Since 1892, the Uniform Law Commission has deeply affected the practice of law – especially business law.  Uniform Acts like the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA) and the Uniform LLC Act are typical examples of the types of frameworks that the ULC typically develops. They are laws that serve as a guide to private transactions and civil liability.  Perhaps the most famous example of this has been the Uniform Commercial Code.

More recently however, the ULC has begun to study, draft, and approve laws that, if adopted, would expand its traditional scope – providing more regulatory and criminal oversight of various issues rather than more commercial transactions.

More after the jump…

In April, I was fortunate enough to be appointed as a ULC study committee reporter.  The study committee that I work with has been mandated to examine:

The need for and feasibility of a uniform act to address the existence of child labor, forced labor, human trafficking, and modern slavery in global supply chains (including within the U.S.). The committee will consider different potential legislative options to prevent these human rights abuses including (a) disclosure and transparency laws such as those in existing state legislation, (b) laws requiring companies to engage in supply chain due diligence to address human rights impact more generally, or (c) procurement legislation that would link the receipt of state or local contracts to a company’s actions.

In this series of guest blogs, I will share the work that I have done in my role as a reporter to date. Specifically, these next five blogs (adapted from a briefing memo that I prepared for the study committee) will discuss some of the issues that the study committee is considering when evaluating different regulatory approaches in order to assess the feasibility and desirability of a uniform state law on the subject.  (A copy of the full briefing memo is available if you sign up as an observer – details on that at the end).

In this blog, I’ll provide some context for why the study committee was adopted and, in the remaining blogs, I’ll do a deeper dive into the various regulatory approaches the study committee is considering. 

****

            There has been increased attention in recent years regarding the role that businesses play in engendering negative human rights impacts for workers within their supply chain.  While these negative human rights impacts can take many forms, arguably the most damaging aspect is in facilitating forced labor, modern slavery and human trafficking (collectively, “coercive labor practices”). 

            Coercive labor practices are pervasive.

For instance:

• Forced labor affects approximately 21 million people around the world. As one research study notes:  “at any given time ten thousand or more people work as forced laborers in scores of cities and towns across the [United States]. And it is likely that the actual number is much higher, possibly reaching into the tens of thousands.”

• Similarly, estimates regarding human trafficking place the number of trafficked victims at approximately 20 million a year.

• Finally, the International Labor Organization (“ILO”) states that 40 million people in 2016 were subject to modern slavery. Further, the ILO estimates that, from 2011 – 2016, “89 million people experienced some form of modern slavery for periods of time ranging from a few days to the whole five years.”

            Coercive labor practices are both a worldwide phenomenon and one that has significant national impact. Globally, vulnerable workers in many countries – particularly developing countries – are the subjects of labor trafficking; often brought to work in sub-par working conditions for little or no money.  They are oftentimes brought into these working conditions through the use of fraud, coercion and deception and, once present at the site of employment, are forced to work for little or no pay and  prevented from leaving by methods that include threats against family members, restrictions of movements and through the use of violence and intimidation.

The use of coercive labor practices has affected both major transnational corporations like Nike, Apple, and Samsung, as well as smaller,  U.S.-based businesses that rely heavily on vendors and suppliers for products.

            There are a number of different reasons why coercive labor practices persist  in supply chains. They include:

• The general norm (or in the case of government purchasing – the requirement) that among suppliers, the lowest bid will be chosen. This, in turn, will lead suppliers to: (1) source their materials from countries that pay extremely low wages and; (2) forego safety measures and other non-intrinsic services in an effort to cut costs.

• A lack of transparency in supply chains. As one report notes: “Global supply chains diffuse responsibility and accountability among a network of often-unidentified suppliers and subcontractors.”

Potentially, both of these issues could be addressed through a uniform state law.

            Coercive labor practices have affected every state in the nation. For instance, although the nature of the problem makes it difficult to secure accurate numbers, most commentators agree that labor trafficking (as opposed to sex trafficking) occurs in every single U.S. state. Despite the prevalence of the problem, however, there is currently no uniform mechanism for holding corporations accountable for their role in these coercive labor practices. As such, having a uniform law could potentially provide consistency and standardization.

Disclaimer:  The work of the study committee is currently underway and is expected to continue until December 2020.  Any interested parties are able to participate as observers.  To be added to the committee as an observer please contact Leang Sou (lsou@uniformlaws.org) at the ULC.  Also, keep in mind that the work being done at this stage is to determine the feasibility of a uniform law on the issue.  Comments that provides suggestions on what specific language this proposed uniform law should contain, are premature.