WARNING: This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
    There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
    Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.

OPINION ONLY

Some key documents

• An anti-smoking Professor of Accountancy in the Seattle University. He has written articles pointing out that the additional cost of hiring a smoker is about $4,789 a year per worker.

• He is said to have written to the Tobacco Institute 9cynically) offering to discuss the problem with them for "appropriate compensation" for his time and expertise. [500648665/8671]

1983 April 21.: Marcia Silverman of Ogilvy & Mather writes to Peter Sparber at the Tobacco Institute about a labor project they are running for the tobacco industry.

In an effort to create organized labor opposition to certain workplace smoking restrictions, Ogilvy & Mather has targeted several unions for initial contacts and discussions on the issue.

    These unions have been selected on the basis of the industries they have organized, the size and potential growth of their membership, their clout within the labor movement and their political strength.

1984 Jan 16: [See page 18] Teri Everett of Ogilvy & Mather to Peter Sparber at the Tobacco Institute, re workplace smoking.

Ogilvy & Mather Public Relations began media activities for the workplace smoking issue in June 1983. Our objective has been to contain William Weis. We have relied upon Dr. Lewis Solmon and his critique of Weis' research to accomplish this objective.

    We have generated numerous articles on the economics of the workplace smoking controversy, featuring Solmon and Weis. The stories have appeared in national business publications, management trade journals, and newspapers.

    A review of these articles shows that over the past eight months Weis has modified his interpretations of his research. In the early articles Weis is very specific about alleged costs to employers and uses figures to support each claim. Weis now uses generalities when referring to his research and has conceded that aspects of his study may be misleading. In the most recent articles Weis has relied on health and morale arguments when advocating workplace smoking bans.

    Following is a brief summary of the workplace smoking coverage generated by Ogilvy & Mather Public Relations.

1984 Oct 2: Ogilvy & Mather PR's Monthly report to Peter Sparber at the Tobacco Institute.

• Public Smoking
  
  • Identified possible minority consultant, Robert Ethridge, to be used with William Weis. [They mean 'against' William Weis who is a Seattle professor who said smoking worker's cost their employers $4,600 pa]
  • Acted as liaison between client and Eva Baker; received a preliminary proposal late in the month.
  • Reviewed some of Marvin Kristein's work and presented recommendations on how we might proceed.
• Labor/Excises
  
• Other Activites
  

1989: Tobacco Institute: Susan Stuntz "The Plan" for countering public-smoking ban hearings. This is her list of anti-smoking activists that the tobacco industry must expect to encounter and counter:

• Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
• Lawrence Garfinkel (American Cancer Society)
• Representatives from the Heart and Lung Associations
• John Banzhaf (ASH)
• James Repace
• David Burns, Jonathan Samet, and other authors of the Surgeon General's 1986 report
• Bob Rosner, William Weis, Tim Lowenberg of Seattle University's Smoking Policy institute
• Marvin Kristein, American Health Foundation, on the economics of smoking restrictions
• Representatives of state and local governments that have restricted smoking.
• William Alli, American Federation of Government Employees, and other individual workers who are members of unions
• Representatives from the NAS passive smoking and cabin air quality committees
• Aaron Lichtman, president of Citizens Against Tobacco Smoke (CATS), dedicated to banning smoking on airlines
• Representatives from some flight attendants, unions, intent on maintaining the two-hour ban

1984: Tobacco Institute file labled Workplace Smoking — US Chambers of Commerce. [The Tobacco Institute was trying to enlist the National Chamber Foundation in support of a revision of a booklet on workplace absenteeism.] This Background Information document spells out the Tobacco Institute's standard line.

Lewis C. Solmon, Ph.D. (Economics, University of Chicago), a professor and assistant dean, Graduate School of Education, UCLA, reviewed the Weis assertions in the March 1983 issue of PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR.

• Solmon's scrutiny of Weis' work revealed selective reporting of data, biased research, confusion of correlation and causation, and faulty logic.
• The Weis research, which forms the basis of his argument, appears highly questionable;
• Implementing a smoking prohibition, as advocated by Weis, would impose unnecessary costs on many businesses, could adversely affect employee morale, and could lead to a loss in productivity and profits;
• Discriminatory hiring practices raise serious social implications;

1984: Spring A recent study made by Professor William Weis of Seattle University, each smoker costs his or her employer at least $4,600 annually in added premiums for fire, health, disability and life insurance, and for losses due to absences as a result of smoking-related illness. Smokers are said to have more accidents at work than nonsmokers and cause disruption in company productivity as a result of absentee rates 50 percent higher than workers who do not smoke.

1984 Oct 2: O&M Monthly report to Peter Sparber at the Tobacco Institute.
    • Public Smoking

• Identified possible minority consultant, Robert Ethridge, to be used with William Weis

CONTRIBUTORS:SHHS gwf2 Jb22