"The voluntary restriction of smoking by businesses, associations, public agencies and even labor unions is one of the most damaging and most insidious challenges we face....Furthermore, in complete opposition to its arguments in defense of freedom of speech, Sparber reveals the tobacco industry's intent to "contain" Dr. William Weis, a university professor who authored a study showing that smoking employees cost businesses more than non-smoking employees. Dr. Weis was speaking freely about his findings, and the industry needed to silence him. The irony is that the speech also contains an admission that Dr. Weis was right:
"We have opposed public smoking laws by arguing that such matters should be voluntary. Now that they are increasingly voluntary, what do we think?
"...This morning we are prepared to outline a program to deal aggressively and efficiently with the voluntary restriction of smoking by businesses, labor unions, public agencies and other private organizations...."
"The most outspoken [adversary] has been an accounting professor from the University of Seattle by the name of William Wies. As you probably know, Weis claims that smokers cost their employers more than do non-smokers. He has received a fair amount of sympathetic coverage in the business media, and a limited amount of public exposure on television and radio.The speech also reveals the industry's intent to gain support of labor unions through a system of grants and legislative favors. This is very similar to the strategy the industry employed with the fire service agencies:
"Our goal here is to contain Dr. Weis...and over the past several months we have made some good progress.
Early on, attempts were made to show that smokers cost no more than non-smokers. But, the fact is that smokers do cost more, probably because they are more likely to be blue collar workers, and blue collar workers have higher rates of absenteeism."**
(** For a description of how the industry markets to "low level" workers, see the September 11, 2000 posting about the document entitled, "Less Educated: Today's Trend, Tomorrow's Market")
"Overall we will create the sense that organized labor will not tolerate smoking restrictions...But the real reason the industry wanted the support of labor unions extended beyond merely gaining support from, and influence over the unions themselves. The deeper reason was to influence the smoking policies being made by corporations and agencies:
"We have already encouraged Congressional support of bills desired by labor, and on a case by case basis we will do more. This is an extremely productive area...
"...We also propose a financial relationship with organized labor...a program which would result in grants to Union locals for the purpose of providing equipment and materials for job retraining programs....We propose that grants of not more than $10,000 be awarded to Unions in states where the unemployment rate exceeds the national average.... We propose a first year budget of $200,000 for this project. "
"Organized labor is of vital importance, but ultimately, it is not labor that we want to influence. Corporations and public agencies are our first targets."
The voluntary restriction of smoking by businesses, associations, public agencies and even labor unions is one of the most damaging and most insidious challenges we face.
There are three broad categories [of smoking restrictions]. The first is legislation. Over the past dozen or so years we have faced more than public smoking bills and have defeated more than 90 percent of them. Those we have defeated are typically reintroduced year after year, often redrafted to accommodate legislators' objections. The Institute as a matter of policy and practice is organized to aggressively oppose legislation of this sort. The second category is legislation. Relatively little has occurred here. ...The third category is the voluntary restriction of smoking by organizations. ...
A smoker, spending eight hours a day at his or her job, should not be forced into choosing between cigarettes and employment. But that is precisely the choice a smoker is given...
We do not know how widespread these practices have become. But, we do know that with the help of anti-smokers, they are growing.
As an industry, we have done little more than respond to requests for information on the subject. As a result, we have had little influence...
Now that we are increasingly facing voluntary restrictions, are our policies and practices still appropriate? ..... We have opposed public smoking laws by arguing that such matters should be voluntary. Now that they are increasingly voluntary, what do we think?
...This morning we are prepared to outline a program to deal aggressively and efficiently with the voluntary restriction of smoking by businesses, labor unions, public agencies and other private organizations....the program itself has been designed to communicate aggressively, directly and in technically competent ways, with the people who contribute to, and make major decisions in business, public agencies, unions and other organizations.
We find ourselves in a situation where some of our efforts will be defensive in nature. However, most of the program is designed to seize and maintain the initiative. ...Our adversaries have been active in this area for some time.
The most outspoken has been an accounting professor from the University of Seattle by the name of William Wies. As you probably know, Weis claims that smokers cost their employers more than do non-smokers. He has received a fair amount of sympathetic coverage in the business media, and a limited amount of public exposure on television and radio.
Our goal here is to contain Dr. Weis...and over the past several months we have made some good progress.
Early on, attempts were made to show that smokers cost no more than non-smokers. But, the fact is that smokers do cost more, probably because they are more likely to be blue collar workers, and blue collar workers have higher rates of absenteeism.
Therefore, out strategy has been to confront Weis and challenge his methods and conclusions before audiences are capable of understanding how shoddy his work truly is.
To do so, we needed a credible spokesman. Fortunately, and INFOTAB committee studying this issue identified Dr. Lewis Solomon, Dean of the Graduate School of Education at UCLA. ....The National Management Association has offered to pay Lew Solomon to speak on the subject of productivity before management audiences. In effect Lew will be paid by the NMA to get our message across...
Though a fair number of unions have, on their own, opposed smoking restrictions, organized labor does not see restrictions of this sort as a major issue.
We will change that, through three strategies....
....Overall we will create the sense that organized labor will not tolerate smoking restrictions...
...We have already encouraged Congressional support of bills desired by labor, and on a case by case basis we will do more. This is an extremely productive area...
...We also propose a financial relationship with organized labor...a program which would result in grants to Union locals for the purpose of providing equipment and materials for job retraining programs....We propose that grants of not more than $10,000 be awarded to Unions in states where the unemployment rate exceeds the national average. The grants would be made by a panel representing the TI....In addition to improving our relationship with Unions, this program will be part of our general public service effort.
We propose a first year budget of $200,000 for this project. Organized labor is of vital importance, but ultimately, it is not labor that we want to influence. Corporations and public agencies are our first targets.
END OF DOCUMENT