Engrossed Substitute House Bill 16 22, which would require public employers to bargain with represented employees about some decisions to adopt artificial intelligence and related technologies, drew lengthy public testimony in the Labor & Commerce Committee.

Supporters said early worker participation would protect jobs and improve deployments; opponents said the bill threatens core management rights and would create costly delays.

The bill’s proponents included Jonathan Young, SeaTac city manager, who said the city supports the measure because “taking the time to discuss with represented employees who are our subject matter experts… will result in better informed decision making.” Davis Powell, executive director of SAG-AFTRA Seattle Local, said the bill “would ensure our ability to bargain over emerging technology, which could otherwise be used to replace and supplant a news service.” Joey Hicklin, an electronics engineer who develops AI tools, said frontline worker input is required because “nuance…can only come from frontline workers.”

Opposition came from a broad cross-section of local government and state officials. Candace Bach, representing the Association of Washington Cities, testified the bill “would effectively take the decision making authority out of the hands of the elected city council” and make implementation decisions subject to bargaining. Paul Jewell, for the Washington State Association of Counties, said the use of technology has traditionally been a management right and expressed concern that sections 5 and 6, as drafted, could be interpreted to expand bargaining to decision-making rather than only impacts. Sherry Sawyer of the Office of Financial Management said the bill as drafted creates unclear parameters and could hinder procurement for large IT projects. Bill Clark, with the Washington PUD Association, and Eric Fitch of the Washington Public Ports Association raised comparable concerns about operational delays and unclear drafting.

Witnesses representing local governments emphasized examples where technology increases efficiency or safety, such as virtual reality training for police officers cited by Port Orchard Mayor Rob Putansu. Several speakers noted ambiguity in the bill’s definitions: Morgan Irvin of the Association of Washington Business said the bill’s text defines AI broadly enough to include autocorrect-style suggestions, a scope he said is inconsistent with other state law.

Committee members asked questions about the statute’s effect on the traditional separation between management decisions and bargainable impacts. Senator King summarized the prevailing legal understanding in testimony: the choice to acquire or deploy technology is a management decision while the consequences of that choice—effects on wages, hours and working conditions—are bargainable. Some proponents said they had offered compromise language that would require notice and consultation (for example, a 180-day notice provision offered earlier in the House) but said it was not adopted there.

Committee staff reported the public testimony tally for HB 16 22 as 22 pro, 668 con and 3 other. The committee suspended five-day notice for this bill later in the day to allow further action the next day.

Discussion: committee members and witnesses repeatedly distinguished between bargaining over the decision to adopt technology and bargaining over impacts such as wages or performance evaluations. Many local-government witnesses argued the bill’s current drafting would require bargaining over decisions and would thus slow or raise the cost of adopting new systems. Supporters argued early bargaining or consultation would protect workers and produce better outcomes.

No final committee vote on the substantive merits of HB 16 22 is recorded in the transcript; the record shows only public testimony and the later committee motion to suspend five-day notice to permit further consideration.