The bill reenacts and amends RCW 41.06.157 and amends RCW 41.80.020. It requires the director of financial management to adopt and maintain a comprehensive classification plan for all positions in the classified service with specified attributes (simple and streamlined; supports changing technologies, economic and social conditions, and citizen needs; values workplace diversity; facilitates reorganization and mobility; considers public and private rates; does not require a twoor four-year degree as the only qualification unless law requires it; and recognizes that persons legally authorized to work in the United States, including DACA recipients, are eligible for employment unless otherwise prohibited). The director may undertake salary surveys of public and private employment and may adopt special salary ranges for institutions of higher education; salary survey information from private employers that identifies a specific employer with its salary rates is made exempt from public disclosure under chapter 42.56 RCW. An appointing authority and an employee organization may jointly request a classification study. The amendments change collective bargaining procedures and subjects. Matters subject to bargaining continue to include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and the negotiation of questions arising under a collective bargaining agreement, but employers are not required to bargain over most health care or other employee insurance benefits, retirement systems, or rules adopted by the director of financial management, the director of enterprise services, or the Washington personnel resources board, except as specified. Subsection (3) makes the number of names certified for vacancies, promotional preferences, and the dollar amount expended for each employee’s health care benefits bargaining subjects under certain conditions, generally requiring negotiations between the employer and one coalition of all exclusive bargaining representatives; it further provides that agreements on these items must be included in master collective bargaining agreements except in limited historical or higher education circumstances. Beginning January 1, 2028, benchmark descriptions and job classifications used by the office of financial management in salary surveys become subjects of bargaining under a one-coalition negotiation rule. Employers and exclusive bargaining representatives are prohibited from agreeing to provisions that prevent implementation of affirmative action plans or conflict with the comparable worth agreement underlying 1983–1985 salary changes, and they may not bargain over management rights established in RCW 41.80.040. Collective bargaining agreements prevail over conflicting executive orders or agency policies but cannot supersede statute; RCW 41.58.070 is made applicable to uniformed personnel. The bill modifies existing law and makes procedural changes to classification and bargaining processes, expands an exemption for certain salary survey data, and imposes specific bargaining requirements and limitations, with key effective dates beginning January 1, 2028. The extracted text does not define some terms used (for example, whether every reference to “director” is the director of financial management) and relies on external RCWs (such as chapter 47.64 RCW, RCW 41.80.010(4), RCW 41.80.040, RCW 41.06.142, and RCW 41.58.070) whose full content and definitions are not included here, so complete interpretation depends on those provisions.

If enacted, the main practical change is that the state’s budget office (the director/OFM) will generally have to negotiate classification plans and the benchmark job descriptions used in salary surveys with employee unions starting January 1, 2028. That gives unions more influence over how jobs are described and grouped and over the survey benchmarks that help set pay, which will likely slow unilateral reclassification by agencies, increase the time and staff needed for bargaining, and could push up payroll costs if negotiated classifications or special higher education salary ranges result in higher pay. Private employers who provide salary survey data that identify them will have that specific data withheld from public disclosure, which may make OFM more willing to use private-market comparisons. The groups most affected are the OFM, appointing authorities and other state employers, exclusive bargaining representatives and classified employees, and institutions of higher education. Agencies will face greater negotiation obligations and less unilateral control over classification and compensation changes, potentially requiring more budget room and bargaining resources; unions gain a stronger role in shaping classifications and pay benchmarks. The extracted text leaves out some definitions and the full content of related statutes it references, so details about exactly how bargaining will work in particular situations and how costs will be allocated remain unclear.