Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Isolated Workers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 1524 to strengthen protections and enforcement for isolated workers
Summary
House Bill 1524 would expand the definition of "isolated employees," give the Department of Labor and Industries authority to investigate and assess penalties for violations, and clarify employer responsibilities such as panic buttons, training, and reporting.
On Jan. 29 the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee heard House Bill 1524, which would expand the state's definition of "isolated employees"—including janitors, security guards, hotel and motel housekeepers, and room‑service attendants—and grant the Department of Labor and Industries (LNI) authority to enforce existing requirements, investigate complaints, and assess civil penalties for violations.
Kelly Leonard, committee staff, said the 2019 law created workplace protections for isolated employees but did not give LNI an enforcement mechanism. Under HB 1524, the definition is modified to cover employees who either work where two or more coworkers/supervisors cannot immediately respond to an emergency or who spend at least 50% of working hours without another coworker or supervisor present. LNI would investigate complaints within specified time frames and could assess civil penalties up to $1,000 for most violations and up to $25,100 for fourth and subsequent violations; LNI may waive or reduce penalties if an employer takes corrective action.
Representative Edwin O'Brien, sponsor, said the bill aims to "establish and enhance workplace standards specifically for employers of isolated employees, ensuring their safety and well‑being," and noted the bill would add enforcement teeth to existing duties such as panic‑button devices, mandatory training, and employer reporting.
Worker advocates, union representatives and employers spoke in favor with suggestions. Ellicott Dandy of the Washington Employment Lawyers Association supported the bill and urged amendments to make it clearer that workers whose employers do not comply can access remedies under state civil rights law in appropriate cases. Dandy recounted a client who was assaulted on the job and said that had a panic button been available, the outcome likely would have been different: "Workers like Maya should not be shut out from these remedies when their employers refuse to follow these protections," Dandy said.
Matt Haney of SEIU 6, representing roughly 10,000 mostly immigrant janitorial, security and airport workers, said compliance with the 2019 law has been uneven. Haney cited Bureau of Labor Statistics figures (as presented in testimony) estimating roughly 48,000 janitors statewide and noted that only about 8,000 had been reported as trained under the law—about 17.5 percent—indicating gaps in compliance and enforcement.
An individual identified in the record as a gatekeeper (interpreted testimony) described experiencing supervisor abuse and said the protections and training required by HB 1524 are needed to protect workers who fear losing their jobs if they complain.
Rose Gunderson of the Washington Retail Association supported HB 1524's clarified definition and urged that a previously negotiated understanding that a cell phone may qualify as a panic button remain valid, and recommended LNI conduct outreach and education so employers and workers understand new obligations.
No committee vote was held on HB 1524 on Jan. 29; the hearing record closes with committee members and stakeholders indicating plans to continue working on statutory language and implementation details.
