Committee hears competing views on creating a Security Guards Industry Standards Board

Representative Edwin Obras introduced House Bill 2524 on Jan. 27, proposing a nine‑member Security Guards Industry Standards Board within the Department of Labor & Industries to adopt minimum employment standards for private security guards by Jan. 1, 2028. The bill would require the board to investigate market conditions and set enforceable standards for compensation, paid leave, benefits and training, reviewed at least every four years, and funded in part by a $25 remittance from certain Department of Licensing fees.

Supporters framed the bill as a public‑safety and workforce measure. "This bill will set a standards board to help protect workers in high risk challenging environments," Representative Edwin Obras said, noting guards often work alone and face confrontations before law enforcement arrives. Khalil Hamiduddin of SEIU Local 6 told the committee the industry’s training is minimal and turnover is high: "From January 2021 through August 2025, the average turnover rate was over 113.56%," he said, arguing standardized training and baseline protections would reduce harm and stabilize worksites. Veteran Laurie Hooks described harassment and retaliation risks for guards and urged consistent training and accountability.

Opponents from industry and employer groups argued the bill duplicates existing licensing and training programs and risks raising costs. Michael Transt of Pierce County Security Services said Department of Licensing already sets training and certification requirements (including pre‑assignment and refresher hours) and called the board redundant. Morgan Earvin of the Association of Washington Business expressed concern that a governor‑appointed, nine‑member board could set industry‑wide standards such as wages without legislative oversight. Rose Gunderson of the Washington Retail Association said centralized training would not guarantee safety and flagged the bill’s private right of action as potentially disproportionate to some violations.

The National Association of Security Companies (NASSCO) warned of economic impacts if the board imposes mandated compensation and training costs, arguing higher operational costs could prompt clients to seek unregulated alternatives. Chester Baldwin of the Washington Business Properties Association reiterated concerns that a one‑size‑fits‑all mandate would not reflect diverse facility needs and worried about litigation risk tied to the bill’s enforcement provisions.

Department of Labor & Industries staff stressed administrative and timing concerns rather than policy, saying the department would need time to staff and implement a board and suggested modifications to fee remittance mechanics and a later effective date to allow rulemaking.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2524 after broad testimony. No committee vote or amendment was recorded in the hearing transcript; the bill’s administrative timeline, the scope of board authority, and the private right of action were the main points of contention moving forward.