HAS ANYBODY SEEN THE SO CALLED ATARI "NO SMOKING IN THE BUILDING" POLICY?
OR IS IT SOME CRAZY RUMOR?

                                .....CURIOUS.....

I've smoked a few power supplies in my day.  Does that count?

Charcoal filter Caps?

ARE WE TALKING CIGS OR ATTITUDES?

     From what has been seen around here some employees have been 
forced to go outside to have a cigarette.  I guess they haven't even
been told that there was a designated smoking area. 
     What's goin on?  Can we or can we not smoke cigarettes at our
own working area ie. office or cubicle?  I understand there must 
be a formal written company wide policy.  I do not recall ever
seeing one.

                          ....Real Curious....

	It's hard to take seriously a complaint about lack of
information from someone who complains anonymously...

	There are some well known areas designated smoking and
non-smoking.  The most well known non-smoking area is the cafeteria.
The most well known smoking areas are the "facilities" offices.


Arbitrary question:
	Why do we need a formal policy established?  Can't you guys work
it out?  Since you seem to feel the need to repeat the question, here's a
suggestion to help you find a middle ground:

Suggestion for smokers:
	In deciding whether or not to smoke within your work area,
use a little common sense.  If you are the only smoker in your cube
group, please realize that all of your air is shared; step outside.
If you have roomies (cubies?) that smoke, they can't reasonably complain
if you do.  Take the temperature now and then, and see if anyone cares.

Suggestion for nonsmokers:
	If the smokers are in your cube area, let them know it bothers you,
and ask them to do it elsewhere.  If you/they are in different hardwall
offices, it shouldn't be potent enough to annoy you.  If you are particularly
sensitive to smells, ask them to close their door, and consider closing yours.
Either/both of you should put a post-it note or some other indication that
you are open for business, lest people are reluctant to interrupt a
closed-door meeting.  If your objection to smokers is that it "looks ugly",
then don't look.  Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, and you wouldn't
want everyone who didn't approve of your looks to gripe at you, would you?

Incidentally, don't bother trying to convince smokers to stop; they have been
beaten over the head with "it's bad for your health",  "it will kill you",
"it's offensive", and any other reason for quitting that you can think of.
If they haven't quit by this time, it isn't because they don't know; it's
because they don't want to quit anyways, or they can't.  As a former smoker,
I can guarantee they don't do it to annoy you, and it is very difficult to stop.
If they had a physical deformity or some other handicap, you would look past it.
Consider the addiction to tobacco in the same light.  By this time, they have
been told by everyone, including the voters at large.


sas

I THOUGHT I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS BAD FOR THE HEALTH OF NON-SMOKERS. I CAN PERSONALLY
VOUCH FOR THE FACT THAT THE AIR CONDITIONING CIRCULATES SMOKE INTO CLOSED
HARD OFFICES. THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES THAT HAVE "NO SMOKING IN THE BUILDING"
POLICIES IS FAST BECOMING A MAJORITY IN THE VALLEY. EMPLOYEES THAT DON'T
SMOKE ARE SICK LESS OFTEN, MORE PRODUCTIVE. FINALLY, I WONDER WHAT THE LEGAL
POSITION OF A COMPANY WILL BECOME IF A NON-SMOKING EMPLOYEE GETS LUNG 
DISEASE, AND A COMPANY HAS NOT AT LEAST ADOPTED CURRENT COMMUNITY STANDARDS
TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
	JUST      A     THOUGHT      .......


		SINCERELY, DAVE "WHERE'S MY CABERNET?" SHERMAN

Yesterday Congress passed a bill to allow the death penalty as punishment
for drug related murders. The exception to this, of course, is if you are
a soldier killing in the line of duty while taking drugs that are
government issue. Let's hear it for Zero Tolerance!

And you may very well say to yourself "This is not my pack of cigarettes!"
And you may very well say to yourself "That is not my beautiful cubicle!"
And you may very well say to yourself "That is not my beautiful box of cigars!"
SAME AS IT EVER WAS!
SAME AS IT EVER WAS!
SAME AS IT EVER WAS!

