WA Senate LC - Committee Meeting
(January 10, 2023) - SB 5123 - Public Hearing

[ Event Details ]

Comments on a bill to ban pre-employment cannabis testing for many businesses got supportive testimony from the cannabis sector, labor interests, and police, with some business voices dissenting.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday January 10th Washington State Senate Labor and Commerce Committee (WA Senate LC) Committee Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Jarrett Sacks, WA Senate LC Counsel, gave a staff briefing on SB 5123, "Concerning the employment of individuals who lawfully consume cannabis" (audio - 1m, video).
    • The measure was similar to 2022 legislation sponsored by Chair Karen Keiser.
    • Sacks went over the bill analysis which outlined how the measure “Prohibits employers, with some exceptions, from discriminating against a person in hiring if the discrimination is based on the person's use of cannabis outside of work or on certain employer-required drug screening tests.”
    • He noted there were exceptions for certain industries as well as companies with federal drug free workplace obligations. Sacks added the fiscal note wasn’t yet available.
  • Four members of the public testified in favor of the bill, arguing existing policies stigmatized cannabis consumers and medical patients seeking employment.
    • 13 individuals registered as supporting the bill (testifying, not testifying).
    • Members of trade groups Washington Sun and Craft Growers Association (WSCA) and the Cannabis Alliance welcomed the legislative change, finding “little potential harm” from the change and several benefits for patients and adult consumers looking for work.
    • A panel from Black Excellence in Cannabis (BEC) supported the bill even as they called for more exemptions for construction workers. BEC member Damien Mims pointed out the bill “does not allow people in those trades that run shovels, push wheelbarrows” weren’t then allowed to “go home and enjoy the use of cannabis in their own leisure time and then come to work the next day totally fine.” 
  • Five representatives of law enforcement, the construction industry, and trade unions implied the bill could hurt workplace safety efforts, or would benefit from revisions with stronger “carve outs” to exempt certain industries like those where workers operated heavy machinery or vehicles.
    • 15 individuals registered as “other,” or against the bill (testifying, not testifying).
    • Taylor Gardner, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) Deputy Policy Director, wanted a more explicit allowance for law enforcement agencies to conduct pre-employment drug screenings as a way of ensuring compliance with requirements related to “federal law funding through grants and such” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Bob Battles, Lobbyist for the Association of Washington Business (AWB), believed the bill had been improved from previous versions, but felt exemptions to continue pre-employment testing didn’t cover enough industries and positions where workers were driving vehicles or operating machinery. Additionally, he called for language where such testing could continue for any business where the “employer policy” covered off-the-job cannabis consumption (audio - 1m, video).
    • Jim King, representing the Independent Business Association of Washington, argued that "this inadequate test" was still the best defense against workers being impaired at a jobsite. He suggested it was the responsibility of the cannabis sector and the State to fund development of better testing methods and that employers might now test new-hires to get around the bill’s restrictions (audio - 2m, video).
    • Bruce Chatten, speaking for “Sand and Gravel, Concrete and related facilities” expressed fears about the bill’s implication for their employee testing policies, even after Keiser emphasized the pre-employment nature of the change (audio - 2m, video).
    • Matthew Hepner from the Certified Electrical Workers of Washington found the legislation wasn’t inclusive enough of his fellow tradespersons, whose “skills are essential in making this industry literally grow.” He wanted those employees “excluded from the carve out” for pre-employment screening of construction workers (audio - 1m, video).

Information Set