HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2004.052126v1 95/6/985    most recent Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Balbach, E. D. Articles by Pan, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Balbach, E. D. Articles by Pan, J. Related Collections Health Policy Occupational Health Other Tobacco Secondhand Smoke

Edith D. Balbach, PhD, Elizabeth M. Barbeau, MPH, ScD, Viola Manteufel, BA and Jocelyn Pan, DrPH

Edith D. Balbach and Jocelyn Pan are with the Community Health Program, Tufts University, Medford, Mass. Elizabeth M. Barbeau is with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. Viola Manteufel is with the Community Health Program, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Edith D. Balbach, Community Health Program, Tufts University, 112 Packard Ave, Medford, MA 02155 (e-mail: edith.balbach{at}tufts.edu).

In 1984, the tobacco workers’ union and the Tobacco Institute, which represents US tobacco companies, formed a labor management committee (LMC). The institute relied on LMC unions to resist smoke-free worksite rules.

In a review of the internal tobacco industry documents now publicly available, we found that the LMC succeeded for 2 primary reasons. First, the LMC furthered members’ interests, allowing them to overcome institutional barriers to policy success. Second, the LMC used an "institutions, ideas, and interests" strategy to encourage non-LMC unions to oppose smoke-free worksite rules.

While public health advocates missed an opportunity to partner with unions on the issue of smoke-free worksites during the era studied, they can use a similar strategy to form coalitions with unions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. M. Cook and L. A. Bero The Politics of Smoking in Federal Buildings: An Executive Order Case Study Am J Public Health, September 1, 2009; 99(9): 1588 - 1595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. B. Campbell and E. D. Balbach Building Alliances in Unlikely Places: Progressive Allies and the Tobacco Institute's Coalition Strategy on Cigarette Excise Taxes Am J Public Health, July 1, 2009; 99(7): 1188 - 1196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R Campbell and E D Balbach Mobilising public opinion for the tobacco industry: the consumer tax alliance and excise taxes Tob. Control, October 1, 2008; 17(5): 351 - 356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. D Balbach, A. Herzberg, and E. M Barbeau Political coalitions and working women: how the tobacco industry built a relationship with the Coalition of Labor Union Women J Epidemiol Community Health, September 1, 2006; 60(suppl_2): ii27 - ii32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E D Balbach and E M Barbeau Beyond quagmires: the evolving quality of documents research Tob. Control, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 361 - 362. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E M Barbeau, G Kelder, S Ahmed, V Mantuefel, and E D Balbach From strange bedfellows to natural allies: the shifting allegiance of fire service organisations in the push for federal fire-safe cigarette legislation Tob. Control, October 1, 2005; 14(5): 338 - 345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]