State Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, rises to a point of parliamentary inquiry during Friday’s brief Senate debate.

OLYMPIA, Feb. 2.—Middle-of-the-road Democrats broke with the Majority Coalition in the Senate Friday over a workers’ compensation bill that is strongly opposed by labor interests, after the largely Republican governing coalition rejected what one senator characterized as an attempt at compromise.

The battle isn’t over yet – the final vote will take place next week, perhaps as soon as Monday. But the key thing is that on the first big issue of the session, it looks as though there isn’t going to be any hands-across-the-aisle cooperation. No telling what it means for the session, but at least on this vote there wasn’t much bipartisanship.

“We could give them six votes,” said state Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, one of the more prominent players in the middle-of-the-road Roadkill Caucus group that has proven a centrist force in the last two legislative sessions. “The bill would come out of here strongly with bipartisan support. But I don’t think that is going to happen. That is too bad.”

In the scheme of things, what played out on the Senate floor Friday was really a minor skirmish – the Senate simply rejected an amendment Hobbs had offered to a worker-comp bill, which tried to stake out a middle ground on one of the hottest business-versus-labor issues. But it also may offer a harbinger of things to come as the new cross-party coalition manages the affairs of the state Senate. Two Democrats, Rodney Tom of Bellevue and Tim Sheldon of Potlatch, are caucusing with the 23 Senate Republicans, establishing a 25-vote majority in the Senate and leaving the Senate Democratic Caucus a 24-vote minority. The new order of things in the chamber left Democrats reeling, and while Friday’s play on the Senate floor involved a policy debate, it was just as much about the new power structure in the Senate.

Said Senate Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, “I think the frustrations of not being in the majority sometimes show up. And while we gave lots of time to compromise, there just wasn’t enough time for everybody.”

Age Limits the Issue

The battle was waged over one of a series of workers’ compensation bills the Majority Caucus hopes to pass this session. The measures basically revise and extend a big reform effort that took place during the 2011 session and triggered war between business and labor and their allies in the Legislature. Lawmakers for the first time allowed permanently injured workers to settle claims, rather than requiring them to take pensions – a move that could mean big cost savings for employers and bring Washington rules in line with most other states. But the 2011 reform measure imposed strict limits on the settlements, allowing them for disability claims only, requiring less-attractive “structured settlements” rather than one-time lump-sum payments, requiring an independent state board to second-guess attorneys, and limiting the option to workers age 55 and older, ratcheting it down to age 50 by 2016. Only a handful of settlements have been awarded since the program began in January 2012. One of the bills in the package, SB 5127, would eliminate the age restriction and the requirement that the State Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals evaluate settlement offers to determine whether they are in the best interest of workers.

Hobbs’ amendment would have reduced the age limit to 45 in 2018, ratcheting it down to age 40 by 2020. It’s going to take some sort of compromise to eventually pass the bill in the Legislature, Hobbs said, given the more sympathetic reception of labor interests in the Democrat-controlled House. Labor strongly opposed the settlements in 2011, and is dead-set against any expansion of the program. Four Democrats signed the amendment, but the Senate rejected it on a voice vote.

“I was hoping they would take it, but they would not, so I guess I will not be supporting the workers’ comp bill,” Hobbs said.

Mixed Message

The amendment triggered partisan debate on the Senate floor – that is, between the minority Democrats and the bipartisan majority. And there was a mixed message to some of the floor speeches: Some Democrats declared their opposition to settlements, yet urged passage of the Hobbs amendment which would have expanded the program – just not as broadly as the original bill. “Why will it save money to have structured settlements?” asked Sen. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island. “Because injured workers will settle for less money than they would under the current system. The bill aims to save money on the backs of people who are hurt on the job. I would urge adoption of this amendment.”

Members of the majority caucus noted that the settlements are voluntary – no worker is required to take one. Sometimes a worker might decide that it makes sense to take a little less over the long haul in return for a larger upfront payment, they said. Younger injured workers ought to have the option, argued state Sen. Randi Becker, R-Eatonville. “This would allow them the ability to take that settlement and get the education that would get them into a place where they could work and could be viable for their entire life.”

Once the amendment was defeated, the debate was put on hold. In an unusual move, Democrats objected to an immediate vote, as is their right under the parliamentary rules of the Senate. The next session is set for Monday at noon. “We’ll see you all back here,” said floor leader Joe Fain, R-Auburn.

Already Compromised

State Sen. Janea Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses Lake, the commerce and labor chairwoman who sponsored the measures, said business-minded lawmakers compromised plenty in 2011 and want to stake out a firm position in negotiations with the House. She noted that none of the 44 other states that permit settlements impose age limits, she said.

“We compromised big on the reform two years ago,” she said. “We crafted our structured settlements with so many protections for injured workers that they are very unique already, so we have already met in the middle.” She pointed out that the Department of Labor and Industries is considering big workers’-comp tax increases on business in order to raise $1.1 billion in insurance reserves. “With our contingency reserve in deficit and after hearing from injured workers across the state who want this option, the time to act is now,” she said.

State Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent, a strong supporter of labor interests and a fierce opponent of the settlements authorized in 2011, said a deal ought to be a deal. “If you accept a compromise in good faith, you should stick with your word,” she said. Yet Keiser said she was delighted by the play on the floor. “I thought it was brilliant,” she said.

SB 5127, the focus of the debate, was one of five bills in the package. Three others make largely technical changes to the workers’ comp program that aim to reduce costs for business; the remaining bill, SB 5128, expands the settlement program more broadly and therefore may face even tougher sledding in the House. An amendment to that bill on the Senate floor offered by state Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, limited settlements to disability claims, meaning that medical claims could not be settled.

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.