I came across a study recently in USA Today stating that the people most likely to smoke are those who work in the food-service industry. What's amazing to me is how anyone can either afford to smoke or find a place to legally enjoy a cigarette in that sort of environment.

Getting back to the study, a whopping 45% of food-service employees smoke, especially the younger ones. I wonder if this has to do with the hectic schedule of these workers, including ever-changing shifts (that might start at the crack of dawn one day and then shutting down the following night). Could it be due to the stress of always being on one's feet? Could it be due to the relatively low wages earned compared to the physical difficulty and stress of the job?

Unfortunately, the survey or the article does not explore the reasons behind why these workers smoke. In fact, the results have led to some weird conclusions, such as the observation that such results might help lawmakers come up with some more no-smoking propaganda. Wow, like that might do some more good.

Perhaps it's time to revisit the flexible boss question and see if he can help improve the health and life of these 45% of food service employees.

Here's the million dollar question: can a flexible boss improve your health? It seems quite an easy question to answer. Let me count the ways.

A boss with a propensity for flexibility can almost single-handedly relieve stress. Just think about that rainy Monday morning where you child has a fever and runny and can't go to school. On top of trying to sort that all out, you're wondering what they're going to say at the office.

The answer of "go ahead and work from home while you can" or "that's fine if you need to take the day" or even "don't worry about it, take care of your situation and we'll see you later" makes a demonstrably huge difference.

In the day and age of H1N1, a flexible boss who allows people to work remotely or to limit meetings to avoid exposure can also do wonders for your health. Can you imagine having a boss who sees things only as black/white and insists that the show must always go on?

Also, a flexible boss is something that just naturally brings out your better side. I know that I always work better when I know that I have a boss who is willing to take each situation as it comes and find a positive solution for all involved.

I learned a new term today: work spouse. Apparently, these are the people or the person, who you spend your day with at work - and who can make your spouse jealous.

If that's the case, than I must be a polygamist, because I've probably 4-5 people (of both sexes) that would qualify at my work. (This is where I would make a tasteless joke about the lack of difference between home and work spouse).

While I can appreciate spouses being jealous of work spouse, I would caution them that it's good to have solid, professional relationships with those you work with. Not only does it make the day go by faster, but it also makes your presence in a company more valued because it can show you as a team player.

Of course, it's also important not to cross lines with your so-called work spouse. In my view, it's perfectly acceptable to see each other socially when others, including real spouses, are involved. It's acceptable to become friends or to decide to remain strictly professional, where families, interests, etc. are not topics of conversation.

Also, I'd remind people not to make your work spouse the only subject of conversation when discussing your day at work with your better half at home. That's how jealously comes about and once it's there, it's hard to get rid of. After all, you don't want to divorce either home or work spouse, so use your head!

Love him or hate him, David Letterman has been a household name in America for longer than I can remember. With his latest trick, he has managed get himself into a bit of a jam with not only the general public, but also feminist groups.

As it turns out, old Dave had a long, bad habit of sleeping with the ladies who worked on his production team – in other words, sleeping with subordinates at work. The reason that this comes to light is that a producer from another show got wind of this and tried to extort Dave for $2 million. Rather than empower the scammer, he went public with the story.

I'm really not interested in the morality of the events in this story, but I do think this is a great example of why not to have dalliances in the workplace. In my view, Letterman is lucky to have endured only a extortion case. A sexual harassment charge from a jilter lover has – well - the potential to be rather more expensive.

With the criminal complaint moving forward and feminist groups getting on Dave, it's likely to be a good reminder – or wake-up call- for some that some behavior at work just isn't acceptable at worst, or simply not a good idea at best.

If you're reading this, odds are good that you live in a location already affected to some extent by H1N1, or as we like to say in French, "grippe porcine" (sorry, it sounds better than "swine flu").

To be honest, I'm having a hard time telling where the hysteria stops and the epidemic begins; with all the media coverage concerning the outbreak, the treatment, the vaccine, there's a lot to process. I just knew that I'd be seeing stories like this, and indeed they came.

The story in question is about a woman who is fired from her job from for refusing a mandatory vaccination.

Now, let's not get into the issue of whether or not the vaccination is a fine or horrible idea; most people seem to have their opinions and my goal isn't to change minds. The issue for me is whether or not an employer can use at-will employment or hide behind a state directive to enforce rules.

What we do know is that the American president has vowed that H1N1 vaccinations would not be mandatory. This is presumably directive. However, in this case, the state of New York overrode President Obama's pledge and made it mandatory for certain groups of people in NY state.

