[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",6110865,"mediaKeyId","2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e","parentId",2755792,"title","Hearing divides over expanding job protections under Washington’s paid leave program","audioSeconds",228,"startMs",4989000,"endMs",5217465,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e&start=4989&end=5217","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e/thumbnail_4989000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6110865/Washington/Hearing-divides-over-expanding-job-protections-under-Washingtons-paid-leave-program","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6110865-7f23f303ccf301b62789f9571addff5d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448595&Signature=arMpTtpfZrXZ6bchCu~t40SbISvfBcnaila3m8MSpH3F1hXam6nVkWFAap5JwZuHlHruJBk5P94imWV2NC77PZBEKAxsVbqFxvz72o83lIc1-rSdugBjhcGuX8QXqONKcs-OntkaLp8A-WCHgi7ZMQKlMLhHzYq8RP3md7SNcGGLdDaY8A2tB9geZxoGVcge10NmLG3dPi3RqUVYGRUs6nAOIVIJVrD9nuiEmeK6iw5mW1VJXPOaBSROo~jRlmdgygkJxOmH2zRv7j3fG2BVnKmnmYUGtpM8mrv-9Sb~xwbkFFmweP2x2A1CACgSvTHZjnAczdB48Ih9tZal2qmCzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Labor & Commerce","date","2025-03-24T00:00:00Z","article","Second substitute House Bill 12 13, proposing expanded job protections and other changes to Washington’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, was reported to the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee and drew a large and divided public record.

Committee staff Susan Jones described the bill’s core changes: lowering the minimum claim period from eight consecutive hours to four; removing the hourly threshold for employment protection and instead requiring that an employee have begun employment at least 180 days before taking leave to qualify for job protection; extending employment restoration protections to more employees regardless of employer size; and providing grants to offset small‑employer temporary replacement and health‑coverage costs. Jones also summarized the fiscal note and reported projected cash receipts and expenditures driven by projected rate changes and increased use.

Supporters included labor unions, caregivers and advocates who said the existing program leaves many workers—particularly low‑wage and part‑time workers—without meaningful job protection despite paying into the PFML trust. Maggie Humphreys of MomsRising described the current gap: “Nearly half of workers who pay … premiums to fund this program, nearly half of those workers have no right to their job back if they take leave,” she said, citing a UW‑funded study. Union and firefighter representatives said the bill would help emergency services and industries with younger workforces.

Business and local‑government witnesses raised substantial fiscal and operational concerns. Grocery, retail and construction associations, NFIB and Association of Washington Business argued the bill breaks the negotiated compromise reached when PFML was enacted. Witnesses said the fiscal note projected large premium increases and that the program had already required general‑fund support in a prior transfer. Katie Beeson for the Washington Food Industry Association warned of supply‑chain cost increases; Christine Brewer of the Associated General Contractors and others said holding skilled positions open during critical work periods is often infeasible and that grants might not fully cover replacement costs. Several industry witnesses urged administrative solutions and targeted exemptions for the smallest employers and critical positions in small jurisdictions.

Proponents countered that other states’ paid‑leave programs have extended protections to workers at small employers without widespread business closures. Labor representatives said the legislature must close the job‑protection gap for people who pay into the program. Several witnesses asked the committee to consider program solvency measures in parallel with expanded coverage.

The committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing. Staff noted the bill’s House passage figures during the readin and a high volume of pro and con sign‑ins: “208 pro, 1,132 con, and 3 other,” staff said while concluding testimony. Senators and stakeholders signaled further work would be required on solvency, small‑employer grants and narrow exemptions for critical positions before any committee action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Labor & Commerce - 3/24/2025 10:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","House substitute 12 13 would expand job‑restoration protections, reduce minimum claim period to four hours, and create small‑employer grants. Supporters called it a needed fix for workers who lack job protection; many business groups warned of solvency risks and added costs to small employers.","taxTitle","Labor & Commerce, Senate, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20507,"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},6110869,"Committee weighs bill giving employees quicker access to personnel records",184,1330695,1514830,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e&start=1330&end=1514","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e/thumbnail_1330695.jpg","/articles/6110869/Washington/Committee-weighs-bill-giving-employees-quicker-access-to-personnel-records","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6110869-948c8f34cfc987cf68e1522c30823da5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448595&Signature=ecun-FngC2IHRfeh5aKCG6xahwRqQ50T8NpNCnHZMAMOsk~VBiVOIfrFoMZNvSLeeOh-bIzjxgP8eKRqL7M27e5qdv4ruArAvFAXr1ET2lo8wudOlDUgnieCFvkKz7fGyFD6C9h4QUtPoKMiYECFmgtk~I5QpA6~jTO0ztC1m1uhOqOQTUTCpTvwXkFI9VGNeiXJ99wgs44gfKMXDouyMTG0YrDEAxDheUS2Zc87sKPXNsHsrRVEwpJjVrRAiFvq-v1xsLgJNnUZ699exhE9FS1-V9GKSV0c7~azAvV3lVxlv-uQ8XqGXa9DLnmyeMOyafmXEz0j5XyC9lPrHVqzHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Substitute House Bill 13 08, concerning employee access to personnel records, was reported into the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee and drew extensive testimony from labor advocates, injured‑worker attorneys and business trade groups.

Committee staff Susan Jones summarized the bill, characterizing it as an amendment to the Industrial Welfare Act. Jones said the bill would require employers to allow inspection of personnel records within 21 calendar days after request, would require private employers to provide a no‑cost copy within that period, and—for private employers—would create a private cause of action with statutory damages between $250 and $1,000 and reasonable attorney’s fees for failure to comply. Staff also noted that the bill removes medical records from the personnel‑file list included in prior proposals and clarifies the list does not supersede federal or state privacy laws.

Representative Julia Reed, the bill’s prime sponsor, said the change “asks employers to follow the existing law” and provides a modest private enforcement mechanism intended to give workers recourse when employers ignore personnel‑file requests. Reed said the 21‑day window is a right to cure for private employers and that an additional five‑day notice requirement was included before a worker may file suit.

Proponents included injured‑worker practitioners who said current practice forces workers to litigate to obtain payroll and benefits records needed to calculate time‑loss benefits. Jane Dale of the Washington State Association for Justice said the bill would reduce litigation for injured workers because employers often ignore records requests and “workers currently have to hire an attorney, pay litigation costs, so we can compel these documents through subpoenas.” Jesse Wing of the Washington Employment Lawyers Association described the bill as “simple” and argued it “puts teeth into existing law” by addressing a pattern of employers ignoring personnel requests.

Business groups urged alternatives to a private tort claim. The Washington Food Industry Association and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) recommended administrative remedies administered by an agency rather than a private right of action, citing small employers with minimal administrative capacity. Industry witnesses said the bill’s catchall “other records” language (section 1(g)) and a private enforcement mechanism risked increased litigation and compliance costs for small businesses.

Supporters, including unions and labor councils, said workers lack a practical enforcement route under current law. John Trainer of the Washington State Labor Council AFL‑CIO said enforcement is necessary because employers “simply refuse” to provide copies and that collective bargaining agreements only sometimes remedy the problem. Testimony reflected a broad split: labor and injured‑worker advocates uniformly supported the bill; most trade and small‑business groups opposed the private right of action and urged administrative enforcement or narrowed language.