Here's my 10 cents worth.

	One person smoking can affect a number of people not smoking.

	Isn't this a democracy????

Seriously I think the company should have a No Smoking Policy then
there would be less chance of employee conflicts, pass the buck to
the executive commitee.


	Jim "I'll kill anyone smoking in my space" Morris.

Sorry if all you fanatical non-smokers are insulted!  I for one do like to
smoke when I do my heavy coding.  I find it helps my concentration.  I
think that anyone who is so upset about smoke, that they would deprive
others of that pleasure, even when it does not effect them directly is
on really stupid trip.  I feel that if I smoke in my lab and the smoke
does not reach others then I am doing my part.  I can't hear the line
about "the smoke goes into the ventalation system and then poisons
everyone", that is a bunch of B.S..  If you feel so strong about it, why
no just wage a war on smokers.  Start those campaigns, get your guns...

If I sound strong winded, then maybe you should reread the mail messages
that you "Non-smokers for a better universe" have send out!

 In response to Jim "I'll kill anyone smoking in my space" Morris, I reply:

	I'll smoke anybody killing in my space!

MSP

Manufacturing has been told that effective August 22, 1988 that this is officially a
"NO SMOKING" company.  It doesn't sound like the message has gotten around.  What's
the deal here?

WELL I JUST TOOK UP SMOKING CIGARETTES ABOUT 17 MINUTES AGO TO
SEE WHAT ALL THE COMOTION IS ABOUT AND YOU KNOW, I LIKE IT !!! 
BUT ALREADY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TREATING ME FUNNY. WIHT ALL THIS
INFO ON HOW BAD IT IS FOR YOUR HEALTH (HARRUMPH, COUGH, COUGH)
EXCUSE ME,...OH YEAH, AND HOW THE OZONE LAYER IS THINNING AND
ALL I FOUND THAT IF I JUST SPRAY THE SMOKE I EXHALE WITH THIS
CAN OF LYSOL THE AIR AROUND ME SMELLS GREAT AND I CAN STILL 
ENJOY THE COMPANY OF MY NON SMOKING CO-WORKERS. NOW THAT I'VE
TAKEN UP THIS GREAT ADDICTION (MY OWN CHOICE) CAN SOMEONE WITH
EXECUTIVE POWER TELL ME IF THERE IS A POLICY.   

JESS "GOT A SMOKE?" MELCHOR

I can't seriously believe that anyone here wants any kind of rules or
"policy". I thought we were all big kids now. I'm sure we can effectively
police ourselves. If we can't, what's a few fist fights now and then.
	Let's just do what we know best around here. Skip the effort of
making "policy" and let's make a new game, BLOOD WAR ON SMOKERS. 
	Think of the possibilities! Screen one: You are on BART, someone 
in your car lights up a cigarette, You push the trigger on your uzzi and
jelly blast the place. Violence sells!Let's get a team together and make
megabucks and forget this nitpicking.

		Carole (I'd pay a quarter to blast a smoker) Cameron

Ahem...

Ladies and Germs, may I suggest that:

1)nobody smoke---it's bad for you

2)Atari hand out Rules of Grammar to all engineers and programmers, along

  with a dictionary

3)some programmers take a remedial "English as a second language" course

MLW

p.s.  If I sound like I'm on a high horse, just follow with a scooper.

DATE ISSUED:  AUGUST 22, 1988
              (EVEN THOUGH THE POLICY WAS OFFICIALLY APPROVED TODAY, THE
              ORIGINAL ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE ON AUGUST 22, 1988, THUS THE
              ISSUE DATE.)

PURPOSE:      TO PROTECT THE NON-SMOKING EMPLOYEE AND TO COMPLY WITH
              MILPITAS CITY LAWS.