The article in question brings up some excelleng questions whether or not such vaccinations were listed as conditions of employment in her work contract. It's also distrubing that the employee didn't have any right of appeal or period of reflection before dismissal.

I suppose some will liken this to another health issue when cigarettes were banned as a mandatory measure for public places and most office buildings. However, we're talking about seperate issues; cigaretts are know to be nothing good in terms of health. Vaccinations, especially the H1N1, does not yet have a known efficacy.

That reasoning not likely to be followed, we're likely to see and read about manny more cases such as this. In light of the hysteria surrounding this, let's hope cooler heads prevail.

One of the big stories in France over recent weeks has been the controversy surrounding a spate of suicides by employees at France Telecom. It's an issue touched on in this blog post on TechRepublic which asks what the company's role ought to be in dealing with workplace trauma.

Most of us are fortunate enough not to experience the death of a colleague. I have to believe that even fewer of us are unlucky enough to have to deal with suicide in the workplace. In such cases, it seems to me that the company has an interest in providing the necessary care for those who are left behind. After all, when you spend your entire day working with the same people, bonds and friendships are formed. It's simple as.

From my own experience, I've lost two direct colleagues and1 former colleague. With respect to those who were working with me at the time, neither company lifted a finger to help us. In fact, one company even tried to weasel its way out of paying out on the person's insurance. Classy, eh?

While I personally didn't feel the need to any sort of counseling or to "talk about it" with others, I know that many of my other colleagues who had been their longer or knew the deceased better than I would certainly have benefited from some sort of assistance or "reach out" from the company.

With the world economy in its current state, more and more people are likely feeling the pressures of life – a little help from those who get most of our time and energy wouldn't hurt.

Happy back to school, everyone. After a few weeks off, I'm back with more tales from the workplace. Don't worry, I'll be addressing the swine flu (or H1N1 if you prefer) soon enough, but first, I want to mention an article that I came across this morning.

Every time I read such articles, I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. It's like we're stuck in 1959 and it keeps repeating, repeating, repeating, etc. The topic? Women sacked during maternity leave.

I'll admit that I often have a bias against my own country (the US), as I expect it to set a good example, yet I'm often disappointed. However, we're not the usual offender this time – now, the award goes to Australia.

It seems that companies there are feeling quite brave – despite a long-standing law that guarantees a woman her job during and upon return from pregnancy, this hasn't stopped some knuckleheads from doing as they please.

In some cases, women have had hard enough time just getting their right to have maternity leave. It offends me greatly (not least of all as a father) that there are people out there who find maternity leave a nuisance and force the choice of "a job or a kid" on women, despite legislation to the contrary.

It also offends me that these company may be run by men whose own wives or mothers may have benefited from these laws yet seek to deny others their protections, or even women who may be treating other women like this (especially in cases where they themselves took advantage of such protections).

Fortunately, it seems that ladies are doing the right thing and taking such cases to the Workplace Ombudsman for resolution. Faced with the law, employers will have little choice but to comply if and when proven to be in the wrong.

Regardless of where you live, you've likely heard of the so-called birther movement in the United States, which claims that President Obama isn't a US citizen. Wow, talk about a workplace issue! I mean, don't they check your papers when you get such a well paid job?

Of course, this story got me looking at the bigger picture about what advancement and progress means to the status quo: here's a look from the Huffington Post.

This article, based on a Thomas Friedman piece, purports that white executives (who are usually male) have a hard time empathizing with colleagues of color. While they may honestly want them to succeed, they can't bring themselves to view them as they view white junior executives, who often remind them of themselves or their children.

If such an attitude exists, it's to the detriment and career of the white executive who thinks that way. This is a great way to lose top talent – a company that isn't motivated to invest in your career isn't one you want to stay with long term.

Perhaps the question is why - or even if - these executives feel this way?

As a parent, I shouldn't say such things, but here it goes: sometimes you just need to back off and let a teen be a teen.

This does not apply to issues such as borrowing your nice, new German car, or when he or she wants to spend the night at their true love's house. The Chicago Tribune, however, has a good example of when it does apply: when your child gets his or her first job. I realize that the notion of teens working is a strange one in many countries (or continents), but I think there is definite value in it – so long as it doesn't interfere with school. This is a great way for kids to develop a sense of responsibility – and to get rewarded for their efforts. The Trib article also brings up our role as parents during this time.

