Cynthia Garcia — Cynthia Garcia is introduced as one of the last in-person testifiers on the bill, then she testifies as the organizing co-director of Working Washington, a workers' rights organization, beginning her remarks in support of domestic workers and labor standards.
Daniel Cordova — Daniel Cordova testified in support of domestic/home workers' labor rights. He introduced himself as a Seattle resident in District 37 and explained that he came to Washington seeking safety for his daughter. He described working for multiple employers without receiving overtime pay or timely wages, and said he often did not know where to turn for help. He argued that the proposal would protect vulnerable immigrant workers who fear the system and are unfamiliar with their rights, and urged the committee and Legislature to support statewide protections so home workers can receive fair pay, fair contracts, and the protections they need.
Lillian Ortiz-Self — Asked a follow-up and thanked the witness for testifying in Spanish.
Lillian Ortiz-Self — Representative Ortiz-Self questioned whether the bill would be acceptable if L&I kept the funds and paid health care providers or insurers directly instead of sending the money to workers. She followed up by pressing the witness on the concern that workers might not use the money for health insurance and whether the worker could be trusted to pay for coverage themselves.
Lillian Ortiz-Self — Representative Lillian Ortiz-Self asked whether clarifying workers’ rights in law could reduce the need for attorney representation and lessen the burden on workers to prove they qualify for the benefit, suggesting that clearer statutory language might make legal assistance less necessary.
Lillian Ortiz-Self — Representative Lillian Ortiz-Self follows up on concerns about union coercion, asking whether workers were forced into unionizing and how difficult it was to organize and get people to join the union.
HB2409 — The committee opens the hearing on House Bill 2409, which would create a collective bargaining framework for agricultural employees and employers. Representative Mena testifies in support, explaining that the bill would extend collective bargaining rights to agricultural workers and give them a collective voice and a clear process to address unsafe conditions, unfair treatment, and retaliation. He closes by emphasizing that HB 2409 reflects the principle that workers should be able to work safely and with dignity.
HB2409 — Andrea Schmidt testified in support of House Bill 2409.
HB2409 — A witness testifies in opposition to House Bill 2409.
HB2409 — House Bill 2409 is discussed in a single extended moment with mixed testimony: Connors opposes the bill and asks the committee not to move it out, Ramirez warns that if it passes no one will be a rancher, and another witness speaks in favor of the bill, saying it would help farm workers bargain for better wages.
HB2409 — Opposed as adding significant risk to agriculture and potentially harming workers and communities.
Sharlett Mena — Representative Mena presents testimony in support of HB 2409, grounding her remarks in her family’s history as agricultural workers and describing the hardships and dignity issues faced by farmworkers. She shares personal context about her parents’ work and her mother’s experience, references a recent visit to a mushroom farm in Sunnyside and conversations with the Basta Coalition and workers, and concludes by inviting questions.
Shaun Scott — Vice Chair Scott is repeatedly addressed in a procedural role during the hearing: he is asked to call up the next testifier, then to bring up the first panel and the panel on deck for HB 2372, and is later addressed again as the committee transitions after testimony.
Ms. Felon — The chair thanked the witness and closed the hearing on HB 2151.
HB2372 — The committee reopened the hearing on House Bill 2372. Multiple witnesses then testified in support of the bill, describing it as priority legislation for workers and explaining that it would address a compensation gap by ensuring injured workers receive full employer-paid health care coverage during time loss. Speakers urged support for the measure as a fairness issue and as a solution to preserve benefits. Near the end of the segment, NFIB testified in opposition, arguing against the bill’s approach to increasing time loss benefits to offset health care premium costs.
HB2372 — House Bill 2372 is discussed in a single hearing segment. The witness testifies in favor of the bill, explaining that it would end a disparity in time-loss compensation related to health care benefits and could reduce state costs by lowering health insurance expenses for workers who can no longer afford coverage. The witness asks the committee to pass the bill, and the chair then closes the hearing on HB 2372.