POLICY:       EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, SEVERAL WORK AREAS ARE HEREBY      
              DESIGNATED AS NON-SMOKING AREAS.  THIS APPLIES TO ADMINIS-
              TRATION, MARKETING, FINANCE, MANUFACTURING AND PURCHASING.

              IN ALL OTHER AREAS NOT ADDRESSED ABOVE, AN EMPLOYEE HAS THE
              RIGHT TO DESIGNATE HIS/HER IMMEDIATE WORK AREA AS A NON-
              SMOKING AREA AND TO POST THE SAME WITH APPROPRIATE SIGNS, TO
              BE PROVIDED BY ATARI GAMES.

              SMOKING IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED IN CONFERENCE AND MEETING 
              ROOMS, RESTROOMS AND HALLWAYS.

              IN ANY DISPUTE ARISING UNDER THE SMOKING POLICY, THE RIGHTS
              OF THE NON-SMOKER WILL BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE.

              SMOKING IS PERMITTED IN THE DESIGNATED SMOKING AREA OF THE
              EMPLOYEE CAFETERIA AND OUTSIDE.

   Before the ____ hits the fan and editorial opinion begins hitting the 
screens on terminals throughout the company, I'd like to make a couple
comments regarding the recently announced smoking policy.
   First of all, neither Lyle or myself had any input whatsoever regarding
that policy.  I personally have objections to singling out certain
departments as "non-smoking areas" while neglecting to mention others.
Does that mean that entire departments go on or off the "non-smoking list"
as department heads change from smokers to non-smokers, or vica versa??
   I also am quite puzzled as to why we had to issue a previously unknown
policy retroactively.  What does that say about those of us who have been
violating this policy for the last 3 weeks??
   And now for some personal editorializing of my own:

     1. Personally, I agree with the announced policy, other than the
        departmentalizing of non-smoking areas and the retroactive effectivity.
     2. I believe that each employee does have the right to work in an 
        environment where smoke does not endanger his health or significantly
        affect his comfort or productivity.
     3. I believe that smokers should have the right to smoke in areas where 
        they are not endangering anyone's health other than their own, nor
        significantly affecting anyone else's comfort or productivity.
     4. I wonder why I wasn't consulted regarding the Smoking policy??

                                                             Dan Van

	This is it.  This is where the smoke (what else?) hits the fan.
There are two things I want to say:  There are some additional oddities that
Dan was too couthful to point out, and I would like to make public my
extreme disappointment in the necessity of any policy at all.

First, the peculiarities that strike me:

	Since part of the policy's justification was to comply with Milpitas
law, which I have been told states that there is no smoking even in individual
offices, does that mean that Engineering (the largest "non-designated" area)
does not have to comply with the law?

	What are the penalties for non-compliance?  And are the violators of
the last three weeks excused from them?  If so, why not the next three weeks?
If not, what is the point of a post-dated rule, and when does it become
effective?

	What about the rights of non-smokers outside?  We're all on the same
planet, you know.  If I can tell if the guy on the other end of the building
is smoking because of the ventilation system, don't you think when we are
both outside, in the same room, so to speak, I can tell if he lights up?
Nevermind that each one of us comes to work in a motor vehicle that emits more
airborne poison by itself than all the smokers in the company combined, I
demand the right (as a non-smoker, thus given priority by the policy) to go
outside and breathe untainted, pure smog.  While I can't do anything about
the thousands of smokers we share the air with, the 20 or so that are
unfortunate enough to work at Atari MUST go through withdrawal or leave the
Santa Clara valley.  Again, since I am a non-smoker, I have precedence, and
therefore, this is automatically the new policy.

	Exactly where is the designated smoking area in the cafeteria?

	Since over half of the company's work space is now designated no
smoking,  those smokers that are concientious and actually making an effort
to be considerate, will put off their need til lunch, and take advantage of
said designated smoking area in the cafeteria, moving smoke that would have
been distributed throughout two buildings into one concentrated space (where
people are trying to eat).  The smoke can't be forced to stay in the designated 
area.  From the point of view of non-smokers who also eat (that includes most,
I believe), is this better?

