HB 2422 revises Washington law governing private security guards and private security companies. The bill amends licensing provisions for private security guards and armed private security guards, including age, citizenship/residency, criminal history, training, fingerprinting, and fee requirements. It also adds a new section requiring private security companies to pay the application, renewal, and endorsement fees for guards they employ or have offered employment to, and to provide the billing information needed for those applications.
The bill’s stated purpose is to shift the cost of licensing from individual guards to employers. The legislative findings describe licensing fees as a barrier to entry and retention in a low-wage, high-turnover industry, and argue that large security firms are better able to absorb those costs. The bill also prohibits companies from requiring employees to reimburse those fees, including through wage deductions, and authorizes monetary penalties and possible license suspension or revocation for repeat violations. The act takes effect on November 1.
Impact
HB 2422 would amend multiple sections of Washington’s private security guard licensing statutes in Title 18 RCW and create a new enforcement section. In practical terms, it changes who bears the financial responsibility for licensing-related costs by requiring private security companies—not individual guards—to pay application, renewal, and endorsement fees for covered employees and applicants. It also adds compliance and penalty provisions that give the department authority to enforce the new employer-payment requirement. The bill affects private security guards, armed guards, private security companies, and the state agency responsible for licensing and enforcement.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, passing the House Committee on Postsecondary Education & Workforce on a 9-3 vote to substitute the first substitute bill and do pass. The bill text itself is strongly supportive of the change, emphasizing fairness, workforce stability, and public safety. No committee transcript was provided, so the broader discussion record is limited, but the committee vote indicates meaningful support with some opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is the allocation of licensing costs. Supporters argue that individual guards should not bear recurring licensing fees in a low-wage industry and that employers are better positioned to pay. Opponents, as reflected by the 3 nays in committee, likely objected to imposing new direct costs and compliance obligations on private security companies, as well as the enforcement mechanism and potential penalties. Another possible issue is the bill’s broader regulatory approach, including restrictions on fee reimbursement and the threat of suspension or revocation for repeat violations.