Bill to extend binding interest arbitration to corrections staff draws support and county concern
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Substitute SB 59 72 would remove a 70,000 population threshold so correctional employees in city and county jails of any size could access binding interest arbitration; unions and proponents called it an equity measure, while counties and some cities warned of fiscal pressure and local budget impacts.
The committee considered substitute Senate Bill 59 72, which would remove the 70,000 population threshold and make binding interest arbitration available to correctional employees in city and county jails regardless of jurisdiction size.
Michael Rainey (AFSCME Council 2) testified the change would correct an arbitrary inequity, aligning corrections employees with other public‑safety workers who already have access to interest arbitration. Carl Keller (Teamsters Local 760) described local disparities in pay where municipal jail workers make 20–25% less than nearby county jail counterparts and urged passage.
County representatives opposed. Travis Dutton (Washington State Association of Counties, substituting) said expanding arbitration would raise bargaining costs for many counties already under fiscal strain; he noted survey data (31 of 39 counties reporting use of reserve funds this year) and requested amendments requiring arbitrators to consider a county's financial ability and making arbitrators' awards non‑binding on legislative appropriation. Jay Arnold (Kirkland City Council) said the measure could cost his city up to $300,000 and warned of impacts on local jails and regional services if municipal facilities close.
Testimony left the issue contested, with proponents framing the bill as equity for corrections staff and local governments emphasizing fiscal constraints. No committee action was taken at the hearing.