While our kids will forever be babies in our eye, there comes a point where it's time for them to grow up and learn to deal with their problems. In workplace conflicts, it's a great chance for them to learn to work with different kinds of people with different personalities and to adapt to them.

Of course, some problems may require a bit of wise adult intervention, such as harassment, but if little Johnny gets an earful for not finishing his project on time, let him deal with the consequences and resist the urge to give his boss a piece of your mind.

This experience is a wonderful introduction to adulthood and the workplace – as much as we believe we have all the answers, there are some lessons we can't teach our children and only experience can.

I read with some amusement today that the best way to start an office affair is at the company picnic. I wonder if that means I should be sad or grateful that our office doesn't have one. The same article also informed me that half of American workers have had a romantic liaison with a co-worker. Wow - can this be true?

The article continues that married folks should never pass up an opportunity to bring their spouse to a company picnic or social event. Is it because I should want to spend more time with my missus or give her an idea of the kind of company for which I work?

No, of course not. Rather, I should bring her to make the other ladies jealous – step off, ma'am, look what I have at home – or, better yet, to prevent me (or you) from getting absolutely leery on beer.

Sorry, but these reasons are all absolutely naff.

First and foremost, I have a hard time believing that there are that many office romances that occur – especially since many companies outlaw them. Call me naïve or just call me ugly or dull, because I've never been involved in one.

I especially find the reasoning behind bringing one's spouse to an event insulting, both to the employee and their spouse. Besides, does anyone think that showing a co-worker who has the hots for you that you that you've got a spouse will have any effect? Do you really think that would stop either party (employee or colleague) from doing something they shouldn't?

This article seems to forget why it is most of us get up and go in to the office five days per week – we have bills to pay.

Perhaps it says something about my employer, or I need to worry more about my libido, but I have way too much work to squeeze into my day to think about getting divorced by hooking up with someone at the office. Isn't that the way my boss and spouse like it to be?

Perhaps you or a family member recall a difficult time in your professional life, such as getting through a period of high unemployment. Perhaps you remember your grandfather's stories as a child, where he had to work his ass off during the Great Depression to put food on the table, or his troubles during 1938-1945. Perhaps you've seen stories of the plight of children in impoverished nations who are forced to work on inhuman wages so that some foreign company can make a little more money.

Those are all terrible, terrible things, but let's turn our attention to today's issue: there are people out there that won't work for an employer who won't let them access Facebook from the office. There is but a single two word response to that, and it ends with "you".

A research company that specializes in information technology companies took a closer look at issues surrounding the use of social media sites at the office. As it turns out, according to their findings, productivity goes straight down the toilet – to the tune of 1.5%.

I have to admit to having a bit of a chuckle when I read that. Hell, I lose 1,5% every time I head to the loo, have a coffee, or even catch up on e-mail! Of course, when everyone drops by 1.5%, the company really starts to suffer!

That brings me to my next point, when did we as a society decide that social media web access was as a condition to employment? Does anyone else realize how ridiculous that sounds? Perhaps in the future, administrative assistants will have their attorneys negotiating fine points of the work contract.

I think it's high time that companies start being open and honest about how company employees are using technology. Blocking access to certain sites is not a morale booster in any company. However, employees should know the difference between logging on for just a few minutes to update your status or to send a quick message.

The fact that we still have to discuss such issues in 2009 is not a positives sign for our future.

When we start writing up the review for 2009, the two negatives that ended up being the biggest party-killers for companies will be the economic mess we're in, and the swine flu. But being the type to occasionally find the silver lining in a cloud, I believe that these may actually have some positive effects – as this piece on HR.BLR.com spells out.

How so? Because companies are offering staff more and more flexibility about where and how they work. While this is hardly new or revolutionary, it's nice to see some data to quantify how companies are providing their workforce with more freedoms in the hope of maintaining morale.

According to a study by the Families and Work Institute, 81% of respondents are keeping flexibility opportunities at current levels, while another 13% are expanding them. That leaves a measly 6% not to benefit.

This flexibility includes reduced work hours or working from home - both of which can greatly increase quality of life without increasing pay. These simple ways of boosting morale are also cost cutters for companies, as fewer hours or less people in the office means less electricity used and less resources consumed. And they might well prove to be absolutely vital if the threatened flu pandemic really sets in.

The remaining question: will this flexibility remain after the economy goes back to normal?

Man, there are some really judgmental people out there on planet earth. I came across a fascinating article and subsequent discussion this morning on tattoos in the workplace.