Lastly, 
	I do not dispute the necessity for a formal policy regarding smoking.
It has become quite apparent over the last several days.  I am, however,
thoroughly disappointed that we cannot be adults and come to mutually
acceptable agreements without having our corporate mommies settle the
fighting.  "He was trying to kill me" and "That's cuz he was smoking in
my space" are both inappropriate positions to hold, let alone defend. 
Wherever there are children, though, there will be Peacemakers.

	Actually, these are two sides of the same coin.  It is difficult
to formalize a reasonable settlement between two parties in dispute, and
set them down into rules that are equitable regardless of point-of-view
and personal values.  Ask anyone who's gone through divorce, or even
considered it!  Everyone loses.  It becomes necessary to legislate rights
when, and only when, rights are not respected without the laws and policies
that are otherwise put in force.  The first time some atrocity is committed,
there are no applicable laws; they are enacted to avoid/punish subsequent
offenses.  However, if we would respect the rights of others, there wouldn't
be a need for these things.  Or the other side of that coin: if THEY would
respect OUR rights, WE wouldn't have to legislate against THEM.  Doesn't anyone
see the WE are THEY and vice versa?

	As always, complaints to this address.  I, at least, will make peace
with those who have a different opinion than myself.

sas

......AND ANOTHER GOOD IDEA,

    THE POLICY REGARDING THE MAKING OF POLICY.......


                   FROM THE "LET'S POLICY 'TILL IT HURTS" CAMPAIGN

EFFECTIVE TODAY, THE SANTA CRUZ DRESS CODE POLICY WILL BE ENFORCED IN THE
MECHANICAL DESIGN AREAS UNTIL THE ATARI POLICY IS APPROVED RETROACTIVELY.......

                      NO SHIRTS
                      
                      NO SHOES 

                      NO SERVICE


                                         THE MANAGEMENT

Date Issued: May 26, 1978
	     Even though the policy is being announced today, the 
             verbal policy has been in effect for over ten years.

Purpose:     To keep coffee-stimulant available at all times of need.

Policy:      Any person who drinks coffee, will be required to make a
             new pot of coffee if that person takes the last cup.

Enforcement: Any employee found not complying with this policy will
             be sentenced to clean hardened sludge from coffee pots
	     for a period not to exceed one month and will also
	     be subjected to working in Mechanical under the direction
	     of "Captain Windex" until the employee achieves a whole
             new attitude.

SINCE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT (OF LUNGS, THAT IS) I WISH TO WARN EVERYONE:

THE PEOPLE THAT PLAN WHEN MOVES OCCUR DON'T GIVE A S___ ABOUT YOUR
HEALTH. WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR YOU TO MOVE (YOU KNOW IT'LL HAPPEN TO
YOU AGAIN SOMEDAY) PUT UP A STINK (SORRY) WAY AHEAD OF TIME NOT TO 
BE MOVED IN FOR AT LEAST 3 WEEKS AFTER THE NEW AREA IS COMPLETE. 
OTHERWISE, YOU TOO CAN ENJOY CONGESTED LUNGS, RAW THROATS, AND THAT 
WONDERFUL TASTE OF CARPET ADHESIVE AND PAINT FUMES IN YOUR MOUTH.
	INSIST ON YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE THE CHEMICALS BAKED OUT OF THE AREA
BEFORE YOU MOVE IN.

	WHAT REALLY MISTIFIES ME, IS WHAT THE RUSH WAS TO MOVE US?
I SUSPECT IT WAS STRICTLY THE CONVENIENCE OF WHOEVER WAS MAKING THE SCHEDULE.

	(YES I MEANT MISTIFY, SINCE THATS WHAT I'M CURRENTLY BREATHING.)

SINCERELY, AND I HOPE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ARE PAYING ATTENTION,

		DAVE "WHAT'S OSHA'S NUMBER?" SHERMAN