobs are being relocated or contracted out, and addresses of affected employees for the ESD notice.

Exemptions and penalties: Staff described five exemptions (three mirror federal exemptions — active pursuit of capital, unforeseeable business circumstances, and natural disaster — plus two Washington‑specific exemptions related to completion of construction projects and multi‑employer construction projects with union dispatch). Penalties for failure to notify include back pay and benefits to each affected employee for the violation period and a civil penalty up to $500 per day; certain reductions apply, and timely payments can avoid civil penalties.

Witness testimony: Workers and contractors testified in support. Chris Webber, a former Blue Origin tooling‑design engineer, recounted being laid off with no notice and urged the committee to support SB 5525 to protect workers’ stability. Michael Transu (Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington) and other construction representatives sought specific language from a House version of the bill for construction‑project exemptions, asking that the law apply across the life of a project rather than only at its “completion.”

PFML protections: The bill also prohibits employers from including employees on paid family and medical leave in a mass layoff unless the layoff falls under certain exemptions, preserving state PFML restoration protections except in those narrow circumstances.

Committee follow‑ups: Members asked about differences between the Senate and House versions; staff offered to provide a chart. Testimony included requests to replace the Senate’s “completion” phrasing with the House language for construction‑project exemptions to avoid shutting out workers who are intermittently employed across a multi‑year project.

The committee closed the SB 5525 hearing after testimony; no committee vote is recorded in the transcript.","Engrossed SB 5525 would create a Washington WARN act requiring covered employers to provide 60 days’ notice of business closures or mass layoffs, expand coverage to employers with 50+ employees, and add state penalties and specific notice content; witnesses included laid‑off employees and contractors.",{"_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},6108891,"Committee hears bill to require annual prevailing‑wage adjustments on public works contracts",4276,353660,4630350,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316&start=353&end=4630","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316/thumbnail_353660.jpg","/articles/6108891/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-require-annual-prevailingwage-adjustments-on-public-works-contracts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6108891-0b68c581a315fca4c6ef5571ba51ec7e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770493613&Signature=Kyn-kQysl7yoSGdDDr~xcAjzGc3FZMEfpEu9Tgmu2bjpBfFCRbQWGPwO7wTUJGa0ymf8Kl7Oeuwky6Dn71ouZF9-Waar3L8lW~qPHONQ2ZOKZmlqUV1e4eOaO8t-BrMtN5RlECuCyjSLDVNSo9ivH~wLX0hiTmHKsvagxl4wmXluHCpNn9r~ZkZ8N-Lpy2r~A8VxfNqrrAPzWZH1goGNZWJ0pTfauF-RRvCzO51FmsvthOQkWATC9F-P5PG5EY0I9ZAcTYunbNH5zq2jiQhBEs-QcFncoiY8zeZ1cTBS2BOL0T9tBaZPloXsPbUwVoQQTRik10V2qemoxzXiHP3oug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 5061, proposing annual adjustments to prevailing wage rates on public works contracts, drew broad testimony March 25 from labor unions, contractors, and industry associations before the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee.

The bill would require public‑works contracts to stipulate that the minimum hourly rate be adjusted annually based on the contract date so the wage is not less than the most recently published prevailing wage. The bill exempts small works roster contracts and residential construction.

Why this matters: Prevailing wages in Washington reflect local collective bargaining outcomes and are published by the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I). Under current practice the prevailing rate that applies is typically the rate in effect at the prime contractor’s bid due date for the life of the project; SB 5061 would require an annual adjustment so wages track more closely with updated prevailing‑wage publications.

Support from unions and trades: Multiple labor organizations testified in strong support, saying the proposal protects workers from frozen wages on long projects and reduces turnover. Erin Fraser of the Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council said the bill “is important to make sure that our workers’ wages aren't frozen, especially when projects go 3 to 5 years or more.” Chris Ellis of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers and representatives from IBEW, the Mechanical Contractors Association signatory members, and Laborers emphasized that prevailing wages include both wages and benefits and that annual adjustments preserve workers’ total compensation.

Contractor concerns and requested amendments: Contractor associations expressed concerns about cost predictability and cited instances of large percentage changes driven by the Department’s treatment of multiple collective bargaining agreements (the “2 CBA” issue). Christine Brewer of the Associated General Contractors of Washington said AGC negotiated multi‑year master labor agreements and that “our contracts currently reflect a 2 year freeze,” urging a mechanism to request change orders for significant increases. The Associated Builders and Contractors Inland Pacific Chapter likewise sought clearer change‑order language and predictability for nonunion contractors.

Implementation and predictability: Testimony from union and L&I witnesses indicated many signatory union contracts already include multi‑year, known increases — unions said they “know to the penny” the wage increases contained in collective bargaining agreements and post those figures in advance. Tammy Felon of L&I confirmed there are over 22,000 different prevailing‑wage rates in the program and that L&I publishes updates twice yearly; she noted prevailing wage is the statutory minimum and contractors may pay more.

Questions at the hearing focused on how contractors would price bids for long projects, whether nonunion contractors would have access to multi‑year increase schedules, and how much public‑works project costs could rise if labor rates change annually. Witnesses said labor increases can be calculated from union agreements but contractor markups and profit margins affect final bid pricing.

Several testifiers urged technical assistance for small bidders: Tiffany Scroggs of the Thurston Economic Development Council recommended that any major prevailing‑wage change include funding for technical assistance and training to ensure small and first‑time public works bidders understand compliance obligations.

