Now is really not a good time to be working in the US or the UK. I have to say, returning to what Americans like to refer to as "Old Europe" (namely France) may have been my best move in recent memory – even if people around me doubted it for a time.

Why do I say that? Well, we do have high-speed Internet where I sit and I can see the economies flailing around like drowning - pick your favorite critter. What I'm wondering is how workplace morale in London, New York or Chicago is at the moment.

Anecdotally speaking, I've had long conversations with several good friends and scores of acquaintances in the past month and the topic they always bring up is how bad the economy is and how worried they are.

What I find most interesting is the paranoia of impending layoffs. Everyone mentioned that they're worried about losing their jobs. However, despite the slowdown of the past year, there haven't been a significant number of layoffs, especially within the tech sector.

I hope that managers (those who aren't panicking themselves) can appreciate the emotional toll such situations can have. In such uncertain times, our colleagues are looking for something true – assurances that they can continue to pay their bills, feed their kids, and keep a roof over their head.

Turbulent economic times are likely to spill over into the workplace in terms of efficiency and quality. Of course, it's still our job to remain professionals and not let events flow over into our professional performance.

That said, the economy may take some time in getting back on track and the world economy certainly can't afford to have everyone worrying – we have enough analysts on the TV doing that for us. Keeping a steady view of the situation and continuing to concentrate on professional duties won't necessarily solve the problem – but it might help it from getting worse.

Of all the things I've had to worry about in my professional life, corporate thievery hasn't been one of them. Now, your first thought might be of companies like Enron or virtually anyone on Wall Street, but I'm looking on a much, much smaller scale.

But it all adds up. According to this recent article in the Sun Journal, American businesses lose $40 billion per year due to theft and fraud in the workplace. In one local chamber of commerce in Maine, as many as 10% of members have been directly affected by office theft in recent times.

There are, however, some signs that should raise red flags for employers. For example, if an employee starts to receive phone calls at work from a creditor looking to collect upon a debt, this could indicate some sort of financial troubles that may impact an employee's work.

Of course, not everyone who is contacted by a collection agency is likely to steal, but it does show a stressful financial situation that could prompt a person to do something that they would not normally do. Another indicator mentioned in the article is an instance where an employee may drag their feet when financial documents are requested.

Depending on where you live, some areas may allow employers to seek out a financial/credit history of people who have direct access to company finances or sensitive information. While I am an advocate of privacy issues, I do feel that it is appropriate for those who have free access to large amount of money to show that they are worthy of such a responsibility.

For American employees, corporate theft is certainly not worth the punishment. In one example, an employee who stole $260,000 was sentenced to nine years in prison. It's up to companies to not only make sure they know the people that work for them, but it's also their duty to keep an eye on their finances to make sure problems like this are nipped in the bud before they spiral out of control.

The only remaining question is who keeps an eye on the CEO?

So, the good people of South Wales really think that creating an academic center to study workplace bullying will really find a solution to this age-old problem? If that's what they think will be achieved, more power to them.

Seriously, folks, go a Google search every week on the workplace, and you'll find countless articles on bullying in the workplace and perceived solutions to the problem. Everyone is so certain that they've got the answer on how to eradicate this problem, yet it never seems to go away.

I don't have the solution, but I do have a low (very low) tolerance for putting up with such people in the workplace, much like I did as a child in dealing with bullies on the playground.

Back when I was eight, these kids would lose privileges of things they enjoy – such as recess, extracurricular activities, or field trips. Since such things are of little value to a 35-45 year old man, perhaps there are other methods of letting him know that such behavior is unacceptable in civilized society. Perhaps docking wages or a warning prior to termination of employment might be clear-cut messages of getting the message across.

No need to spend buckets of cash on studies and centers when you simply need to speak to bullies in a language that they understand - namely $, €, £, or ¥.

Ever since John McCain named Sarah Palin to his ticket, there has been endless controversy surrounding almost everything about her. However, one discussion that I've found interesting (along with many others judging by the number of blog posts on it), is her revelation that she sometimes brings her youngest child into the office.

So is this the sort of thing that we should see more or less of in the workplace?

At the end of the day, the workplace exists for a reason – to get work done. This is the work that you are paid to do in exchange for a check of varying amounts once or twice, or even four times per month.

In the blog piece I linked to above, the author mentions how allowing his paralegal to bring her child into the office has worked out well for everyone. That's great, and it sounds like he's a great boss. Unfortunately, the situation within which they find themselves is one that doesn't ring true for a good number of us in the workplace!

