HB 2190
In CommitteeHouse
Language access providers
Concerning language access providers' collective bargaining.
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 grants language access providers (interpreters) the right to collectively bargain over wages, payment structures, and working conditions, treating them as public employees for that purpose only. It defines specific bargaining units, limits the scope of negotiations, and requires legislative approval of any resulting funding requests.
- Language access providers are treated as public employees solely for collective bargaining purposes, making the governor (or designee) their official employer for that purpose.
- Creates three distinct bargaining units based on the type of appointments interpreters serve: (1) DSHS/DCYF/Medicaid appointments, (2) L&I injured workers/crime victims, and (3) other state agencies via DES.
- Limits collective bargaining to economic compensation (e.g., tiered payment rates, missed-cancellation reimbursements), professional development, grievance procedures, health benefits, and labor-management committees—but excludes retirement benefits and prohibits strikes.
- Requires state agencies to annually submit interpreter provider lists (by January 30) to the state, and to provide those lists to unions upon request.
- Establishes a budget submission and certification process: the governor must submit funding requests by October 1 (for regular sessions), and the Director of Financial Management must certify them as affordable before submission to the legislature.
- States that legislative approval of funds is required for any collective bargaining agreement to take effect; if funds are rejected, the agreement must be renegotiated.
Who is affected
- Language access providers (interpreters) — Language access providers who interpret for state agencies (e.g., DSHS, DCYF, L&I, DES) will gain the right to collectively bargain over wages, payment structures, training, and grievance procedures—but not retirement benefits or the right to strike.
- State agencies contracting for language services — State agencies that contract for interpretation services (e.g., DSHS, DCYF, L&I, DES) must now share provider lists with unions and comply with collective bargaining agreements affecting their contracts.
- Labor unions representing language access providers — Labor unions seeking to represent language access providers will gain access to provider contact information and the ability to organize and bargain for contracts covering specific service-based units.
- Governor’s office and state budget leadership — The governor (or designee) becomes the official public employer for bargaining purposes and must negotiate with union representatives, submit budget requests for agreed-upon compensation, and comply with arbitration outcomes—subject to legislative approval of funds.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill grants language access providers the right to collectively bargain over wages, payment structures (including tiered and missed-cancellation reimbursements), grievance procedures, and health benefits—potentially increasing compensation and job stability for a workforce that is disproportionately low-income, immigrant, and female.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (2)(c)(i), (2)(c)(v), (2)(c)(iv)By allowing bargaining over professional development and labor-management committees, the bill supports career advancement and workplace input for language access providers—many of whom serve in community-based or public health education roles and may lack formal professional development pathways.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)(ii), (2)(c)(iii)Standardizing grievance procedures and health benefits through collective bargaining improves workplace protections and access to care for providers—many of whom work in high-stress, high-risk environments (e.g., domestic violence shelters, L&I hearings) and lack employer-sponsored benefits.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)(iv), (2)(c)(v), (2)(c)(vi)The bill facilitates union organizing by requiring state agencies to provide provider contact information to unions upon request and exempting bargaining authorization cards from public disclosure—enhancing workers’ ability to exercise First Amendment rights without fear of employer retaliation.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4), (2)(b)By establishing three distinct bargaining units aligned with key service areas (DSHS/DCYF/Medicaid, L&I, and other agencies), the bill enables targeted negotiations over service-specific needs—potentially improving interpreter quality and continuity in high-need areas like behavioral health and child welfare.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)(i)-(iii)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill creates a new collective bargaining process for language access providers, but compensation increases are contingent on legislative appropriation and financial certification—meaning any wage gains are not guaranteed and may be scaled back or eliminated if revenue shortfalls occur, placing providers at financial risk during budget cycles.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)(i), (2)(d)(ii), (5), (6)-(8)By excluding retirement benefits from bargaining and requiring financial certification before any agreement can take effect, the bill limits providers’ ability to secure long-term economic stability—potentially worsening retention and continuity of care in high-risk settings (e.g., L&I injured workers, crime victims), where interpreter consistency directly affects safety and access to justice.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)(v), (2)(d)(ii), (7)(b)While the bill grants collective bargaining rights, it explicitly denies the right to strike and makes legislative approval of funds mandatory—effectively weakening the enforceability of negotiated terms and reducing provider leverage in negotiations, which undermines meaningful worker voice.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(e), (2)(d)(ii), (8)The bill may increase administrative and compliance costs for state agencies and subcontractors required to report provider lists annually and comply with bargaining outcomes—though these costs are modest relative to overall agency budgets, they could strain smaller contracting entities with limited administrative capacity.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)(i), (2)(d)(i)Uncertainty around funding approval and legislative rejection of agreements may delay or reduce interpreter compensation improvements—potentially worsening access to care for non-English speakers in Medicaid and DSHS programs, especially for vulnerable populations like children and individuals with limited English proficiency.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)(i), (2)(d)(ii), (8)
Who Is Most Affected
Language access providers—many of whom are low-wage, immigrant, and non-unionized—stand to gain significant improvements in wages, grievance protections, and access to health benefits through collective bargaining. However, gains are not guaranteed due to legislative funding approval requirements and the absence of a strike right.
Unions gain new organizing access and bargaining authority over a previously unrepresented workforce, but must navigate strict budget certification and legislative approval hurdles—limiting their ability to deliver immediate wins without political leverage.
State agencies (DSHS, DCYF, L&I, DES) gain clarity on provider lists and bargaining units, but face new administrative burdens and potential cost increases if negotiated agreements are approved. However, most agencies already contract for interpretation services and may absorb costs without major operational disruption.
The Governor’s office assumes formal employer status for bargaining purposes, but lacks authority to unilaterally approve agreements—must submit funding requests to the legislature, and is constrained by financial certification and legislative rejection risk.
Non-English-speaking residents—especially those in Medicaid, child welfare, and L&I programs—may benefit indirectly from improved interpreter retention and quality, but could face service disruptions if funding negotiations stall or agreements are rejected.