The committee closed the SB 5061 hearing after testimony and questions; no vote was recorded in the transcript.","Senate Bill 5061 would require public works contracts (excluding small works roster and residential construction) to adjust the minimum hourly prevailing wage annually during a contract’s life; unions supported the change while contractors urged safeguards for cost predictability and change‑orders.",{"_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},6108896,"Committee weighs 14‑day cure for employers under Washington pay‑transparency law",2202,15330,2217670,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316&start=15&end=2217","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2764979-1021f1696fae3edb2bc8ef2529229316/thumbnail_15330.jpg","/articles/6108896/Washington/Committee-weighs-14day-cure-for-employers-under-Washington-paytransparency-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6108896-6547cb32ac48faa29cb24f7216630499/orig.mp4?Expires=1770493614&Signature=kM9erRAigHPvQ3BIDrHFy9BdN5wscWpxDYVBAqGxRGtwDCoQHZ1ssnk~4gQ0r2eCzglTfxaxCWqKPJgh2ZUznDVv8wzEBqfA3u7befud0Xx~-YXSDwdKem4k78UwJiGQHwQMGPnmFUrBRRr3BW3g6224Bwh~AARJ6YKo16sGrRRe-SRfxxIxlB94TS8iFFaGz9YppA1RdFpgSkvAujmCWTLgVRfqEVFPApmbeUXQ~EXlubAhzxDwYl9LbKAo0orDURCIi26SJhoKu53l9yOBdzKhdKOrWunmkVMmjW5wgtlFzFHaK8Re-Tnx75GJLZm9340vcGiY3i-~ZR0VkD3Lbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 5408, which would add a written‑notice requirement and a 14‑day cure period to Washington’s pay‑transparency law, drew competing testimony from small‑business groups and worker advocates during the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee hearing March 25.

Supporters said the bill preserves pay‑transparency while protecting small employers from repeated litigation; opponents said it would weaken enforcement and deter applicants from exercising their rights.

The bill would require an employer with 15 or more employees to disclose a wage scale or salary range and a general description of relevant benefits in any job posting, and would require written notice to employers before an applicant may pursue administrative or civil remedies. As Kelly Leonard, staff to the committee, summarized during the staff briefing: “If an employer corrects the posting within 14 calendar days of receiving the written notice…and contacts third party job posting entities…then neither LNI nor the court may assess penalties, damages, or other relief against the employer.”

Why this matters: Washington’s pay‑transparency law is among the nation’s stronger statutes in enforcement, advocates said, and private litigation has been a key mechanism for compliance. Supporters of SB 5408 told the committee the proposed cure period would reduce what they described as opportunistic or high‑cost litigation that disproportionately harms small businesses. Katie Beeson of the Washington Food Industry Association said many small retailers “do not have general counsel or even resources to hire outside counsel” and often settle even for inadvertent posting errors.

Proponents’ arguments and examples: Business groups — including the Washington Retail Association and the Association of Washington Business — described instances where law firms pursued multiple suits over postings and where employers paid large sums to resolve claims. Lindsey Huer of AWB said the bill “fully preserves the employer’s duty to post wages” while providing a corrective pathway and noted the bill would not eliminate liability for employers who fail to cure.

Opponents’ concerns: Worker advocates, legal aid groups, and individuals urged rejection. Vassu Reddy of the National Women’s Law Center argued the bill “would significantly undermine Washington’s landmark pay range transparency law” and restore information asymmetries that disadvantage job applicants — particularly women and workers of color. Gabriela Quintana of the Economic Opportunity Institute and Sandra Distelhorst of the American Association of University Women of Washington warned a 14‑day cure period would be too long in sectors with rapid hiring cycles such as hospitality and retail.

Individual testimony: Employees and litigators described real cases. Desi Moliga, a worker who brought a private suit, recounted being offered low wages and said litigation produced better posting practices at some employers. Attorney Hannah Hamley of Emery Reddy said Washington’s enforcement “is what separates us” from other states and that SB 5408 would create a “massive loophole” enabling strategic noncompliance.

Substantive details from the committee briefing: The staff briefing noted remedies under current law include administrative proceedings through the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) — which may issue citations, assess damages equal to actual damages or $5,000 (whichever is greater), and assess 1% interest per month on owed compensation — or a private civil action that can award comparable damages, reinstatement, and injunctive relief. SB 5408 would add a written‑notice condition that, once satisfied for a specific posting, constitutes adequate notice for any applicant who later seeks remedies for that posting.

What the committee asked: Members questioned how the written‑notice regime would operate in practice, whether applicants would be chilled from reporting violations, and whether the change would encourage repeat noncompliance. Supporters asserted the bill simply provides a short corrective window while preserving enforcement; opponents said it shifts enforcement burdens onto applicants.

No formal committee vote was recorded in the transcript. The committee closed the SB 5408 hearing after public and panel testimony and moved to the next agenda item.

Looking ahead: The bill remains contested along familiar lines — business groups seeking to limit litigation exposure and worker and equity advocates seeking to preserve robust enforcement. Any change to SB 5408 would affect the balance between speed of corrective action and incentives for proactive compliance.","Lawmakers and witnesses sharply debated Senate Bill 5408, which would require written notice before enforcement and give employers 14 calendar days to correct missing wage-range postings before administrative or civil remedies proceed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

DFW captains and lieutenants seek interest arbitration and removal from coalition bargaining

Panel hears state WARN‑style bill to require 60‑day notice for mass layoffs and closings

Committee hears bill to require annual prevailing‑wage adjustments on public works contracts

Committee weighs 14‑day cure for employers under Washington pay‑transparency law