WA House - Session
(March 11, 2025) - HB 1141 - Second and Third Reading

A divide over legislation to extend collective bargaining rights to cannabis production employees stoked partisan tensions related to whether the policy would be expanded to farm workers more generally.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday March 11th Washington State House of Representatives (WA House) Floor Session.

My top 3 takeaways:

• The history of agricultural worker exclusion from some labor laws—and unionization in particular—stretched back to the mid-20th century with arguments for and against the exemption having taken on a partisan political dimension.
  • Agricultural workers were excluded from key federal labor protections, such as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 due to historical, political, and economic factors. At the time these laws were enacted, Southern lawmakers, who held significant political power, sought to exclude predominantly African American agricultural and domestic workers to maintain a low-wage labor force and uphold racial hierarchies. Additionally, the seasonal and transient nature of agricultural work was cited as a justification for excluding these workers from protections like minimum wage, overtime pay, and collective bargaining rights. This exclusion persists today, leaving many agricultural workers without the same labor rights as other industries.
    • Find out more about how FLSA and other policies are applied to agricultural laborers.
  • There are several arguments made for and against collective bargaining rights for agricultural workers.
    • Arguments in favor of unionization:
      • Improved Wages and Working Conditions. Unionization can help agricultural workers secure better pay, benefits, and safer working conditions, addressing widespread issues of exploitation and poverty.
      • Collective Bargaining Power. Unions provide a platform for workers to negotiate with employers, reducing power imbalances and ensuring fair treatment.
      • Legal and Social Justice. Unionization can help rectify historical exclusions and discrimination against agricultural workers, many of whom are immigrants or from marginalized communities.
    • Arguments against unionization:
      • Economic Impact on Farmers. Opponents argue that unionization could increase labor costs, potentially harming small farms and leading to higher food prices.
      • Seasonal and Transient Workforce. The temporary nature of agricultural work complicates union organizing and representation, making it difficult to sustain long-term union efforts.
      • Employer Resistance. Farm owners often oppose unionization, fearing disruptions to production and increased regulatory burden.
  • Democratic politicians have regularly supported expansion of labor rights to include agricultural workers, emphasizing benefits for social justice and worker protections. Republicans often oppose such measures, raising concerns of increased regulatory burdens on farmers, as well as the potential economic impact on the agricultural sector.
    • In 2021, conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of farm owners over workers in a dispute over a California law which allowed unionization activities on farms during non-working hours.
    • The Biden administration voiced support for the 2023 Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which included provisions to improve labor conditions for farmworkers.
    • In Washington State following a 2022 law which allowed partisan legislative staff to unionize, Republican staffers were the first to agree to a contract in October 2024.
  • Washington State has historically been more proactive than federal labor laws in extending rights to agricultural workers. State Agricultural Labor statutes were enacted in 1989, and Washington law granted farmworkers the right to organize, bargain collectively, and engage in concerted activities without fear of retaliation. Washington rules also required employers to provide written contracts to seasonal workers, ensuring transparency in wages and working conditions. Additionally, the state mandates overtime pay for agricultural workers, a protection not guaranteed under federal law. Since 2020, State officials had approved several measures impacting farm workers:
    • Overtime Pay Expansion. Washington passed legislation phasing in overtime pay for agricultural workers in 2021, reducing the threshold from 55 hours per week to 40 hours by 2024. This marked a significant step toward equity with other industries.
      • The law relating to overtime pay for agricultural workers had stemmed from a lawsuit filed by staff at a dairy. A March 13th Capital Press story framed the issue as “the state Supreme Court ruled denying dairy workers a privilege enjoyed by other workers violated the state constitution. The Legislature soon applied the reasoning to all farmworkers.” The article also quoted Worker and Farm Labor Association (WAFLA) labor policy analyst Scott Dilley who said, “it’s a very legitimate fear [HB 1141] could be extended to other agricultural workers in future years.”
    • Heat and Smoke Protections. In response to extreme weather events in 2023, Washington officials implemented emergency rules requiring employers to provide shade, water, and rest breaks during high heat and wildfire smoke conditions.
    • COVID-19 Protections. In 2020, the Governor issued emergency rules to protect agricultural workers during the pandemic, including mandatory social distancing, sanitation measures, and paid sick leave.

• During its second reading, six amendments were proposed to HB 1141, “Concerning collective bargaining for agricultural cannabis workers,” and though only one was adopted, the debate highlighted partisan dynamics around both cannabis and giving agricultural laborers collective bargaining rights more broadly.
  • The legislation was initially heard on January 15th by the Washington State House Labor and Workplace Standards Committee (WA House LAWS). The committee recommended passage a week later, and the measure was added to the floor calendar on March 10th.
