Public Sector Unions May Soon Bargain Over AI Implementation in Washington State
Washington state legislators are preparing to revisit a significant labor policy question in 2026: should public sector unions have the right to bargain over how artificial intelligence is implemented in government workplaces? This debate centers on House Bill 1622, sponsored by Rep. Lisa Parshley (D-Olympia), which would require government employers to negotiate with unions before adopting AI technologies that affect wages or worker performance evaluations. The bill passed the House earlier this year largely along party lines with Democratic support, but stalled in the Senate. Now, proponents are regrouping and bringing the issue before the state’s artificial intelligence task force established in 2024.
Currently, Washington state has inconsistent policies regarding technology bargaining rights for public employees. A 2002 law prohibits classified employees of state agencies and higher education institutions from bargaining over technology decisions – a rule created when “technology” primarily meant desktop computers, fax machines, and telephones. Meanwhile, workers at cities, counties, and other agencies operate under a different statute that requires bargaining over technology if it affects working conditions or compensation. This discrepancy creates what supporters of HB 1622 see as an outdated framework for addressing modern AI systems that could fundamentally transform public sector work. As Rep. Parshley questioned during her presentation to the task force, “Is that fair when we have a technology that now will actually impact our workers in ways that we have not even begun to realize?”
The push for union bargaining rights over AI implementation comes amid growing worker concerns about job security in an increasingly automated world. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in late 2023 revealed that over half of workers worry about AI’s future workplace impact, with about one-third believing it will lead to fewer jobs overall. Approximately one in six workers reported that AI was already performing some of their job duties. These concerns aren’t merely theoretical – we’re already seeing examples of AI integration in government services, such as Maryland’s partnership with AI company Anthropic to help residents apply for food aid, Medicaid, and other social welfare programs. The question now is whether workers should have a say in how these technologies are deployed in their workplaces.
In early 2024, then-Governor Jay Inslee took initial steps to address AI implementation in state government by issuing an executive order that outlined Washington’s commitment to “harness the potential of generative AI in an ethical and equitable way for the benefit of the state government workforce.” Following this guidance, the state’s Office of Financial Management issued a directive in September requiring agencies to give union-represented state employees six months’ notice before implementing generative AI if it “will result in a consequential change in employee wages, hours, or working conditions.” The directive also guarantees unions the right to demand bargaining over such changes and mandates human review of AI systems used in employment-related decisions. While Rep. Parshley called this directive an “excellent first step,” she argues that codifying these protections into law would ensure “future administrations can be held accountable” regardless of who holds executive power.
Washington State Labor Council President April Sims emphasized to the task force that including workers in AI implementation decisions isn’t merely a courtesy but a “practical necessity” that helps identify risks, ensures appropriate human oversight, and builds trust among staff who will ultimately operate, troubleshoot, and rely on these systems. “Public sector bargaining covers wages, hours and working conditions,” Sims explained, “and agencies are already required to bargain any change that touches those areas, but without legislation, that bargaining happens after implementation. With legislation like House Bill 1622, it would happen before.” Opponents of the bill, including business groups and city officials, have argued that the mandate would tilt the balance of power too far toward workers and potentially delay beneficial workplace innovation – a tension that lies at the heart of the upcoming legislative debate.
The Washington state discussion is playing out against a complex national backdrop of federal versus state approaches to AI regulation. Reports suggest President Donald Trump is considering an executive order directing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to sue states that pass regulations on AI, although it’s unclear if this would affect labor-focused legislation like HB 1622, which regulates bargaining rights rather than the technology itself. This tension was visible during recent federal legislative debates, when Congress considered a moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence regulations as part of Trump’s tax and spending law – a provision that was ultimately removed thanks to opposition led by U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington). Meanwhile, Washington state is also considering Senate Bill 5708, requested by state Attorney General Nick Brown, which aims to protect children from AI-powered social media applications. Rep. Parshley noted she has joined a new legislative workgroup focused on AI “so that we can participate in this great debate” – a debate that will likely intensify as the 2026 legislative session approaches and more AI applications enter government workplaces.