Aaron Frazier — Aaron Frazier of the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council testified in support of HB 2372. He explained that the bill would require employer-paid health care coverage during time loss to be compensated at 100% instead of the current 60-75%, and argued this is fair because workers have no choice in the matter and already pay a significant share of workers’ compensation insurance costs.
Ray Dumas — Ray Dumas of OPCMIA Local 528 testified in support of HB 2372 on behalf of operative plasterers and cement masons. He explained that current workers’ compensation rules cover only the acute workplace injury and can leave injured workers at risk of losing health care during recovery. He said HB 2372 would address this by adjusting the time-loss calculation so the full value of health care benefits is counted, helping preserve coverage and support options like staying on salary or light duty.
Danielle Green — Danielle Green was listed as a witness and then testified in support of HB 2372. She introduced herself as a member of Cement Masons and Plasterers Union 528, explained that a workplace injury abruptly ended her career, and described how her health care benefits were paid at 62% while COBRA costs exceeded that amount. She concluded by arguing that a workers’ compensation system should recognize that injured workers’ lives and health do not lose value.
Patrick Connor — Patrick Connor of NFIB testified in opposition to HB 2372, arguing that employers should not be responsible for decisions about time loss or light-duty placement and that the bill’s approach to helping workers pay health insurance premiums is flawed. He suggested any increased payment intended for medical or insurance purposes should come from the medical aid fund and be directed to the insurer or employer to preserve continuity of care. Connor also expressed concern that workers might not use the money for premiums because of other pressing household expenses such as housing, groceries, car maintenance, and fuel, and said a better mechanism should be developed to ensure the funds are used responsibly.
Bill Hockberg — Listed as a later witness from the Washington State Association for Justice.
Bill Hockberg — Bill Hockberg, an attorney with Hockburg and Hammer testifying for the Washington Association for Justice, supports House Bill 2372. He explains that the bill would address the disparity created by the Cockle decision by helping injured workers maintain health care coverage, allowing them either to purchase their own insurance at the prior employer-based rate or have the employer continue paying. He adds that only additional benefits obtained by an attorney are chargeable and urges passage of the bill because, under Cockle, it is critical to protecting workers’ basic health and survival.
Drew Stokesbary — Referenced as the person being responded to earlier in the exchange about whether the worker would pay for their own health insurance.
Tammy Fellon — Tammy Fellon explained that the Department of Labor and Industries can administer the policy but would need time and appropriated administrative funds to implement it. She then addressed questions about benefit distribution and attorney fees, stating that attorney fees may be paid when an attorney helps a worker obtain eligible benefits, up to a reasonable amount not exceeding 30%, and that the full benefit could be subject to that deduction depending on the contract. She also explained that under current law, when employer health care contributions stop, that amount becomes part of wages owed and is included in the time-loss calculation, with the worker notified of the increased benefit and the reason for it. Finally, she noted that clarification could help, though attorneys are often retained to secure the underlying benefit rather than just this portion.
Allison Ryan — Allison Ryan, committee staff, presents House Bill 2472 on fire sprinkler system contracting and fitting and later notes that a fiscal note has been requested but has not yet been received.
HB2472 — House Bill 2472 is presented and explained as legislation governing fire sprinkler system contractors and fitters by requiring proper licensing and certification, including a valid certificate of competency and journey-level fitter credentials, and by requiring proof of credentials to be shown to local fire code officials. The bill also strengthens enforcement by allowing stop-work orders, authorizing requests for payroll records during investigations, and giving local fire code officials and the State Director of Fire Protection tools to address unlicensed or non-certified work, including removal and replacement of unsafe systems when warranted. Witnesses testify in support, emphasizing public safety, compliance, and protecting law-abiding contractors from illegal competition, while one witness raises a drafting concern about the bill’s reference to residential sprinklers. The segment ends with continued support and a request that the committee pass the bill.
Neil Hartman — Neil Hartman of the Washington State Association of U.A. Plumbers and Pipefitters is introduced as the next witness and then testifies on the record as the Government Affairs Director, stating his support for House Bill 2472 on behalf of the association.
Susan Mayer — Named as a witness from the National Fire Sprinkler Association.
