SHB 2422
In CommitteeHouse
Private security guards
Concerning private security guards.
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 shifts the cost of private security guard licensing fees—from the individual guard to the employer—citing high turnover, modest wages, and the financial strength of large security firms as reasons. It bans employers from recouping those costs from employees and adds enforcement penalties.
- Private security companies must now pay all application, license renewal, and endorsement fees for their employees (or those they’ve offered jobs to).
- Companies must provide employees with a billing PIN to include on licensing forms—this links the fee payment responsibility to the employer.
- Companies are prohibited from requiring employees to reimburse them for licensing fees—including through wage deductions.
- Violations carry a $500 penalty per incident, enforced by the Department of Licensing; repeated violations may lead to company license suspension or revocation.
- The bill removes the requirement for applicants to pay fees directly and updates application and transfer forms to reflect employer-paid fees.
Who is affected
- Private security guards — Security guards must no longer pay licensing, renewal, or endorsement fees themselves; instead, their employer must cover these costs. They benefit from reduced out-of-pocket expenses and improved job stability.
- Private security companies — Private security companies must now pay all licensing-related fees for their employees (or potential employees), and are prohibited from reimbursing themselves through wage deductions. They face penalties for noncompliance.
- Washington State Department of Licensing — The Washington State Department of Licensing (through its Private Security Unit) will enforce the new fee-payment rules, collect billing PINs, and impose penalties on noncompliant companies.
- General public and businesses using security services — Communities and businesses that rely on security services benefit from improved workforce stability and potentially higher-quality service due to reduced barriers to entry and retention in the profession.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Security guards—typically low-wage workers—avoid $196/year in out-of-pocket licensing costs, improving net take-home pay and reducing barriers to entry and retention in the profession.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 5(1)By reducing financial barriers to entry and improving workforce stability, the bill may increase the pool of qualified, retained guards, enhancing reliability of frontline public safety responders.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 5(2)High-turnover, low-wage workers gain job stability and fairness; eliminating wage deductions for fees reduces wage theft risk and improves labor market equity.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 5(1)The bill corrects a structural imbalance where large, profitable firms benefit from employee-paid licensing, shifting cost to those best able to absorb it—aligning with economic reality of industry concentration.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4), Sec. 5(2)Improved workforce stability may reduce unlicensed or undertrained personnel on duty, enhancing public confidence and safety outcomes in high-risk settings (e.g., schools, hospitals, events).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 5(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Employers (especially large security firms) face new direct costs for licensing fees previously passed to employees; this may reduce profit margins or lead to reduced hiring, wage stagnation, or increased service prices.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 5(2)Small security firms with thin margins may struggle more than large corporations to absorb the new fee burden, potentially increasing industry consolidation and reducing competitive diversity.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 5(2)The state loses licensing fee revenue (approx. $101 + $95 = $196 per guard annually), but the bill does not quantify the fiscal impact; this reduction could affect funding for licensing operations or other programs if not offset.
FinancialRef: Fiscal ImpactThe Department of Licensing must implement new enforcement mechanisms—including tracking billing PINs and penalizing noncompliance—which may require additional staffing or IT resources.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(7); Sec. 4Enforcement penalties ($500 per violation, possible license suspension) create compliance risk for employers, especially those with poor recordkeeping or high turnover—potentially deterring informal or cash-based hiring practices.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 5(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Security guards—especially part-time, low-wage, and frontline workers—see direct financial relief and improved job security. They no longer pay $196/year out of pocket, reducing barriers to entry and retention.
Large security firms (revenues >$1B) can absorb the fee shift with minimal impact; they benefit from improved workforce stability and reduced turnover costs. However, they face new compliance obligations and liability exposure.
Small and mid-sized security firms may struggle more than large firms to absorb the new fee burden, potentially increasing pressure on margins and encouraging consolidation or reduced hiring.
The state loses licensing revenue, but enforcement is minimal and the fiscal impact is not quantified. The Department of Licensing gains enforcement responsibility but no new funding is allocated.
Communities and businesses relying on security services may benefit from more stable, qualified personnel, but could face slightly higher service costs if employers pass some costs to clients.