AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print May 11, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2004.052126v1
95/6/985    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Balbach, E. D.
Right arrow Articles by Pan, J. C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Balbach, E. D.
Right arrow Articles by Pan, J. C
©
American Journal of Public Health, 10.2105/AJPH.2004.052126

Public Health Matters

Political Coalitions for Mutual Advantage: The Case of the Tobacco Institute's Labor Management Committee

Edith D. Balbach 1*, Elizabeth M. Barbeau 2, Viola Manteufel 3, Jocelyn C Pan 1

1 Tufts University
2 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
3 Medical College of Wisconsin

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: edith.balbach{at}tufts.edu.


  Abstract

In 1984, the tobacco workers union and the Tobacco Institute, representing US tobacco companies, formed a Labor Management Committee (LMC). The Institute relied on LMC unions to resist smokefree worksite rules. Through review of the internal tobacco industry documents now publicly available, we found that the LMC succeeded for two primary reasons. One, LMC members had a symbiotic relationship; the LMC furthered members' interests, allowing them to overcome institutional barriers to policy success. Two, the LMC used ideas to encourage non-LMC unions to oppose smokefree worksite rules. While public health missed an opportunity to partner with unions on smokefree worksites during the era studied, public health can also use a "institutions, ideas, and interests" strategy to form coalitions with unions.

Key Words: Health Policy, Occupational Health, Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Tobacco




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
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]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
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]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
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]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2005 by the American Public Health Association