HOUSE BILL REPORT

EHB 2466

BYRepresentatives Vekich, Prentice, Winsley, Jones, Holland, Wineberry, G. Fisher, Cole, Braddock, P. King, Ebersole, Anderson, Rector, Kremen and Wang

Requiring employee health benefits under school service contracts.

House Committe on Commerce & Labor

Majority Report:  Do pass. (9)

      Signed by Representatives Vekich, Chair; Cole, Vice Chair; Forner, Jones, R. King, Leonard, O'Brien, Prentice and Walker.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (2)

      Signed by Representatives Smith, Ranking Republican Member; and Wolfe.

House Staff:Kristen Lichtenberg (786-7623) and Chris Cordes (786-7117)

AS PASSED HOUSE FEBRUARY 7, 1990

BACKGROUND:

Some school districts contract with private entities to supply services previously performed by school district employees. Contractors are not required to provide health care benefits to employees performing duties previously performed by school district employees.

SUMMARY:

Contractors entering into contracts to supply services to school districts after the effective date of the act must provide health benefits for employees who perform duties previously performed by school district employees.  The benefits provided must be substantially similar to those received by district employees performing services similar to those performed under the contract.  However, the provision does not apply to contracts for services previously performed by district employees in supervisory, professional, or technical positions, nor does it apply to temporary contracts.

Fiscal Note:      Requested January 10, 1990.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Dave Westberg, International Union of Engineers; Dick Randall, Public School Employees of Washington; Sam Kinville, Washington State Council of County and City Employees; and Cindy Zehnder, Joint Council of Teamsters.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Howard Coble, Washington Association of School Administrators.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Many contractors do not provide health care benefits to their employees when they contract to provide services for a school district.  Often these employees are former school district employees who had health care coverage as school employees.  Without employer- provided coverage, these employees will not have health care benefits.  This results in shifting the cost of health care to the public.  Similar proposals to require employer-provided coverage have been enacted in several other states, including Oregon.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The only reason that schools contract for services is the cost savings.  While the need for health care coverage is recognized, it seems inappropriate to mandate the level of benefits when these benefits can be established through collective bargaining.  A suggested approach could be to require benefits, but not establish the level, and to cover only those employees who were former school district employees.