This bill creates a new state security guards industry standards board and a new chapter in Title 49 RCW. The board must hold public hearings, investigate security guard working conditions, adopt rules establishing minimum employment standards (including minimum compensation, paid leave, employment benefits, and training), certify worker organizations to provide training, and establish training curricula and renewal criteria. Employers must ensure security guards complete board‑certified training at least once every two years and must certify compliance to the board. The Department of Labor and Industries administers enforcement, issues citations or closure letters (with specified service or trackable mailing), may assess civil penalties for willful violations, and may adopt rules for enforcement and appeals. The bill creates new enforcement and remedial procedures and penalty amounts: a $1,000 civil penalty per willful violation and for repeat willful violators a penalty of at least $2,000 and not more than $10,000 per repeat willful violation; the department may waive or reduce penalties for corrective action. Collected penalties are deposited into the supplemental pension fund under RCW 51.44.033. Injured security guards are given a civil remedy to enjoin violations and to recover actual damages plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. The act also creates a state security guards industry standards board account in the state treasury, requires the Department of Licensing to remit $25 from specified license fees into that account, and specifies that sections 1–8 constitute a new chapter in Title 49 RCW. The act reenacts and amends RCW 43.79A.040 to govern distribution of investment income and expressly lists many accounts and funds (including the new board account) that receive earnings allocations. Key dates and procedural provisions included in the extracted text: the governor must make initial board appointments by September 1, 2026; the director of Labor and Industries must convene the first meeting by December 1, 2026; the board must adopt minimum employment standards rules by January 1, 2028; the board must review standards at least once every four years and training curricula at least annually. Board members serve four‑year terms after initial staggered terms; the initial stagger language in the text is unclear as to how it applies across the member appointments. The act expires July 1, 2030, and Section 11 of the act takes effect July 1, 2030. The extracted material is incomplete in places (including the full text of sections 1–8, the complete amended text of RCW 43.79A.040, and the precise application of initial staggered terms), so additional provisions or clarifications in other parts of the bill are not available here.

If enacted, the bill would create a state security guards industry standards board that would set minimum employment standards (pay, paid leave, benefits, and training), require employers to have guards complete certified training at least every two years and certify compliance, and give the Department of Labor and Industries new enforcement authority including citations, closure letters, civil penalties ($1,000 for a willful violation; $2,000–$10,000 for repeat willful violators), and potential civil suits by injured guards. In practice this means security guard employers will likely face new recurring training costs, administrative work to document compliance, and exposure to fines and lawsuits if standards are violated; worker organizations could gain revenue and responsibility by being certified to provide training; L&I will need staffing and resources to administer the board and enforcement. The bill creates a dedicated board account partly funded by a $25 remittance from certain licensing fees and places that account under the state treasurer for investment treatment, and it directs penalties into a supplemental pension fund. However, the act is written to expire July 1, 2030 while a separate provision amending investment-earnings distribution (Section 11) takes effect on that same date, so there is uncertainty about the timing and lasting effect of the investment income allocation and some governance details (for example, the initial staggered board member terms and full text of the investment-account changes are incomplete in the provided material).