SHB 2524
In CommitteeHouse
Security guards board
Establishing the state security guards industry standards board.
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 creates a new State Security Guards Industry Standards Board to set and enforce minimum employment standards—including pay, leave, benefits, and training—for security guards in Washington. It gives the Department of Labor & Industries enforcement authority and establishes a dedicated funding source through license fees.
- Establishes the State Security Guards Industry Standards Board, with 8 voting members (security guards, employers, trainers, and consumers) appointed by the governor, plus the director of Labor & Industries as a nonvoting member.
- Requires the board to adopt minimum employment standards for security guards—including minimum compensation, paid leave, benefits, and training—by January 1, 2028, with mandatory review every four years.
- Mandates that security guard employers ensure their workers complete training provided by certified worker organizations at least every two years, and certify compliance to the board.
- Grants the Department of Labor & Industries authority to investigate violations and impose civil penalties: $1,000 for first-time willful violations, and $2,000–$10,000 for repeat willful violations within three years.
- Creates a civil right of action for security guards harmed by violations, allowing them to sue for actual damages and attorney fees.
Who is affected
- Security guards — Security guards will gain new rights to minimum pay, paid leave, benefits, and mandatory training, and will have stronger enforcement tools if their rights are violated.
- Security guard employers — Security guard employers (including small businesses with fewer than 50 employees) must comply with new minimum standards, provide required training, and may face civil penalties for violations.
- Worker organizations — Worker organizations that meet certification criteria can be authorized to provide required training to security guards and play a formal role in setting training standards.
- Department of Labor & Industries — The Department of Labor & Industries will gain new enforcement authority, including the ability to investigate complaints and issue civil penalties.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Security guards—many of whom earn near minimum wage and lack benefits—will gain enforceable rights to minimum compensation, paid leave, benefits, and standardized training, directly improving working conditions and economic security for a vulnerable workforce.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)-(d)The civil right of action (Sec. 7) empowers individual guards to sue for actual damages and attorney fees, removing the usual barrier of costly legal representation and enabling enforcement where government resources are limited.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 6(4)(b) & Sec. 7Including security guards, employers, trainers, and consumers on the board—plus mandatory public hearings—ensures standards reflect ground-level realities and service quality, potentially improving public safety outcomes through better-trained, more reliable personnel.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)-(d)Training must include information on how to initiate enforcement actions, empowering guards with knowledge of their rights and reducing information asymmetry that currently protects bad actors.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(c)The requirement to set standards that meet or exceed existing conditions for a *majority* of guards in each region prevents race-to-the-bottom competition and anchors wages/benefits to current best practices—though it does not guarantee universal improvement.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(3)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill imposes new civil penalties ($1,000–$10,000 per violation) and civil liability exposure on security guard employers, which may increase compliance costs—particularly for small firms with thin margins—though the penalty structure includes corrective action waivers and caps.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 6(3)(c)Mandatory biennial training by certified worker organizations may strain small employers without dedicated HR or training staff, especially if certified organizations are scarce or training slots are limited—though the requirement is offset by employer certification of compliance, not direct employer-provided training.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(3)The $25 license fee per security guard (remitted from DOL to L&I) is dedicated to funding the new board, meaning the cost is borne directly by licensees—not general fund taxpayers—so it does not shift burden to the public, but does increase operating costs for employers and may be passed to clients.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 8 & Sec. 9Mandating enforcement of minimum wage standards under chapter 49.48 RCW could increase wage audits and back-pay obligations for employers who currently pay below market or informal wages—though this primarily affects noncompliant employers, not those already in compliance.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 6(2)Civil penalties for violations may incentivize employers to avoid complaints rather than proactively improve conditions, potentially discouraging reporting by guards fearing retaliation—though the bill includes a civil right of action (Sec. 7) and mandates public hearings (Sec. 2(7)) to counterbalance this.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 6(3)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Security guards—particularly part-time, low-wage, and non-union workers—will gain enforceable pay, leave, and training rights, improving job stability and reducing wage theft. Unionized guards may see spillover effects in bargaining.
Small employers (under 50 employees) face new administrative and compliance costs, but the bill explicitly includes a small business representative on the board and allows for corrective action to reduce penalties—mitigating worst-case impacts for compliant firms.
Certified worker organizations gain formal authority to design and deliver training, potentially expanding their influence and revenue streams—but must meet board standards and remain accountable to guard needs.
L&I gains new enforcement authority and funding (via license fees), strengthening its capacity to protect vulnerable workers—but does not require new general fund appropriations, so no net cost to state taxpayers.
Clients of security firms (e.g., businesses, schools, events) may see higher service costs if employers pass on training/fee expenses, but could benefit from more professional, trained guards—potentially improving safety and reducing liability.