For starters, his paralegal is a part-time employee, which means she isn't always around. Secondly, the workplace consists of the attorney and his paralegal. If her son is acting up, it likely only affects the two of them (or perhaps a third, more important party - a client).

Imagine trying this on the scale of a company like Microsoft or Telefonica. Could you imagine the number of young children who aren't yet in school who would be in the office? In addition to having to add pint-sized urinals (that's a joke), would we have to be quiet after lunch for nap time?

Being a family man myself, I understand how hard it is to raise children and to hold down a job (along with one's spouse). However, I'm not convinced that this arrangement could work in many places.

After all, I spend enough time dealing with adults who act like children during the day; do I really need to add real ones to the mix too?

There's a common misconception about Americans in that we don't like sex. Well, that's probably true in some states, but certainly doesn't seem to be the case in the great state of Maryland.

A recent proposal in the town of Frederick that would prohibit state elected officials from having, erm, relations with employees under their direct supervision was shot down.

While I'm all for not banning things, including this, one still has to wonder if there isn't some damn good sense in what the proposal was trying to achieve.

In most places in the U.S., a boss who sleeps with someone who works directly under them (no pun intended) is very much in the direct line of fire of a sexual harassment suit.

So, elected officials in Frederick – I know where you are. I know that you are very close to Washington D.C., so I know that names like Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, and Larry Craig mean something to you. Just because the law doesn't say you can't, it doesn't mean that you should. In the interest of self-preservation (careers, marriage etc.), keep it in your pants.

The UK is taking a turn back to the Dickensian era it seems. According to a survey from Vodaphone, more than one-third (35% to be exact) of UK businesses have banned social networking sites from the workplace.

This is the highest rate in rate in Europe; the Spanish are a very distant second at 19%. What is the worry?

The fact of the matter is that almost everyone surfs for personal information or pleasure during the workday. Many companies have a liberal internet policy, which allows for some personal surfing. To the extent that British companies feel that they need an outright ban on such sites is indicative of a greater problem – including bad management.

The problem with banning such sites is that is assumes that a significant number of employees not only visit such sites, but abuse the privilege. If that's the case, it's likely that they're spending time surfing other sites during the day, or taking long coffee/smoke breaks, or taking personal calls on their mobile or at their desk. I'd suggest that such behavior is indicative of a productivity problem that goes far beyond Facebook!

Before we start taking the irrational step of banning things that scare us or that we don't understand (the newspaper says Facebook is a bad place, it must be true!), why not take of the people who are causing the problem?

Going after a third-party because management cannot keep their staff focused hardly seems like the rational solution. Then again, what do I know... I'm going to go check out my Facebook page right now.

If you've been following the upcoming elections in the United States (and in many places there's no escape from it), you'll undoubtedly be familiar with the name of a certain vice-presidental candidate who is causing a lot of ink to flow these past two weeks.

So, you may wonder, what exactly does this have to do with the workplace? Everything.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Republican nor do I ever hope to become one. If that spells bias for you, and it probably should, then feel free to read on if you're in disagreement.

However, her candidacy reminds of exactly why you should never come to a job interview unprepared. Could you imagine applying for a job and repeatedly making false statements regarding previous job-related actions? Could you imagine being interviewed for a job as a software developer and not knowing what ActiveX or .NET is? Could you imagine what would happen if you tried to take credit for a past action or achievement that your references would discredit in a heartbeat?

You'd already start the job with a battered reputation or would quickly earn one once you were found out.

Sometimes we tend to get ourselves in over our heads, and I think Ms. Palin is a perfect example. The workplace is no place for a person who is supposedly at the senior-level in their field to gain on-the-job experience.

In this case, you can argue that no person is truly prepared or experienced at running the world's largest economy, but a grasp of basic tenets of the position would be a start.

In short, when applying for a job or accepting a nomination, be sure to do your homework before your interviews lest you look like an amateur.

As a native child of a large American city with a large number of Hispanics, I'm certainly well aware of the concept of workplace raids.

Fortunately, this is a fear that most of us never have to worry about. Indeed, it causes me to wonder if other so-called industrialized nations send immigration officials and police to ransack private companies looking for illegal workers.

This recent article in the Progressive gives a pretty good idea of what these raids are like and those who are affected by them.

