450 likes | 797 Vues
Tales from the Field: WorkSHIFT’s Labor Outreach Presented by: Susan Weisman Erik Peterson Boston, December 2003 WorkSHIFTS Collaborative Labor Outreach Initiative: Tobacco Law Center A legal and policy resource center housed at William Mitchell College of Law
E N D
Tales from the Field: WorkSHIFT’s Labor Outreach Presented by: Susan Weisman Erik Peterson Boston, December 2003
WorkSHIFTS • Collaborative Labor Outreach Initiative: • Tobacco Law Center • A legal and policy resource center housed at William Mitchell College of Law • University of Minnesota Labor Education Service • Outreach component of University to Minnesota’s labor community • Partnering with Labor • Addressing tobacco’s harmful impact in workplace settings by: • Conducting educational outreach and training • Developing legal and policy tools and resources • Providing technical assistance to facilitate collective bargaining, policy development and implementation • Funded by MPAAT • Two-year grant from Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco
WorkSHIFTS Long-term goals • Reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace for all workers, regardless of occupation or class. • Enhance access to effective, affordable cessation services and programs for workers who want to quit smoking. • Provide ongoing technical assistance to labor, management and individual workers that supports the development and implementation of sound smoking policies in the workplace. • Based in Minnesota – yet available to assist nationwide.
WorkSHIFTS Why this issue? Why now? • Tobacco is the leading cause of death for workers. • Secondhand smoke (SHS) is one of the least visible workplace hazards. • SHS is the only Group A carcinogen (known to cause cancer in humans) not regulated by OSHA or the EPA. • Unions have not played an active role in tobacco prevention and control historically: • Perception of the issue as divisive • Relationships between unions and tobacco industry
WorkSHIFTS Our approach • Collaborative • Meeting labor where it is now • Building relationships, partnerships, trust • Recognition that each union and local has specific needs and limits • Targeted • Striving to reach those workers most impacted by tobacco: blue collar and hospitality and service workers • Listening to labor’s many voices • Informal survey • Key informant interviews • Focus groups • Statewide telephone survey • Retreats with labor and tobacco control leaders
Initial Findings Key findings from initial survey • August 2002 Minnesota AFL-CIO survey of convention delegates – • 182 respondents (26%); 37 international unions • Strong support for unions bargaining for cessation benefits • Strong agreement that SHS is a hazard • Strong support for limiting smoking to specific smoking area
Initial Findings Labor leader interviews Fifteen labor leaders representing 7 international unions and 5 central labor councils were interviewed on smoking and cessation issues. • Secondhand smoke is a worker health and safety issue –but not a high priority compared to other workplace safety issues • Key areas of agreement: • Unions may have a role in addressing SHS workplace exposure • Members typically accept smoking policies once in place • Need more information, particularly on: • how tobacco use affects workers health and health care costs • available, effective cessation programs, their components and cost
Focus Groups Focus group goal Six focus groups in three cities – union workers from targeted populations including smokers and nonsmokers. • Probe for a more nuanced understanding of worker perceptions, attitudes and awareness of tobacco issues • Gauge reactions to sets of facts and messages
Focus Group Findings Ambivalence & uncertainty about union role • Saw union’s role to fight for wages and benefits • the union protects jobs and standards of living • on your side – strength in numbers – solidarity – know what we’re up against • Few saw a union role on smoking issues • some even wondered if union should take any position: “This is personal business – not union business.” • some thought there were “bigger fish to fry” • exceptions: • saw the union negotiating options if smoking ban imposed • some saw a role for negotiating cessation benefits
Focus Group Findings Smokers as embattled minority • On one hand – many smokers want to quit • talked freely of health risks, their state of health, family member concerns, and attempts to quit • spoke of being at mercy of addiction, desired help, and expressed shame about not being “stronger” and able to quit • And yet – many smokers perceive they are being targeted • feel persecuted as smokers • acceptable to “attack” smokers • fewer places to smoke • taken advantage of by both government and tobacco industry • resent being judged or condescended to
Focus Group Findings SHS: Nuisance or hazard? • Nonsmokers had mixed reactions • many believed it was a hazard, yet spoke of SHS mostly as a nuisance (smell, etc.); openness to belief that it is a hazard • most nonsmokers empathized with their smoking coworkers • for some, clearly a hazard to be avoided • Smokers resisted calling SHS a hazard • Smokers and nonsmokers both concerned about SHS’s impact on the most vulnerable • impact of SHS on children and elderly • impact of SHS on those with serious medical conditions
Focus Group Findings Hints about appropriate messages • Smokers • Reacted negatively and argued against many “facts” about the health effects of smoking and SHS • Reacted more positively to “non-judgmental” messages • Reacted positively to messages that were seen as “helpful” – e.g., options for quitting; associated risks with other workplace hazards. • Nonsmokers • Generally open to messages and appreciated new “facts” • Desired balanced approach that respects nonsmokers
Statewide Union Survey Survey goals Survey by Lake, Snell, Perry – a nationally recognized polling firm – and balanced for geography and union: 4.4% margin of error. • Learn basic attitudes of union members about SHS and smoking • Learn attitudes of union members about desired role of their unions on SHS, smoking cessation, and workplace smoking policies • Test effectiveness of specific messages for union members
Statewide Union Survey Demographics
Statewide Union Survey Nonsmoking and smoking members 30% Smokers70% Non-Smokers Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Union groups most likely to smoke All Minnesota smokers: 22% (M=25%; F=20%) All union member smokers: 30% Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Union groups least likely to smoke All Minnesotans: 22% smoke (M=25%; F=20%) All union members: 30% smoke Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey SHS as Health Risk