The committee did not take final action during the hearing. Staff reported the bill’s House passage figure during the readin: “it passed House 50 six‑forty 1” (as read into the record). Several committee members asked staff and proponents for additional fiscal and implementation details.","Substitute House Bill 13 08 would require employers to provide copies of personnel files within 21 calendar days and create a private cause of action for noncompliance. Advocates—particularly injured workers and labor organizations—supported adding enforcement; business groups urged administrative remedies instead of a private right of action.",{"_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},6110875,"Panel hears cosmetology licensure compact; DOL fiscal questions raised",2542,938165,3480200,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e&start=938&end=3480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e/thumbnail_938165.jpg","/articles/6110875/Washington/Panel-hears-cosmetology-licensure-compact-DOL-fiscal-questions-raised","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6110875-74c52aa18cdd0a7b060ac65eabcd64e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448595&Signature=T8T1ALbKi654si517~sMvMWbh0iItDIC404jQtkmFB3EDeCyMJrSQ1JPlzTVvY1VGYvoJ0TL9g83C7nY9upOf4Jv~f0XC5xcHV4vVGRLxoRcs4Nb3qNi0fwc67e3SkkpwzuL5~tUOBiBFzIbjvnSgvHrxH7Fju1oo650pWkKcKhYM8ZZdQ0wGe2WGVWQN99D~XPqp0ZA4RD9XPVP~feiA~8mkRGA~PHXy97iegcpACCnmSnWIT9iuSE3v-95cBYoTZXhhm9i~gssgCm6vR5OCKR4dj~rFoafwVY48ZiBUpsMHemXElx3vJD~fI7Cr4hrVLCzo8ijf4Xv6tb0vbWLgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Substitute House Bill 10 23, establishing a cosmetology licensure compact to allow multistate cosmetology licenses, was reported into the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee and received public testimony.

Committee staff Susan Jones described the compact: a multistate license would be issued by the licensee’s home state and authorize practice in other member states; the compact would be administered by a commission of home‑state delegates and could levy assessments and fees to cover operating costs. Jones read the Department of Licensing fiscal note: four‑year cash receipts and expenditures of approximately $4,000,000 that offset each other, and an agency assumption that roughly 10% of eligible licensees would participate.

Representative Cindy Ryu, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee the compact would help military spouses, domestic violence survivors and others who move between states: it “creates reciprocity among participating states and reduces the barriers to licensure,” she said. Ryu said she supports three Department of Licensing amendments, including extending the effective date to 06/01/2028 to allow implementation planning, clarifying the bill applies only to cosmetologist licenses (not barbers or aestheticians), and giving the compact explicit authority to mark certain licensee data confidential.

Witnesses from the cosmetology trades supported the compact’s intent but raised implementation concerns. Brooke Davies of Cosmetologists of Washington United said she “absolutely support[s] the intent” but warned that the fiscal note’s projected fees could create a sizable fee increase for participants: current cosmetology license fees are $61, while DOL’s implementation costs could translate into additional fees in the hundreds of dollars for participating licensees. Davies and other witnesses asked the committee to clarify that costs and IT upgrades would be borne only by multistate license applicants rather than all licensees.

The Department of Defense liaison testified in support and recommended the later effective date to allow the state time to implement program and fiscal processes. Some trade witnesses asked staff to coordinate follow‑up with DOL to clarify the timeline, customer service impacts and whether implementation costs would be passed to non‑participating licensees.

No committee vote was recorded in the hearing. Staff reported that the House had passed the bill 96 to 1 when the report was read into the record. Committee members said they would work with DOL and stakeholders on fiscal clarifications prior to any floor action.","A bill to adopt the interstate cosmetology licensure compact drew support from military spouse advocates and compact proponents; cosmetology trade groups and fee‑sensitive licensees pressed the Department of Licensing fiscal assumptions and asked for phased implementation and cost clarifications.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6110880,"Senate committee hears bill to expand Washington’s Fair Chance hiring rules",0,568000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e&start=568&end=568","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2755792-26ccdffa37aa4e9777081d843a73309e/thumbnail_568000.jpg","/articles/6110880/Washington/Senate-committee-hears-bill-to-expand-Washingtons-Fair-Chance-hiring-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6110880-63f1a682e5afb552264354ee9094d2cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448595&Signature=jiP1cb2FowQ~e6C7KFJEnrKsCmmIn1R8r2qrC8hPXrY902dTWUODoWTbhbCwaPlOTODQVJsNUDz3vkXcXUp67DtZzBQ-u1~pyAUrRV9hyLE~DT-8fQMGdQQuH026XXD8wtvEgxWEZXiGRLwJTiY4Zh84A8QF9k8s4eWxz5wfC8jWsWO7q~BzhoanutwX6MBfBC~MNrLQImHluyozpkYhU~Ua4yy9Svf8lKRGkQTDcva5Fy~b82nI2GcntOCqtKOdYrugb5GOZ7rGlgouHBQgDx6BqsbXUKakvxrqB45BJuGxmXFZuY-9DELEAVFC5xa~pkURLkZHwkoNHZlC1CrtAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Engrossed House Bill 17 47, which would expand protections for applicants and employees under the Washington Fair Chance Act, was read into the record and discussed at a public hearing of the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee.

