Skip to main content
Evergreen Ledger

2SHB 1622

In Committee

House

Collective bargaining/AI use

Allowing bargaining over matters related to the use of artificial intelligence.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 27, 2026
Last Action: February 3, 2026
Status: H Rules R
View Bill Text (HTML) (opens in new tab)View Bill Text (PDF) (opens in new tab)

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill requires state employers — including public universities and state agencies — to negotiate with public employee unions before implementing or changing artificial intelligence tools if the change affects employees’ wages, hours, or working conditions. It also clarifies which employees have the right to bargain over AI use and updates definitions to include AI in collective bargaining law.

  • Amends definitions in RCW 41.80.005 to explicitly define 'artificial intelligence' as machine learning–based systems that perform tasks like decision-making or content generation.
  • Adds a new requirement that state employers must bargain with unions over adopting or modifying AI technology if it affects employees’ wages, hours, or terms of employment — for both state agency employees (chapter 41.80) and higher education employees (chapter 41.56).
  • Clarifies that the right to bargain over AI does not override existing management rights (e.g., budget, structure, emergency powers), but adds AI use as a new mandatory subject of bargaining *only when it impacts working conditions*.
  • Excludes certain Washington Management Service employees (e.g., salary bands 3+, HR/budget managers, investigators, confidential staff) from collective bargaining rights, including over AI.
  • Requires that any collective bargaining agreements covering AI use with Washington Management Service employees cannot take effect before July 1, 2025.
  • States that existing contracts in place before the bill’s effective date remain unchanged until they expire, are renewed, or are reopened.

Who is affected

  • Washington Management Service employees (bands 1 and 2) — Public employees in state agencies (excluding higher education) who are part of the Washington Management Service in salary bands 1 and 2, and who are not otherwise excluded (e.g., HR managers, budget managers, investigators, etc.). They gain the right to bargain over AI use if it impacts their wages, hours, or working conditions.
  • Higher education employees (non-exempt) — Employees at the state’s public universities and colleges (e.g., UW, WSU, community colleges) who are covered under chapter 41.56 and not excluded (e.g., not executives, managers, confidential staff, etc.). They gain the right to bargain over AI use if it impacts their wages, hours, or working conditions.
  • State employers (agencies and higher education institutions) — State agencies and institutions of higher education must now negotiate with unions before implementing or changing AI tools (e.g., chatbots, scheduling software, performance monitoring tools) if the change affects pay, hours, or working conditions.
  • Public employee unions — Public employee unions representing bargaining units in state agencies and higher education may now negotiate over how AI is used in the workplace, including its implementation, scope, and impact on jobs.
Effective: July 1, 2025Fiscal impact: No specific fiscal impact is estimated in the bill text; any costs would likely come from increased bargaining time, potential wage adjustments, or implementation of new AI oversight measures — but these are not quantified.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 11:30 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Potential Benefits (5)

  • The bill gives public employees the right to bargain over AI tools that affect their wages, hours, or working conditions — protecting them from unilateral employer decisions that could alter job design, increase surveillance, or reduce autonomy without input. This strengthens workplace voice and mitigates risks of algorithmic bias or unfair performance monitoring.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: NEW SECTION. Sec. 5(1) and NEW SECTION. Sec. 6

  • By explicitly defining 'artificial intelligence' as machine learning–based systems used for decision-making or content generation, the bill ensures consistent application across bargaining units and reduces ambiguity in disputes over whether a tool qualifies as AI. This clarity helps prevent misclassification of tools and supports fair enforcement.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)

  • The bill preserves existing contracts until expiration, renewal, or reopening, allowing time for unions and employers to negotiate AI protocols without disrupting current operations. This phased implementation reduces disruption risk and gives both sides time to develop expertise on AI impacts.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: NEW SECTION. Sec. 7

  • The bill excludes certain high-risk roles (e.g., confidential staff, investigators, HR managers) from bargaining over AI — protecting sensitive labor relations functions from potential conflicts of interest or information leakage during negotiations.

    Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(e) and Sec. 2(7)(e)

  • The bill clarifies that management rights (e.g., budget, structure, emergencies) remain non-bargainable, preventing AI use from becoming a vehicle to circumvent existing limits on collective bargaining scope. This preserves balance between employee voice and employer operational authority.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(2) and Sec. 4(2)
Potential Concerns (5)

  • State employers (agencies and higher education institutions) must now bargain with unions before implementing or modifying AI tools that affect wages, hours, or working conditions — potentially increasing administrative time, legal complexity, and negotiation delays. This could slow AI deployment and increase operational costs for public institutions, especially where AI is used for efficiency gains (e.g., scheduling, case management, grading).

    Local GovernmentPeopleRef: NEW SECTION. Sec. 5(1) and NEW SECTION. Sec. 6

  • The bill excludes certain high-level Washington Management Service employees (salary bands 3+, HR/budget managers, investigators, confidential staff) from bargaining rights over AI, creating a tiered system that may reduce predictability and consistency across state workforce AI implementation. This could lead to fragmented policies across agencies and increased compliance burden for employers trying to determine eligibility.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: NEW SECTION. Sec. 5(2) and NEW SECTION. Sec. 6

  • Existing contracts remain unchanged until expiration, renewal, or reopening, meaning AI bargaining rights only apply prospectively. This creates a transitional period where some employees gain new rights while others do not, potentially causing internal equity concerns and inconsistent implementation across bargaining units.

    Business & EmploymentRef: NEW SECTION. Sec. 7

  • The bill explicitly preserves management rights over 'use of technology' *except* where AI affects wages, hours, or working conditions — but does not define thresholds for what constitutes a 'material effect' on those terms. This ambiguity could lead to disputes over whether AI tools (e.g., AI-assisted scheduling, performance monitoring) trigger bargaining, increasing litigation risk and uncertainty for employers.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(2) and Sec. 4(2)

  • The bill expands exclusions from collective bargaining for higher education managers who 'formulate institutional policy' or 'manage, administer, and control a program' — potentially excluding more employees from AI bargaining rights than in state agencies. This inconsistency between higher ed and state agency coverage may create inequities in AI oversight across the public sector.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(ii) and Sec. 1(2)(b)(iii)

Who Is Most Affected

Washington Management Service employees (bands 1 and 2)Positive Impact

Public employees in salary bands 1 and 2 gain new bargaining rights over AI tools that affect their working conditions — potentially improving job security, reducing algorithmic bias, and increasing transparency in AI deployment. However, they may face delays in adopting beneficial AI tools due to negotiation requirements.

Higher education employees (non-exempt)Mixed Impact

Higher education employees (non-exempt) gain similar bargaining rights over AI use, but may face inconsistent application across institutions due to broader exclusions for managers in higher ed. This could lead to uneven protections and implementation challenges.

State employers (agencies and higher education institutions)Mixed Impact

State employers and higher education institutions face increased bargaining obligations and potential delays in AI deployment. While this adds compliance costs and complexity, it also reduces legal risk from unilateral AI implementation and may improve workforce morale and trust.

Public employee unionsPositive Impact

Public employee unions gain new bargaining leverage over AI use, strengthening their role in protecting members from adverse technological changes. However, they face new responsibilities to negotiate technical issues (e.g., AI transparency, bias mitigation) that may require new expertise.