Statewide Union Survey SHS poses health risk to nonsmokers 73% Agree24% Disagree Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey SHS harming own health 53% Concerned45% Not very concerned Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey SHS as a health hazard or annoyance Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey SHS as significant work health issue 40% Very Important59% Not Very Important Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Key SHS summary points • Members see SHS more as a health hazard (than merely an annoyance) and a risk to nonsmokers (more than to their own health) • Members do not generally see SHS as a significant workplace health issue • this may be due to lack of knowledge • this may also be due to lack of exposure at most worksites
Statewide Union Survey Workplace Policies
Statewide Union Survey Current workplace smoking policies Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Desired workplace smoking policies Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Key workplace policy summary points • About 20% of union members are potentially exposed to SHS at the workplace • Most union members generally like the smoking policies they have – there is little groundswell for change • Though few members want their unions to push harder on these issues (only about 30%) there is also even less “hard core” opposition to the union working on these issues (only about 10% – mostly smokers)
Statewide Union Survey Smoking and Health Care Costs
77% Agree15% Disagree Statewide Union Survey Smoking increasing health care costs Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
72% Agree19% Disagree Statewide Union Survey Reducing smoking will reduce health care costs Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Key health care costs summary points • Over 75% of union members believe that smoking increases their health care costs • Surprisingly, only slightly fewer also believe that reducing smoking will reduce their health care costs • Both smokers and nonsmokers agree, although smokers are somewhat more skeptical
Statewide Union Survey Role of Union
38% Support35% Oppose Statewide Union Survey Members mixed on support of union negotiating a smoking ban Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
50% Support 16% Oppose Statewide Union Survey Members support union negotiating reasonable smoking restrictions Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Who should take lead on smoking policies Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
57% Very Important43% Not Very Important Statewide Union Survey Importance of union negotiating cessation benefits Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Key union role summary points • By far, union members believe that management should take the lead in setting smoking policies – only 6% think the union should • Members are very mixed about whether the union should negotiate a smoking ban • There is greater support (among both smokers and nonsmokers) for the union negotiating reasonable smoking restrictions • There is significant support for unions to negotiate cessation benefits
Statewide Union Survey Message Directions
Statewide Union Survey Message directions for nonsmokers • Nonsmoking union members are broadly receptive to a variety of facts on SHS and smoking • Best messages for nonsmokers include focusing on: • costs of smoking on health care costs • working together as coworkers (both smokers and nonsmokers) to limit harmful effects • standing up to big tobacco companies who are targeting union members Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Statewide Union Survey Message directions for smokers • Smoking union members are generally much more skeptical to facts on SHS and smoking • Smokers are somewhat responsive to facts on: • cancer causing chemicals in tobacco smoke • SHS aggravating health conditions in their coworkers. • Best messages for smokers include focusing on: • hazards of second-hand smoke • working together as coworkers (both smokers and nonsmokers) to limit harmful effects • productivity costs resulting from smoking Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates – June 2003
Labor Retreats Key retreat outcomes Two retreats held with labor activists and tobacco control advocates for more extensive feedback and discussion of key findings/next steps • Created core group of “champions” and ongoing advisory group • Identified resource needs/outreach activities • Four key priorities: • Focus on cessation benefits/strategies/costs • Develop collective bargaining strategies/options • Explore/develop policy approaches to smoke-free workplaces • Educational awareness for labor leaders and members • hazards • existing cessation benefits • health impact on workers and their families
What We’ve Learned: The Big Picture • Attitudes • Current attitudes reflect existing policies and levels of knowledge • Attitudes shift in response to policy changes, leading to acceptance • Labor leaders are interested • They care about the toll tobacco is taking on their members • They want to know more about how tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke contribute to members’ escalating health care costs • They want more information about how to help members quit • Rank & file – open to addressing issue • Smokers want help to quit – easier access, more affordable, best options • Smokers and non-smokers want balanced approach – working together to achieve effective smoking
Next Steps Create educational materials • Develop six key types of materials: • Union Activist/Leader Toolkit • hazards • existing cessation benefits • health impact on workers and their families • Workplace fliers on tobacco as workplace hazard; cessation options • Labor Management Toolkit • Labor Management Presentation (outreach) • Modules for Apprenticeship Programs (like BUILT materials) • Visually grabbing poster-art linking historic labor struggles on health and safety issues with current focus on tobacco
Next Steps Continued outreach • Labor Management Committees • Apprenticeship Programs • Union Conventions and Events • Ongoing Role of Advisory Committee • WorkSHIFTS as National Resource Center
For more information: • Susan Weisman • Director, WorkSHIFTS • Tobacco Law Center • William Mitchell College of Law • 875 Summit Avenue • St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 • 651-270-7516 • sweisman@wmitchell.edu Visit our website: www.workshifts.org • Erik Peterson • Lead Consultant, WorkSHIFTS • Labor Education Services • University of Minnesota • Duluth, Minnesota 55812 • 218-726-8683 • epeters5@d.umn.edu