More than 70 percent of public testimony, including members of the cannabis community, was in opposition to unionization of cannabis farmworkers. Yet, it moved out of the House with a 55-40 vote and is scheduled for an executive hearing in the Senate Monday, March 31.

Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1141 has changed from its first iteration but still poses some significant challenges for both cannabis workers and growers and the agricultural community at large. Many members of the cannabis community who testified in opposition to the bill asked why they were being singled out for unionization. Others opposed to the bill noted the legislation relies on a card check system rather than secret ballot elections to form unions.

There was no explanation provided to testifiers regarding why, specifically, the cannabis industry was targeted for unionization legislation. However, an October 2024 performance audit of the oversight of the cannabis industry recommended three specific areas of concern, none of which included the need for labor reform. The report highlighted the need for more accurate licensee tracking, better leadership and management at the Liquor and Cannabis Board, and mitigation of risk during cannabis transactions.

According to the bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self, “This is a very simple bill in that it corrects an inequity.” (32:58).

During testimony in the House and Senate committees, cannabis growers and workers maintained that the product they work with is agricultural. However, this is a legal gray area between states and the federal government. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency still considers cannabis a controlled substance but has allowed states to deregulate cannabis as a recreational product. ESHB 1141 cites cannabis workers involved in the “cultivating, growing, harvesting, or producing … including defoliating, drying, bucking, precuring, curing, drying, trimming, sorting, and loading, if performed on a farm” as agricultural workers. 

When the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, agricultural workers were excluded from the ability to unionize in recognition of the small, family owned structure of farms in the United States. Data from the 1935 U.S. Census of Agriculture confirms that supposition, noting 40 percent of the 6.8 million farms in the U.S. were less than 50 acres.

Regardless of farm size, or whether a union is formed at all, how a union is formed also concerned many people in opposition to ESHB 1141. Under the recommendations of the bill, unions can only be formed through a “card check” system. Card checks are a public declaration of intent to form a union via employee signatures collected on cards by union organizers. This method of union organization is rife with the potential for coercion, intimidation and/or harassment.

“Secret ballot” union formation allows for a secret vote process in which employees place an “yes” or “no” vote in a ballot box. If most of the votes fall on the side of forming a union, the process moves forward without any conflict and interested employees can come forward to opt into the union after its formation. Secret ballots make opportunities for coercion, intimidation and/or harassment nearly non-existent.

An audit of the legalization of cannabis in Washington state from last fall uncovered the need for significant steps to improve the industry. However, none of the recommendations in that audit included the need for unionization of workers nor did those recommendations highlight the need for better labor practices.

ESHB 1141 does not address an urgent need within the cannabis industry or within our state. It is a thinly veiled attempt to establish unions where it is clear they are not wanted. More than 70 percent of people signed in opposed to the bill. People who testified, including those actively engaged in the cannabis industry, expressed concerns about the formation of unions and, more specifically, the method by which unions were to be formed as outlined in the bill. 

It is time for legislators to listen to their constituents who are actively engaged in industries for which they are proposing policy. When a clear majority is in opposition to a proposed bill, that idea should be abandoned.