    • Find out more from the bill report and fiscal note.
  • During the WA House Session, the substitute version of the bill was brought for a second reading and amendment MCCB 053 was moved to be added into the bill by Republican Representative Carolyn Eslick. The change “incorporates the provisions of the statute relating to exclusive bargaining representative access to new employees instead of incorporating the provisions by referencing the statute,” and “allows employers to not pay employees for the time the employees are meeting with the exclusive bargaining representative” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Eslick explained that the amendment made "it optional for the employee to attend the [unionization] meeting. They're not mandated, and it allows the employer [the] advantage of not paying for the hours that they are gone to their meetings” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Representative Shaun Scott, a Democrat, spoke against the change. He argued that "union organizing is a very dynamic process," and that the amendment's aspect of mandating that an employer cannot pay an employee for union meetings during work hours was "out of step with how labor organizing actually works on the ground.” Scott urged a "no" vote on the amendment  (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
    • Republican Representative Ed Orcutt expressed confusion regarding Scott's remarks, asking, "If they're doing it on their lunch break, why is there concern about them not being paid?” (audio - <1m, video - TVW)
    • Fellow Republican Representative Mike Volz took issue with Scott's assertion, stating that his professional work had him engaging with unions through the Spokane County Treasurer's Office. He relayed, “they've been very sensitive to make sure that they're not using government time. They're not using their…employers' time to negotiate and carry on these union activities.” Volz added that he thought the amendment was a helpful clarification “of the standing practice which is happening on the ground right now" (audio - 2m, video - TVW).
    • The amendment was not adopted in a voice vote.
  • Assistant Minority Whip Brian Burnett moved amendment MCCB 052 to allow employees to revoke union dues payroll deductions through written, electronic, or recorded voice notifications (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Burnett described the effect of the amendment as allowing cancellation of union membership by other means “instead of just only allowing written revocations." He argued this would provide employees flexibility, especially those in remote locations, to submit their revocation and urged a "yes" vote (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
    • Democratic Representative Liz Berry, respectfully called for a "no" vote on Burnett’s amendment, finding a “written revocation is clear. It's precise.” She argued that allowing those declarations over text or voicemail increased the potential they were overlooked. “I'm a millennial, and I miss my voice mails all the time, and I also miss my test messages all the time. This will make sure that those messages are not missed,” Berry said (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
      • Berry chaired WA House LAWS, the policy committee which passed HB 1141.
    • The amendment was not adopted in a voice vote.
  • Representative Jim Walsh, a Republican, moved amendment MCCB 050, which “allows employees to opt out of having their information shared with the exclusive bargaining representative who represents the employees' bargaining unit” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Walsh offered the amendment as clarifying "a little bit of ambiguity in the underlying proposal. Basically, it says clearly that an individual employee can choose to not allow his or her information, personal information related to their employment, to be shared." He explained that while the default would be for information to be shared, his language allowed each employee to "opt out of having their information shared." He described it as a "fairly standard, although not universal, precaution,” and urged support for the amendment (audio - 1m, video - TVW)
    • Berry again asked for a "no" vote, and remarked "it actually is not standard to allow employees to opt out to have their information shared with their bargaining representatives. This is so that unions can fulfill their…representational duties, and we want to make sure that they have that accurate information” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • The amendment was not adopted in a voice vote.
  • Majority Caucus Chair Lillian Ortiz-Self moved Amendment MCCB 048, adding “a provision specifying that the bill may not be interpreted by any court to apply to or otherwise extend any rights to any employee who does not meet the definition of employee in the underlying bill, which includes any employee employed by an employer to perform the work of cultivating, growing, harvesting, or producing cannabis, including defoliating, drying, bucking, precuring, curing, drying, trimming, sorting, and loading, if performed on a farm”  (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Ortiz-Self said this change to HB 1141 “came from our growers who wanted to make sure that there was clear language in there, that this bill applied only to agricultural cannabis workers and the impact for litigation or courts did not apply to any other area." She stressed this clarification aligned with the bill's intent, and asked for a "yes" vote (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
    • GOP Representative Suzanne Schmidt, agreed with the amendment, and “ask[ed] for a yes on this" (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • The amendment was adopted in a voice vote.
  • Schmidt moved amendment MCCB 051 to remove “restrictions on when employees may vote on a new exclusive bargaining representative” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Schmidt said, "this amendment simply provides parity for when an employee may choose to unionize and when they may choose to no longer be unionized. It also allows the employee to vote to decertify the union at any time” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Scott spoke against the change, valuing the importance of predictable timelines, stating, "without them, the workplace can become a lot less stable than it would be otherwise." He urged a “rejection of this amendment, because those timelines are in there for a reason. They’re important” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • The amendment was not adopted in a voice vote.