Randy Haynes — Randy Haynes is identified as a witness on the panel and then introduces himself as the fire marshal for the City of Olympia, testifying in support of House Bill 2472.
Suzanne Mayer — Testifies in support of House Bill 2472 on behalf of the National Fire Sprinkler Association.
Allison — Staff is asked to confirm that the bill applies to fire protection sprinkler systems.
Bill Stofficker — Bill Stofficker is introduced as the next witness from the Building Industry Association of Washington, then states for the record that he represents BIAW and is opposed to the bill, while indicating he may offer a possible fix.
Karen Grove — Karen Grove of the Washington State Fire Marshals Association is introduced as a remote witness, and the chair then confirms her identity before she begins speaking.
Dr. Karen Grove — Testifies in favor of HB 2472 on behalf of the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals.
HB2472 — Dr. Grove speaks in favor of HB 2472, explaining that the bill is valuable because it provides clarity on an important safety issue and gives fire marshals the ability to ask for qualifications, helping prevent improper work.
April Sims — April Sims of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO was introduced as the first witness and part of the opening panel for the reopened hearing on 2409, then testified in support of the bill. She explained that the National Labor Relations Act historically excluded agricultural work.
Lucy Madrigal — Lucy Madrigal of Community to Community is introduced, called to the panel, and identified as part of the first panel alongside Andrea Schmidt and April Sims. She then begins her testimony, introducing herself as the daughter of farm workers and speaking in support of HB 2409, describing how farm workers have been excluded from collective bargaining rights.
Andrea Schmidt — Andrea Schmidt of Columbia Legal Services is introduced, called to testify, and identified as part of the first panel alongside April Sims and Lucy Madrigal. She then appears as a speaker, introducing herself as an attorney at Columbia Legal Services and testifying in support of House Bill 2409, including discussion of her farm worker employment law practice and the argument that farm workers still lack union election and recognition rights.
Allison Schrader — Introduced as part of the next panel from Highline Grain Growers, Inc.
Allison Schrader — Allison Schrader is identified as part of the next opposition panel from Highline Grain Growers, Inc., and it is then noted that she, along with Randy Munn, is not on Zoom.
Randy Munn — Introduced as part of the next panel from Highline Grain Growers, Inc.
Randy Munn — Randy Munn is introduced as one of the members of the upcoming opposition panel from Highline Grain Growers, Inc., and it is then noted that he, along with Allison Schrader, is not on Zoom.
Paul Katowicz — Introduced as part of the next panel from Highline Grain Growers, Inc.
Ms. Sims — The chair thanks Ms. Sims and notes the panel is getting settled.
HB2409 — Lucy Madrigal testified in strong support of HB 2409, urging a yes vote and explaining that the bill would help farm workers negotiate a livable wage and better working conditions. Andrea Schmidt also testified in support of the bill.
HB2409 — HB 2409 is discussed in a continuous sequence covering its labor-relations provisions, including interest arbitration and when strikes would be allowed. One speaker raises concerns that the bill is overly broad and could leave too much interpretive authority to an agency, while multiple other speakers strongly support it, urging a yes vote. Supporters describe the bill as protecting farm workers, giving them the same consistent rights as other Washington workers, and creating more predictable, less disruptive mechanisms that benefit both employees and employers.
HB2409 — HB 2409 is discussed in a continuous debate segment with multiple speakers urging a yes vote and others opposing the bill. Supporters ask members to vote in favor and emphasize collective bargaining and unionizing rights, while opponents argue the bill is poorly timed and would harm agricultural operations, food security, and farm viability. Critics specifically raise concerns about union certification procedures, lack of accessible decertification, the potential for strikes during harvest, mandatory arbitration, absence of secondary boycott prohibitions, and broader economic damage to farms, workers, and supply chains.
Mark Schoesler — Asked whether the legislation allows interest arbitration and whether workers could strike at any time.
Mark Schoesler — Ranking Member Schmidt is addressed during the exchange and asks a question about profit margins as part of the same discussion.
Marada Glia — Named as part of the next panel, but no testimony yet in this section.