Committee staff member Susan Jones summarized the bill: “Under the bill, an employer may not automatically exclude an individual with a criminal record from an employment position. The employer must make a conditional offer of employment before requesting or obtaining information about an applicant’s criminal record.” Jones also described timing and penalty provisions included in the bill and noted implementation dates in the text: the act would apply beginning 07/01/2026 to employers with 15 or more employees, and beginning 01/01/2027 to employers with fewer than 15 employees.

Sponsor Representative Lillian Ortiz‑Self framed the proposal as an expansion of existing local practices and a compromise with business. Representative Ortiz‑Self said the measure “brings consistency across the state of Washington” and that the bill was negotiated with business groups so it would be “business friendly and worker friendly.” She emphasized that the proposal does not force employers to hire applicants with conviction histories: employers “can still turn them down,” she told the committee.

Local governments and employers offered mixed testimony. Spokane City Council President Pro Tem Paul Dillon said Spokane’s local “Ban the Box” law and implementation experience supported the approach: expanding fair‑chance hiring “limits the barriers to accessing employment” and helps address homelessness by removing hiring barriers, he said. Business witnesses described precautions and sector limits. Brad Tower, representing Community Bankers of Washington, asked the committee to consider bank‑specific constraints driven by federal regulators and said small community banks may face higher vetting costs.

Corporate and nonprofit proponents described active use of conditional‑offer background checks. Nan Gibson of JPMorgan Chase said her company “conduct[s] individualized assessments only after a conditional offer of employment” and encouraged other employers to adopt similar practices. Jim Campbell, executive chef at the Rainier Club, said many employers already wait until later in hiring to run background checks: “It’s not worth spending money for a background report unless the job candidate is really the person we want,” he said, adding that the bill standardizes a “legitimate business reason” test that employers already apply in practice.

Formerly incarcerated workers and reentry advocates urged enactment. Sofia Thomas of Living with Conviction said she was denied jobs “not because I wasn’t qualified, but because of my record,” and asked the committee to pass the bill to allow applicants to be evaluated on current qualifications. Civil Survival policy manager Kelly Olsen noted the bill “updates Washington’s Fair Chance Act to ensure background checks occur only after a conditional offer” and stressed the measure includes phased implementation and no private right of action.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing. Susan Jones noted the bill’s House passage figures when she read the report: “It passed the House 56 to 40.” The bill also references a Senate companion that was not heard in committee, according to staff.

If advanced by the committee, the bill would change when employers may seek criminal history, add procedural steps before a tangible adverse action, and increase maximum administrative penalties that the Attorney General’s Office may pursue. The bill text sets a two‑business‑day window for applicants to respond to a proposed adverse action and specifies documentation employers must provide before finalizing a rescission of a conditional offer.

Supporters argued the change would expand the qualified applicant pool and reduce recidivism by making employment more accessible; some business witnesses urged clarifying sectoral exemptions and operational impacts. Committee members signaled follow‑up questions and requests for additional information about enforcement history and sector specific concerns.","A bill to delay background checks until after a conditional job offer and to limit employers’ use of criminal history drew business, municipal and reentry testimony in the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee. Supporters said the measure would widen applicant pools; opponents warned about costs and sector-specific constraints.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hearing divides over expanding job protections under Washington’s paid leave program

Committee weighs bill giving employees quicker access to personnel records

Panel hears cosmetology licensure compact; DOL fiscal questions raised

Senate committee hears bill to expand Washington’s Fair Chance hiring rules