  • Schmidt then asked for passage of amendment MCCB 049 to mandate that “exclusive bargaining representative elections be done by secret ballot,” as well as removing “the cross-check process used for determining the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit with no incumbent representative” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Schmidt elaborated on the “simple” amendment: "what we want to do is do this organizing vote, by secret ballot, rather than cross-check." She further detailed that "cross-check is when the union organizers have a petition-like document the employee signs on, and then it's automatically assumed that they want to be part of the union. We want this to be a secret ballot so they actually have the choice…and we know that that's what they're choosing to do" (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
    • Berry encouraged a "no" vote on Schmidt’s amendment, arguing that "the cross-check process is a reliable and efficient way of checking and verifying union representation elections” which “helps reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, and maintains the flexibility to ensure…clarity and the representation process" (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • Deputy Minority Leader Chris Corry asked for a “yes” vote on the change, stating there were “several reasons.” He regarded it as ensuring “fairness and confidentiality for both employees and employers, so that the employee is not subject to undue pressure from either side, whether from the union side or the employer side.” Moreover, he added, “I think if the secret ballot is good enough for us to be in this body, I think it's good enough for unionization”  (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
    • The amendment was not adopted in a voice vote.

• On the third reading and vote for passage by the chamber, support and opposition to the measure fell along party lines, with comments suggesting the legislation served as a proxy for each caucus’s wider beliefs about labor, agriculture, and cannabis.
  • Ortiz-Self advocated for passage of the amended HB 1141 “in order to help our agricultural cannabis workers be able to participate in collective bargaining like their colleagues." She emphasized that the bill targeted "a small group of people" in the cannabis sector who were "excluded from that bargaining process" despite working alongside those with bargaining rights. Ortiz-Self believed the legislation ensured that agricultural cannabis workers could "also be represented and have, have a say in their work conditions,” and asked her colleagues to support the measure (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
  • Schmidt voiced opposition to the bill due to concerns that it would lead to the unionization of the broader agriculture industry. She had a “fear” passage of a bill for cannabis agricultural laborers would lead to the unionization of the entire agriculture sector, drawing a parallel to the implementation of overtime rules for dairy farmers, which she believed had been intended as a step towards broader overtime rules for all farmers (audio - 2m, video - TVW).
    • Schmidt suggested Washington state costs for agricultural labor were "much, much higher than producing in…the rest of the United States," and was concerned unionization of the agriculture industry would cause "more costs, and more delays in…producing food." She added that this had “actually been very hard on farmers, causing them to…lose their farm, sell their farm...farmers that are actually letting crops rot in the field because…it doesn't pencil out to pay the overtime to have those crops picked and produced.”
    • Schmidt had heard from farmers purchasing automation equipment “to eliminate human positions because of this overtime cost." She concluded, "we just don't think that this is the right bill, nor the right time to expand in that industry. So we're asking for a ‘no’ vote.”
    • Federal data indicated increasing agricultural expenses nationally following a decline in the number of agricultural workers beginning in the 1950s. While Washington farm wages had risen to among the highest in the U.S., labor shortages remained, though other factors like immigration policy have also complicated agriculture staffing.
  • Republican Representative Mark Klicker urged a “no” vote, stressing there was a “crisis in farming,” with increasing labor costs and the limited ability of farmers to control prices, a situation he anticipated would lead to more automation. “I'm a farm and ranch realtor, and I've been very involved. I sold my orchard in 2015…because labor was the biggest issue,” he said. Klicker associated increasing wages with decreasing profitability of farms, especially as farmers were “price takers. They're not price setters.” With little control over profit margins, “many farmers have to rely on insurance just to get through it, especially if it's a really poor crop." He agreed with the suggestion that further increasing these costs would only speed up farmers’ move toward automation as “the level of employees that we had 30 years ago doesn't even match today, doesn't even match what it did then. It's a destructive road" (audio - 2m, video - TVW).
  • Corry also voiced opposition to the legislation, emphasizing the financial risks farmers undertake each growing season and the perishable nature of agricultural products, making the implications of agriculture unionization differ from other industries (audio - 3m,  video - TVW).
    • He explained how “in my district, and districts around the state, we've got a lot of farmers who take a bet” on planting “that they are going to have the ability, whether it's through their water, their employment, all those things, to make crops grow." He argued that there's a limit to how much risk farmers can bear, something he said differentiated agriculture from other businesses such as “machinery or production line that's unionized. If the union were to go on strike, sure the factory shuts down...But once that union is resolved...that factory goes back up. Things start going.” However, Corry noted in agriculture, “there's oftentimes a very short window where that product” can be picked and sold. This perishability made the potential for agricultural labor strikes particularly impactful, he argued, stating that unintended consequences of well-intentioned lawmakers could have “really negative downstream effects,” like fewer jobs for workers and less money for farmers. “The potential consequence of this expansion is probably more than we want to bet on here in the legislature,” concluded Corry.
