We should all be concerned when employment becomes harder to find or keep and when the state’s unemployment rate is higher than the national average. Since most people who do not work need support, the consequences ripple outward. Families feel the burden, communities absorb more need and taxpayers are asked to give up more of their own earnings to support others.
Work can interrupt that disruptive ripple, allowing people to meet their needs, care for their own families and leave public resources available for those who truly cannot work.
This is why Washington state’s approach to worker policy increasingly concerns me. Too often, we hear political leaders and worker advocates talk as though being business-friendly and worker-friendly are competing goals. They aren’t. A state that is friendly to employers is also friendly to workers.
Workers need employers. They need choices. They need the ability to gain skills, experience and increased responsibility to help them have the best future opportunities. Fewer employers mean fewer opportunities, and it’s disturbing news that a recent survey by the Association of Washington Business showed nearly one in four employers surveyed is looking to move business out of state.
In addition to serious threats surrounding employment opportunities, problematic policies for workers include the state’s barriers to entry-level work and independent contractors, union favors that come at workers’ expense and decreased wages because of unusually high payroll taxes for employees. Workers here also face high housing costs, high fuel and grocery prices, and high sales taxes.
Some lawmakers use those costs to justify policies such as a high minimum wage, even though those policies can also raise the cost of goods and services. At the same time, lawmakers reduce workers’ take-home pay through programs such as Paid Family and Medical Leave and the WA Cares Fund.
These paycheck penalties require workers — including low-income workers — to give up money they need today for rent, transportation, food and education to fund benefits they may never use. Worse, many employees are watching their wages subsidize benefits for workers with greater resources than their own. That should raise a basic policy question: Who benefits from a policy, and who pays for it?
A policy is not worker-friendly simply because supporters describe it that way. Lawmakers should be asking what happens in the real world. Did a policy increase hours, available work and overall pay? Did it help entry-level workers get started? Did it allow small businesses to provide raises or better benefits?
Minimum wage policy creates a similar contradiction. Some workers receive higher hourly pay. But workers at the margins — especially young, inexperienced or lower-skilled workers — can lose hours, job opportunities or the first rung on the ladder altogether. The same concern applies to restrictive gig-worker regulations, barriers for independent contractors, excessive occupational licensing and labor rules that increase the cost and complexity of creating work. Policy sold as pro-worker can make jobs less available.
Culturally, we have a problem, too. Work is too often discussed as exploitation, business owners are treated as villains, and some lawmakers have even encouraged or participated in strikes. That framing is deeply unhealthy.
Most work is not exploitation. It is a voluntary exchange that benefits both sides. Employers need workers. Workers need employers. That relationship, when functioning well, creates dignity, skills, income and mobility. Workers do not gain power when opportunity shrinks. They gain power when opportunity expands.
If Washington is to be truly worker-friendly, it must also be business-friendly. More employers mean more options, and more options mean more worker power. The strongest protection a worker has is the ability to walk away from a job to something better.
Washington has many strengths. We remain home to extraordinary workers, entrepreneurs and innovative companies. But we should not confuse past success with future competitiveness. If we continue raising costs, adding mandates and sending hostile signals to employers, we will make it harder for businesses to grow and harder for workers to build their future here.
