Lawmakers have passed a labor law for the living room, using workplace rules designed for HR departments. The result is a gray zone where families, house cleaners, adult caregivers, babysitters, gardeners, handymen and nannies may think they know what they are — until the state or a court says otherwise.
Senate House Bill 2355 extends workplace protections to domestic workers performing services in private homes. The law outlines requirements involving minimum wage, overtime, written agreements, anti-retaliation protections and termination notices. A worker performing domestic services for as few as four hours in a month may fall within the statute’s coverage. And if workers believe their rights under the law are violated, they can file a complaint with the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries or pursue a private right of action in court. (State law already requires most workers — including many people doing household work — to be paid at least the state’s minimum wage, by the way.)
Protecting domestic workers from abuse is important. Their work is valuable, and safe conditions are essential. But the policy question is whether labor law designed for formal employment relationships should apply to the many informal household arrangements that many people enter voluntarily.
Supporters argued during legislative debate that casual arrangements would not be affected. But the bill’s enforcement provisions make the issue less clear. And the state’s own fiscal analysis anticipates the law will generate hundreds of complaints each year. A fiscal note projects more than $2.5 million in spending per biennium and eight additional staff positions at the Department of Labor & Industries beginning in 2027 to investigate alleged violations.
These enforcement mechanisms are likely to change hiring behavior. Many families might decide it’s safer to hire through agencies rather than risk violating rules they are unclear about. That could raise costs and reduce the kind of flexible work arrangements many domestic workers prefer.
The bill also blurs an already complicated line between employees and independent contractors. Many domestic workers operate independently, choosing when and where they work. Expanding employment-style regulations into private homes discourages and complicates those flexible arrangements.
Amendments were proposed that could have made the bill better and less confusing. Lawmakers suggested raising the four-hour threshold that triggers coverage, raising the number of hours that require a termination notice, removing the private right of action and clarifying the treatment of independent contractors. Those amendments were rejected.
Two Democrats, Sen. Marko Liias, D-Everett, and Rep. Amy Walen, D-Kirkland, ultimately joined Republicans in voting against the bill. Liias said in a floor speech that he wanted to vote for the underlying bill but believed it needed amending.
Get contracts ready?
To be safer from any possible enforcement actions, families hiring for domestic work — even occasional work — should have workers sign a contract clarifying that the job is a one-time or short-term arrangement rather than ongoing employment. The law also requires the Department of Labor & Industries to create model contracts and guidance for households and workers. I look forward to them.
Informal arrangements have long been part of community life. People mow a neighbor’s lawn, shovel snow, babysit for friends or clean houses occasionally. Both sides benefit from flexibility and informality. Regulation could shrink those opportunities. As rules become complicated or legally risky, households could stop hiring directly or limit the work they offer.
This law for domestic workers made me think of my own life experience and all the non-traditional work I benefited from. When I was 15, my parents moved away from Seattle. I stayed behind for my remaining high school years. We found a housekeeping arrangement where I cleaned in exchange for room and board for much of that first year on my own. It gave me stability at a critical time before I needed to enter the more formal work world and start paying rent. Would that kind of voluntary arrangement even happen today under this law?
Expanding labor law into private homes might help protect some workers and give them better work conditions and clearer expectations, but it will also discourage the voluntary, flexible work arrangements that many households and workers still value. The bill should have been amended so it was something more lawmakers could support.