  • Representative Mary Dye expressed strong opposition to the bill, characterizing it as "very cynical," and an inappropriate "cultural appropriation" because she didn’t consider cannabis production to be as important as her vision of traditional American farming (audio - 3m, video - TVW).
    • She called the title of HB 1141 “cultural appropriation of a very special and different kind of people, people who are different in perspective.” She asserted the cannabis sector was “not farming at its best, it's producing a psychotropic and addictive drug for people to use…recreationally, and we see how it changes the spirit and the culture." 
    • Dye felt authentic farmers were those who "produce food products that are healthy and, and delicious," to contribute to economic markets, bringing “our cultures together, and it provides national security, peace and stability.” She contrasted this concept with cannabis production which she deemed growing "poisons for people.” Dye continued, calling the legislation “offensive to me, and I urge that you join me in voting. No. Thank you."
      • According to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (WA PDC) Dye has repeatedly accepted campaign contributions from the Washington Beer and Wine Distributors Association (WBWDA). The World Health Organization considered alcohol to be toxic, and substance abuse statistics from 2019 showed 8.1 alcohol poisoning deaths per million Washingtonians.
  • Republican Representative Tom Dent, who admitted he was “not a fan of cannabis,” voiced concern and urged a “no” vote, fearing that the proposal would lead to the unionization of the cannabis industry, potentially increasing labor costs and negatively impacting the struggling market (audio - 2m, video - TVW).
    • Unionizing could “turn into overtime, like we heard from one of the earlier speakers, and we start putting a bigger load on our agriculture or cannabis industry,” Dent said. He acknowledged the good intentions behind the bill, but expressed worry about the potential for higher labor costs to harm the cannabis market. He conveyed his concern that businesses would “no longer have the labor because they can't afford it, because it gets to a point that you just let the crop go, you can't afford to harvest it."
    • Dent argued cannabis productions had declined in his area because, “the market isn't what it was." He concluded by advocating for a more cautious approach: "let's take a real look at what we're trying to accomplish here. Maybe there's a better way.”
  • Another Republican Representative, Alex Ybarra, said he’d engaged with supporters of HB 1141, “and they were very genuine with me, very genuine about what their intent was for this particular bill, and the amendment that came earlier was exactly what they said would be.” Nonetheless, he still had reservations about the legislation as “that intent language that was put into the amendment may not last long. I think after this session, that intent language will go away” (audio - 3m,  video - TVW).
    • He agreed with the concerns other members of his caucus had already raised around the broader impact to the agriculture industry. “I'll just give you some real numbers,” Ybarra said, “in 2018 the State of Washington, labor expenses were 249% higher than the national average. 2020: 296% higher in labor expenses…and in 2023, 462% higher than the United States.” Assuming such an increase also transpired with cannabis production wages, he expected that even with the bill intent limiting collective bargaining rights to cannabis, “the rest of the Ag workers…in the state of Washington, their labor prices will go up because they're going to try to unionize those folks, as well.” Under this scenario, Ybarra predicted that “we're not going to be able to afford to have farmers in this state.”
      • While Ybarra didn’t specify his data source for ‘labor expenses’, Washington state wages were not more than two to four times higher than the national average according to information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages and Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics indicate both average monthly and annual wages from private employers in Washington exceeded the national average by less than 25%. The 2024 Labor and Market Report by the Washington State Employment Security Department noted, “Workers in Washington had an average hourly wage of $39.10 in 2023, about 24.2% above the U.S. average of $31.48. The statewide median hourly wage was $29.99 compared to the U.S. median of $23.11.”
    • According to Ybarra, immigrants working under the typical farm visa, H-2A, “have a certain price. It's a federal program. State of Washington put five or six other bills on H-2A, which increased the price of…farm workers. So that's why it's 462% more.” He summed up that, “pretty soon we're not going to be a farm community. We're just going to be a high tech community, and that's it.”
      • Ybarra previously raised concerns related to regulatory costs put on farmers and opposed the exclusion of H-2A workers from state housing sales tax exemptions.
  • Simmons called for a roll call vote on HB 1141 and the bill was passed by a 55 to 40 vote, with three members excused (audio - 1m, video - TVW). The final vote was close to the partisan composition of WA House, which at time of publication, was 59-39. Two democrats, leaders of the Washington State House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee (WA House AGNR), opposed the measure.
    • WA House AGNR Chair Kristine Reeves
    • WA House AGNR Vice Chair Melanie Morgan