SHB 1398
In CommitteeHouse
Adult family home arb.
Concerning factors which are considered in interest arbitration for adult family home providers.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill updates how interest arbitration panels decide wages and working conditions for adult family home workers and other long-term care and child care providers. It adds specific factors arbitrators must consider — including regional cost of living, national wage comparisons, and state budget impacts — to help ensure fair and sustainable compensation while promoting workforce stability.
- Requires arbitration panels to consider regional differences in cost of living when setting wages for certain public employees in small cities and counties.
- Adds new factors arbitrators must consider, including consumer price indices (cost of living), employer authority, party agreements, and changes during negotiations.
- For adult family home and long-term care workers, panels must compare wages and conditions with similar workers on the West Coast — but only if no comparable employers exist within Washington.
- For adult family home and similar workers, panels may consider the state’s fiscal interest in reducing reliance on public benefit programs (e.g., food stamps, medical coupons) due to low wages.
- For child care providers, panels must compare subsidy and reimbursement rates across West Coast states and consider worker retention and training goals.
- Prohibits arbitrators from requiring employers to pay increased employee contributions to state retirement systems (e.g., PEBB, PERS) that result from prior laws.
Who is affected
- Adult family home providers and workers — Adult family home workers (e.g., caregivers, aides) who provide residential care to elderly or disabled adults in small, licensed homes; this bill adds new factors arbitrators must consider when setting wages and working conditions during contract negotiations.
- Local governments (small cities and counties) — Local governments (cities under 15,000 people and counties under 70,000) that employ certain public workers and may face new cost considerations during labor negotiations.
- State agencies (e.g., Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Children, Youth, and Families) — State agencies and programs that fund or oversee adult family homes, child care, and long-term care services — particularly those managing budgets for public benefits and workforce support.
- Child care and long-term care workers — Workers in child care and long-term care (e.g., home health aides, residential care staff) who are covered under similar arbitration rules and may benefit from new retention-focused considerations.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandating consideration of regional cost of living — especially for workers in small cities and counties — helps ensure wages keep pace with local inflation and housing costs, directly supporting purchasing power for lower- and middle-income workers.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(c) and Sec. 1(1)(e)Requiring comparison of wages and conditions with West Coast peers helps prevent wage suppression in high-cost regions and aligns compensation with regional labor market realities, supporting worker retention in critical care roles.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)(i) and Sec. 1(5)(b)(i)Explicitly prioritizing workforce stability and retention in child care and long-term care addresses chronic staffing shortages that directly impact quality of care for vulnerable populations — including children, seniors, and people with disabilities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)(ii) and Sec. 1(5)(b)(ii)Including worker training and education goals as a permissible factor supports long-term career development and credentialing for child care providers, potentially improving early learning outcomes and upward mobility.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)(iii)By requiring consideration of “traditional” wage-setting factors alongside new standards, the bill preserves flexibility for arbitrators to balance fairness with local fiscal capacity — helping small governments avoid sudden, unaffordable wage spikes.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(e)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill requires arbitrators to consider the state’s “financial ability to pay” for compensation and benefits, which could limit wage increases — especially for lower-paid workers — by prioritizing fiscal constraints over market-based wage adjustments.
FinancialLean industryRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii) and Sec. 1(5)(a)(ii)By embedding state budget constraints as a mandatory consideration, the bill may reduce the likelihood of meaningful wage gains for workers in publicly funded roles, potentially increasing turnover and reliance on temporary or underpaid staff — indirectly benefiting state agencies seeking to control costs.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii) and Sec. 1(5)(a)(ii)The bill allows arbitrators to consider the state’s fiscal interest in reducing reliance on public benefit programs (e.g., food stamps, emergency medical services) due to low wages — a rationale that frames worker poverty as a budget problem rather than a labor standard issue, potentially discouraging wage increases that would reduce program dependency.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(iii) and Sec. 1(5)(a)(iv)The prohibition on requiring employers to pay increased employee contributions to state retirement systems (e.g., PERS, PEBB) may limit total compensation gains for workers, especially those near retirement age, by capping one component of pay even if base wages rise.
FinancialLean industryRef: Sec. 1(6)The requirement to compare wages with West Coast peers — but only when no comparable employers exist *within* Washington — may disproportionately burden small cities and counties with limited bargaining power and fewer local comparators, increasing compliance complexity and potential legal exposure.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2) and Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Adult family home workers — many of whom earn near minimum wage and work in small, isolated settings — are likely to benefit from cost-of-living adjustments and West Coast comparisons, which could raise wages and reduce turnover. However, the state fiscal interest clause may cap gains, especially if arbitrators prioritize budget constraints over wage increases.
Child care providers, especially those in licensed family homes, may benefit from retention-focused considerations and subsidy comparisons across states — potentially leading to higher reimbursement rates and more stable income. However, the financial ability clause may limit upside if state budgets are constrained.
Long-term care workers (e.g., home health aides) may see improved wage comparisons and retention incentives, but the statutory cap on retirement contributions and emphasis on fiscal constraints may limit overall compensation gains — especially for older or disabled workers.
Small cities and counties may benefit from the regional cost-of-living requirement, which prevents one-size-fits-all wage mandates that could strain local budgets. However, they may also face increased administrative burden and legal risk when arbitrators apply West Coast comparisons.
State agencies (e.g., DSHS, DCYF) gain flexibility to argue fiscal constraints during arbitration, potentially limiting wage increases. However, they may benefit from reduced turnover and lower public benefit reliance if worker retention improves — creating a trade-off between short-term cost control and long-term savings.