OLYMPIA — The Washington state House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee on Feb. 14 voted to report seven bills out of committee with due‑pass recommendations, advancing measures that address child labor enforcement, mass‑layoff notice and health coverage, apprenticeship requirements for public works, student‑employee collective bargaining, tip protections in hospitality, and a new wage‑replacement program.

The package, approved largely on party‑line or modestly divided votes, moves to the next stage of the legislative process for further consideration and possible amendment. Committee members said the bills aim to balance worker protections, training and employer obligations across industries from construction to higher education.

Committee action and key provisions

House Bill 1121: Allows some 16‑ and 17‑year‑old students in approved career and technical education (CTE) programs to work the same number of hours and days during the school year that they would be permitted during school vacations, and delays the bill's effective date to July 1, 2026. The committee adopted amendment Leon 9 15 to clarify the bill's language (changing “number and frequency of hours” to “number of hours and days”). Committee staff explained summer allowable total hours are 48, while the regular school‑year total is 20 (28 with a variance).

House Bill 1313 (proposed substitute): Requires notice before an employer conducts a mass layoff, relocation or termination and directs the Employment Security Department (ESD) to study mass layoffs. The proposed substitute broadened the employer definition to include entities operating facilities with 100 or more employees, added continuing group health‑insurance payment for laid‑off employees for up to 120 days or until they become eligible for other group coverage, required ESD to develop an online mass‑layoff survey, and added exclusive bargaining representatives and local chief elected officials to required notice recipients. The committee defined a mass layoff in discussion as a layoff affecting 50 or more employees. Supporters framed the bill as giving policymakers and communities time to respond to concentrated job losses; critics said a 60‑day notice requirement can be impractical for some fast‑moving business circumstances.

House Bill 1549 (substitute): Modifies responsible‑bidder criteria on public works and requires successful bidders to submit apprentice‑utilization plans for certain projects. The adopted amendment (NCCB 0 2 1) adds an exception when a bidder met or exceeded apprenticeship requirements on its last public‑works project, requires submission of plans before a notice to proceed rather than within 60 days of award, and recognizes plans as estimates. Backers said the bill will increase on‑the‑job training and contractor awareness of apprenticeship resources.

House Bill 1570: Extends collective bargaining rights to student employees at Central, Eastern and Western Washington universities and The Evergreen State College who are not considered academic employees. Supporters called out the role of student workers in campus operations; some members expressed administrative and funding concerns.

House Bill 1623: Prohibits employers in the hospitality industry from deducting credit‑card processing fees from workers’ tips. Supporters argued it protects low‑wage hospitality workers; opponents cautioned about burdens on small businesses and urged further business‑community engagement.

House Bill 1644 (proposed substitute): Establishes new maximum civil penalties (up to $10,000 per day for continuing serious or repeat violations) and revocation rules for employer minor‑work permits under the Industrial Welfare Act for nonagricultural occupations; aligns agricultural‑occupation enforcement with nonagricultural standards; creates citation, penalty and collections procedures; and requires bidders on public works to attest they are not subject to a minor‑work‑permit revocation. Sponsors said penalties were outdated and stronger enforcement is needed given increased youth employment and injuries; some lawmakers expressed concern that high penalties might discourage hiring of youth in certain workplaces.

House Bill 1773 (proposed substitute): Establishes a wage‑replacement program for certain people ineligible for unemployment insurance (UI) solely because they were not authorized to work in the U.S. at the time they performed work; funds the program with a payroll surcharge on employers. The proposed substitute and a one‑line amendment limited eligibility definitions, shifted terminology, allowed direct application to a third‑party administrator, and capped the surcharge at 0.01% per ranking‑member amendment that the committee did not adopt. Committee debate included concerns about third‑party administration, data retention and the surcharge rate.

Votes at a glance

- HB 1121 (substitute Leon 9 15 adopted): reported out, 9 ayes, 0 nays.
- HB 1313 (proposed substitute): reported out, 6 ayes, 3 nays.
- HB 1549 (substitute with MCCB/NCCB amendments adopted): reported out, 9 ayes, 0 nays.
- HB 1570: reported out, 6 ayes, 3 nays (record shows one member initially recorded as excused then corrected to 0 excused).
- HB 1623: reported out, 6 ayes, 3 nays.
- HB 1644 (proposed substitute): reported out, 6 ayes, 3 nays.
- HB 1773 (proposed substitute): reported out, 6 ayes, 3 nays.

Key quotations from the hearing

"The intent of this bill is to give policymakers, union representatives, a broader community that's impacted by a mass layoff, advanced notice," said Vice Chair Scott while urging support for HB 1313's substitute. Representative McIntyre, who voted against several measures, said about some bills, "I have a fear that the penalties ... discourage the hiring of youth for fear that they may be penalized." Representative Ortiz Self, speaking in favor of HB 1773, said the proposal "strikes the right balance" and urged further negotiation on details.

Context and next steps

Committee members repeatedly noted that several bills will face additional agency or appropriations amendments before final floor consideration. Sponsors and ranking members said they expect continued stakeholder work, particularly on penalty levels in HB 1644 and funding and administration details for HB 1773. All seven measures were reported out with due‑pass recommendations and will move to the next committee or to the House calendar per legislative process.

Reporting note: This report is based on the committee transcript and verbatim remarks recorded during the Feb. 14 Labor & Workplace Standards Committee meeting. Quotes are attributed only to speakers who spoke on the record in the transcript.