Being a "live and let live" kind of guy, I can't see an issue with having ink in the workplace. After all, I wouldn't refuse to see a doctor, dentist, banker, or any other professional because he or she chose to sport a visible tattoo. Apparently, however, this line of thinking puts me very much in the minority.

While the article itself is in no way negative with regards to wearing a tattoo at work, it does strike me as odd that it provokes such a strong reaction from people.

What amazes me is that in 2009, people still associates tattoos with some sort of deviant, criminal lifestyle. Grow up. How is a professionally done, well drawn tattoo a sign of immaturity or lack of professionalism?

At the end of the day, this is simply not something that dictates how one does their job. Really, how is it more offensive than the colleague who puts on too much makeup, perfume, etc? How is this different from the colleague who dresses inappropriately?

Perhaps it's time to focus a little less on appearance and a bit more time on producing quality work in a collaborative environment.

Innovating and responding to current needs is a pretty good way to stay in business. I'm sure the folks at The People Group in Tulsa, Oklahoma will tell you the same thing; I'm sure the phone is ringing off the hook for their new jerk elimination program.

In fact, I was tempted to pick up the phone, but then I saw that jerks were being retrained and not put out the door with a foot up their backside. So I put the phone down.

In today's workplace, things are hardly celebratory. Sure, in some sectors, things are getting better, but most of us work in places that could likely use a helping hand with staying positive. Of course, where there's a problem, there's a dollar to be made, so it's not surprising to see all these companies popping up offering to help you work on teamwork, especially when it comes to staying on the sunny side of life (or work).

While it's probably a good idea to try and renew the professional ties that bind, I have to wonder what qualifications many of these companies have to actually help improve morale. I wonder what their own employees would say if they were anonymously queried about their own workplace.

Even in brighter times, I would marvel at these consulting companies (that likely charge an arm and a leg) and offer motivational seminars. I'm often left to wonder where they found these people; were they once crackheads?

It's like watching movies set in the 1800s where two con men come to town selling a miracle tonic that will change your life. Of course, they've taken the cash and hit the next town by the time the duped clients realize they've been had.

In short, I guess I'm staying that staying positive and jerk-free is a worthy goal, just don't push your company into bankruptcy to get there!

What is the most disgusting place in your office? Or, rather, what part of your office most reminds you of home? If I had to answer either question, the answer would be the same – the kitchen. And apparently I'm not the only person who thinks that.

The kitchen at work is an amazing place. First, you've got the sink area, which features an impressive collection of utensils (plastic and aluminum). Sadly, this area never seems to be completely clean. Although some people take the time to wash what use, in many cases, dishes and forks are left to stink up the sink area. As the aforementioned article points out, there is usually nobody to clean up after you.

Then comes the refrigerator – this is where you can find months' old ketchup and mustard packets, lunches abandoned for some time, a container that leaks, etc. No one has bothered to add a deodorizer to the refrigerator, so it's a cornucopia of smells and foods – some ripe, some rancid.

In both cases, we're reminded that despite being college-educated adults, some of us still expect mama to follow up after us at work, as at home. Still a bit sad!

I'm always baffled when I read articles about religion in the workplace. In my mind, I don't see why one would influence the other. So, it's with some surprise and disappointment that I read this article about a proposed "conscientious objector" law in the state of in Michigan that would protect people from having to do anything in their job that may be in conflict with their religious beliefs.

Most of the examples in the article focus on the medical profession; such as, not being required to perform an abortion if your religious beliefs forbid it. Personally, I find it unlikely that a doctor who performs abortions would be in the position to perform one if their personal morals forbade it.

A more logical example would be a pharmacist who refused to give a 17 year old girl RU-486 (a drug that induces abortion during the early weeks of pregnancy) based on their religious beliefs.

To my secular view, you know that these are the types of tasks that your job requires; if you're unable to perform such tasks (especially when there is no really way to prove a "belief"), then perhaps it's time for a new line of work.

From a business perspective, I can't imagine most employers wouldn't be happy if employees started cherry picking tasks that they felt they were morally able to do. Productivity would certainly take a hit, not to mention sales – you can bet your bottom dollar that a client who couldn't get served at a store because an employee felt that the request was against their religious beliefs isn't likely to come back to the store.

Of course, this is always a trick subject and I'm sure many readers won't agree or appreciate my views on the subject. However, I live in a secular country and work in a secular company and frequent secular merchants – why should I expect anyone's religious views to come in to play?

