In the marbled halls of Washington’s state capitol, a new battle over artificial intelligence is brewing, pitting public-sector unions against government efficiency drives. House Bill 1622, reintroduced for the 2025-2026 legislative session, mandates that state agencies negotiate with unions before deploying AI tools that could impact wages, performance evaluations, or working conditions. This push comes as lawmakers reconvene next year to tackle the bill after it stalled in the previous session amid a packed agenda.

The legislation builds on earlier efforts, including a February 2025 proposal by Sen. Jessica Bateman (D-Olympia), which aimed to embed AI discussions into collective bargaining agreements. ‘Workers deserve to have a voice at the table when their employers introduce new AI technologies in their workplace,’ Bateman said in a statement, likening AI to ‘fire — it can be good or bad, help us or hurt us.’ The bill’s revival signals growing unease among labor groups about AI’s role in public service.

Roots in Failed 2025 Push

HB 1622 echoes Senate Bill 5184 from earlier this year, which advanced through committees but died during the session’s final deadlines. That bill, sponsored by Bateman, would have explicitly allowed unions to bargain over AI implementation, protecting public servants from unchecked technological shifts. Reports from Sen. Jessica Bateman’s office highlighted the need for responsible AI adoption, ensuring benefits for state employees.

Stakeholders on both sides are mobilizing. Union leaders argue AI could automate jobs or alter evaluations unfairly, while agency officials worry about delays in modernization. The Washington State Standard reported that the bill targets scenarios where AI affects ‘wages or worker performance evaluations,’ forcing negotiations if impacts are foreseen.

Labor’s Leverage in AI Era

Washington’s public workforce, including over 60,000 state employees represented by unions like the Washington Federation of State Employees, stands to gain significant influence. The bill amends the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act, classifying AI deployment as a mandatory bargaining subject. This mirrors national trends, such as Hollywood’s WGA deal limiting AI scriptwriting, though Washington’s focus is uniquely governmental.

Proponents cite risks like biased AI in hiring or surveillance tools monitoring productivity. ‘Including AI implementation as an allowable topic in collective bargaining processes will help protect our dedicated public servants,’ Bateman emphasized. Critics, including some fiscal conservatives, contend it could hamstring innovation in areas like permitting processes or fraud detection.

Session Timeline and Tactics

The 2026 session begins in January, giving HB 1622 a fresh shot amid a Democratic supermajority. Last session’s casualties included similar measures, as noted by The Columbian, which listed AI-union bargaining among bills felled by deadlines. Sponsors are eyeing early committee hearings to build momentum.

Union strategies involve grassroots lobbying and public campaigns. The Washington State Standard detailed how the bill requires ‘government employers to bargain with unions over the use of the technology if it affects wages or worker performance evaluations.’ This specificity aims to preempt legal challenges by tying AI to existing bargaining rights.

National Echoes and Precedents

Washington’s move aligns with broader U.S. labor responses to AI. In California, discussions rage over AI in gig work, while New York mandates disclosures for AI in hiring. Locally, a 2024 AI task force bill passed, per KIRO 7 News Seattle, recommending guidelines but stopping short of bargaining mandates.

Posts on X reflect mixed sentiment: labor advocates praise union protections, while tech enthusiasts decry red tape. One thread highlighted federal preemption risks, noting a budget provision blocking state AI regs for a decade, as flagged by AFL-CIO. Washington’s bill sidesteps this by focusing on labor law.

Implementation Hurdles Ahead

If passed, agencies must forecast AI impacts during planning, triggering talks. Exemptions might apply to minor tools, but definitions remain vague, inviting disputes. StateScoop covered a related February bill granting unions bargaining powers on AI use, underscoring the issue’s persistence (StateScoop).

Economic stakes are high: Washington’s tech sector, home to Microsoft and Amazon, influences policy. Unions point to pilots where AI cut clerical roles, per internal reports. Lawmakers must balance innovation—AI promises to streamline $50 billion in annual operations—with worker safeguards.

Stakeholder Voices Amplify

Sen. Bateman’s office reiterated: ‘We can move forward with new technology responsibly.’ Opponents, like the Association of Washington Business, argue it adds bureaucracy. Dailyfly News echoed the bill’s scope, noting mandates for bargaining over AI affecting core terms (Dailyfly News).

As debates heat up, expect testimony from AI ethicists and economists. BABL AI reported on the bill’s aim to grant public employees bargaining rights, positioning Washington as a labor-AI pioneer (BABL AI).

Path to Passage or Stalemate

Success hinges on budget negotiations and GOP buy-in, limited but vocal. Recent X chatter warns of overregulation stifling AI growth, yet labor’s clout in Democratic districts bolsters odds. KHQ.com noted a February progression of similar legislation, signaling committee viability (KHQ.com).

The bill’s text, available via the legislature’s site, specifies impacts on ‘hours, wages, or other terms and conditions.’ If enacted, it could model for other states, reshaping how governments harness AI amid workforce anxieties.