HB 1777

In Committee

House

Apprenticeship approval

Concerning the requirements and process for approving and registering apprenticeship programs.

Introduced (completed)
2
Committee (current stage)
3
Floor Vote (not started)
4
Opposite Chamber (not started)
5
Governor (not started)
6
Signed (not started)

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.

Introduced: February 2, 2025

Last Action: January 12, 2026

Status: H Postsec Ed & Wk

View Bill Text (HTML)View Bill Text (PDF)

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 speeds up approval of apprenticeship programs in Washington by prioritizing those already approved by the federal government and overhauling how competitor objections are handled. It also requires the state to report how quickly it approves programs compared to the federal government and other states.

Requires the Apprenticeship Council to expedite approval of apprenticeship programs that already have federal approval, limiting review to only state-specific requirements.
Changes the competitor objection process: objections can only be filed *after* provisional approval, must follow new standards, and can be extended in six-month increments to resolve disputes.
Allows the Apprenticeship Council to award attorneys’ fees and costs to applicants if a competitor’s objection is not “substantially justified,” and to impose fines up to $10,000 for frivolous objections.
Adds new reporting requirements to the annual apprenticeship council report, including a list of pending applications, denial reasons, and state vs. federal approval rate comparisons.
Moves all existing apprenticeship laws (RCW 49.04 series) into a new chapter in Title 28B RCW, with technical updates to legal references.

Who is affected

Apprenticeship program sponsors (e.g., employers, unions, tribal organizations, training providers) — May face longer delays or additional scrutiny if their programs lack federal approval, but benefit from faster approval if already federally approved.
Existing apprenticeship program sponsors (competitors) — May challenge new programs they believe threaten their own programs, but risk penalties if objections are found frivolous or unjustified.
Department of Labor & Industries and Apprenticeship Council — Must now include expanded reporting on approval timelines and state/federal comparisons in annual reports, increasing administrative work.
Job seekers and workers seeking apprenticeships — Will benefit from faster access to apprenticeship opportunities, especially if applying through federally approved pathways.

Effective: July 28, 2025Fiscal impact: The bill may increase administrative costs for the Department of Labor & Industries due to expanded reporting and objection-handling requirements, but could reduce long-term costs by accelerating workforce training. A potential $10,000 penalty per frivolous objection may generate revenue for the department.

Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 20, 2026, 3:09 AM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (3)

Expedited approval for federally registered apprenticeship programs will significantly reduce wait times for sponsors (especially tribal and small-to-mid-sized employers) to launch new programs, accelerating access to high-quality training pathways for job seekers—particularly those from historically excluded communities—without duplicative state review of already-vetted federal standards.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)
Requiring objections to be filed *after* provisional approval and imposing attorney fee liability for non-substantially-justified objections will reduce strategic delays by well-resourced competitors, making the approval process more predictable and fair for new sponsors—especially smaller or newer organizations without legal teams.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(a)–(b)
Mandating comparative reporting on state vs. federal and state vs. other-state approval timelines increases transparency and accountability, enabling policymakers and the public to identify systemic delays and hold the agency responsible—potentially driving future efficiency improvements.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2

Potential Concerns (3)

The $10,000 fine and attorney fee sanctions for frivolous objections may deter legitimate competitors—especially small businesses, unions, or tribal programs with limited legal resources—from raising concerns about market saturation or unfair competition, chilling legitimate objections and reducing competitive oversight.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(c)
By limiting review of federally approved programs to only state-specific requirements, the bill may inadvertently allow programs that are federally compliant but conflict with established state labor standards (e.g., wage levels, training quality, or local workforce needs) to be approved without meaningful scrutiny, potentially undermining existing local apprenticeship quality and sustainability.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)
The expanded reporting requirements (e.g., comparing state vs. federal approval rates, listing pending applications and denial reasons) increase administrative burden on the Department of Labor & Industries and Apprenticeship Council, diverting staff time and resources from direct program oversight and support—especially problematic given the agency’s already constrained staffing levels.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2

Who Is Most Affected

Apprenticeship program sponsors (especially federally registered)Positive Impact
Federally approved sponsors (e.g., tribal nations, large employers, national unions with existing federal registration) will benefit most—approval timelines drop significantly, reducing time-to-hire and training costs. Smaller sponsors without federal backing may face longer delays or competitive disadvantage if they cannot match federal standards quickly.
Existing apprenticeship program sponsors (competitors)Mixed Impact
Existing sponsors (e.g., local unions, community colleges, small employers) who rely on objection rights to protect their market share or training quality may find it harder to challenge new programs—especially if they lack legal resources to meet the new 'substantially justified' standard or risk penalties for perceived overreach.
Job seekers and workers seeking apprenticeshipsPositive Impact
Job seekers—particularly low-income, young adults, and workers in high-demand fields (e.g., construction, manufacturing, IT)—will gain faster access to paid training and jobs. However, if quality oversight is weakened, long-term program completion and wage outcomes may suffer.
Department of Labor & Industries and Apprenticeship CouncilMixed Impact
DOLI staff will face increased reporting duties and may need to adjudicate more objections under new standards, straining limited resources. However, faster approvals could reduce long-term caseloads and improve program outcomes, potentially justifying the short-term burden.