It came as some surprise to me to see that the number of sexual harassment claims in Israel has jumped substantially in the past year or so. In fact, it's up by as much as 12% according to a recent article in the Jerusalem Post. What isn't surprising is that in 70% of these claims, it's been a boss or some other superior who is accused of such impropriety.

When I read this article, my first reaction was, "what could possibly cause such a jump?". As it turns out, it's not necessarily an increase in actual cases of harassment, but that women are now feeling more empowered to report such instances.

In fact, in the past year in Israel, there has been much more focus on sexual harassment in the workplace. As a result, those who feel that they are victims of such harassment are more comfortable about speaking up.

This is a perfect example of how shining a light on a problem in the workplace can help to make the problem disappear. Don't get me wrong, this is a societal ill that isn't likely to ever disappear. However, it's good to bring such difficult or unpleasant subjects to light so that victims can feel secure in reporting such crimes.

Not talking about such topics or keeping them taboo simply forces victims to be victimized a second time. This can only result in an even worse working environment.

How Israel reacts to these results remains to be seen. We can hope that the bottom line means increased punishment for offenders.

Do you have toxic co-workers in the office? I'm not talking about the types who need to wear more deodorant during the summer months (though we probably could include those in these groups); I'm talking about the type of guy you love to hate. As this article puts it, the type of guy whose departures is considered a holiday by everybody else in the company.

Of course, I naively went looking for information on how to handle such co-workers, but rather it just warned me that they're out there and what damage they can do. Like many of you, I've been in the working world simply far too long to not know what such characters are capable of doing to an office and its collective mood.

Then I started to wonder that, statistically speaking, there must be toxic professionals reading that very article, yet they don't know even recognize their own abhorrence. That in turn led me to think back at every job I've held – have I ever been the toxic colleague?

I still maintain that I'm not a guilty party, but since I dislike people who can't recognize their own shortcomings, I do apologize now to each and every former and current colleague for any instance where I may have been a toxic co-worker. For what it's worth, if I am guilty, I hope you all received a paid day off on the anniversary of my departure.

I'm sure that you've picked up the newspaper or turned on the evening news, only to ask yourself, "what on earth were they thinking?" or even "why weren't they thinking?" Folks, I endured such a moment this afternoon when I read the following article, "Salary 'gag orders' are workplace no-no's".

For starters, we're going to just pretend that the erroneously-used apostrophe doesn't exist in the last word of the title.

OK, pedantry aside, it turns out that a number of companies in Colorado decided that one way to keep down the hysteria (or conversations at the water cooler) surrounding the current economic conditions is to go ahead and put some silly new law into place to show the workers who exactly is boss. What's comical is when such activities contradict current labor laws, making them unenforceable.

What are these silly new bans? In this case, we're talking about companies preventing employees from discussing their salaries in the workplace.

Want me to say that again? Are they worried that the office cleaners might finally figure out that the VP of Marketing is making ten times more than they are? Is the fresh-out-of-college kid going to go ballistic when he finds out that his colleague, who has 10 years senior his experience, is making $20,000 more than he is?

Not only is this ridiculous, but it also is illegal in Colorado, where any sort of discipline with regards to discussion or comparisons of benefits or wages is illegal. While I can appreciate Colorado companies wanting to take control of a bad situation and try to make morale better, let's not forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - this law just doesn't seem like one of those cases.

In all my working life, I can think of three people that I've know who died – all unexpectedly. So. I'm pleased to see that organizations like the American Cancer Society and some large businesses are trying to deal with the specific effects of cancer in the workplace.

While we may not be best friends or spend our weekends hanging out together, it's fair to say that we enjoy a certain camaraderie for the people with whom we work. The unexpected loss or prolonged illness of someone that we've grown accustomed to talking with and knowing definitely has an impact on how we approach our work.

So I'm hoping that the conference that the ACS is sponsoring is going to deal with the emotional aspects of illness and not simply how to deal with productivity issues.

While it's true that a team may suffer a loss of morale or productivity when dealing with the loss or illness of a teammate, such affects are temporary. I'm not sure that those net results should be the primary factor driving conferences. Unfortunately, the article in question mentions only how much cancer costs companies in terms of lost productivity and care expenses (insurance premiums, I bet): $219 billion dollars.

When you look at the who's who list (United Airlines, AT&T, etc.), you have to believe this is going to more about motivating you to keep your chin and profits up than it is about a Tuesday with Morrie.