Whatever your views on illegal immigration – and quite frankly, I don't think you can be against illegal workers until you've been on the down and out and unable to get a break (by that definition, this would apply to many in the U.S.) – there is still a humanitarian aspect that can't be ignored. As far as the media is concerned, the issue focuses solely on security/war on terror issues and the nationality of those who are usually rounded up.

The other part of this dialog, which is severely missing, is what to do with these companies that flout the law and hire illegal workers (often knowingly) to exploit and maximize profits. Do they really believe that they're doing a good thing and performing some sort of social service by "taking a chance" on someone who legally doesn't get one? Or, are they focused on other priorities?

This leads us to the workplace raids - should immigration or law enforcement officials be able to ransack a private property without legal documentation to arrest or scare off undocumented workers. In most cases, these raids are usually focused on Spanish-speaking peoples or Chinese, but it could happen anywhere.

While you might not hear European immigrants in the US protest such actions, it might behoove us to think about what kind of society we wish to have, and what kind of workplace we wish to tolerate.

Look at the facts, workplace raids destroy families, cause economic distress and do not hamper other illegal immigrants from trying their luck. Perhaps it's time to have a cooling off period and head back to the drawing board for another solution.

Where can a working father who wants to spend more time with his kids go to get a break? It might be an expensive plane ride for most of us, but it looks like likeminded men are going to have to head south - to Australia.

Why? Because recent comments from the Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner give a strong indication that the government is going to be advocating more time for fathers to spend time with their families.

While the proposal is hardly new, revolutionary, or what have you, it's certainly good news to see this recurring theme in the news. The idea that a man might want to be both a good employee and a good family man is gaining traction in the early 21st century, so let's not lose momentum.

The primary battle us fathers face is the social stigma that comes with the notion of paternity leave. All too often it is still viewed as a women's issue (or indeed right). Nothing could be further from the truth. Anecdotal evidence suggests that with a little flexibility on everyone's part, a company could easily manage productivity and presence – especially in this era of mobile technology and faster than fast internet access.

While many men may worry about their careers and longevity by invoking a paternity leave, just remember that a job can always be replaced; time with your family cannot.

In today's world of everyone believing that they are entitled to special treatment for one reason or another, it's increasingly difficult to be a Human Resource/Human Capital professional (I hate these terms) or labor lawyer.

Let's take a look at the UK in particular, where the rising issue of workplace duties and religious practices appear to be increasingly at loggerheads.

The primary issue here is not the fact that people don't want to do things that they believe are forbidden by their faith. The primary concern is the fact that government authorities have provided little if any guidance or roadmap in dealing with such cases. As a result, companies and lawyers are hesitant to create jurisprudence or fall on the wrong side of the issue.

Of course, it's not entirely the justice system's fault. The fact of the matter is that these cases are still relatively new as matters of law. As a result, very few cases have been heard on appeal, so there are very few legal references to use when arguing one's case.

This is still a dangerous territory for companies to tread as the issues often pit one person's personal beliefs against the norms of the company (and thus co-workers).

While certainly needing to be respectful of their employees' wishes, it would also help for those making claims on behalf of their beliefs keep in mind that not everyone else in the company may share those beliefs and their rights, in turn, are infringed when you must be accommodated.

Are you the guy at the office who thinks that acting like an idiot is something you should be proud of? Do you think it's funny to act like a boor to the secretary or take your kit off at company parties? If so, according to Australian work and behavior experts, you may well be the office prat.

"The Prat is very real in workplaces and is an extremely dangerous species" said Dr Antony Young of RMIT University.

So if this is you, listen up. As the article points out, 50 hours per week is now the norm in Australia, which means the love and attention that you are getting at home isn't coming (because you're never there). Someone has to make up for it, and your colleagues do the trick (or so you think). But, wrong!

According to experts, the office prat is a borderline bully, and we know all about the workplace bully in Australia, don't we? He's the chap who is costing Australian businesses between $6 and $13 billion Australian dollars per year. Yes, that's right, your childish behavior is wreaking havoc on the economy - and you thought it was those pesky foreigners, didn't you?

But seriously, the point I'm trying to make here, office prat, is that will you may be mildly amusing (especially on a Friday afternoon after a big lunch), it's time to clean up your act and show some home training. Your colleagues aren't all amused and the economy is suffering because of you.

What role does religion have in convincing people to stand up for their rights? Well, for some, it has every role and is a duty. But is it any less of a duty for those of us who don't adhere to any religion? Take, for example, a recent case of an employee of US drugstore chain, Rite Aide, who was fired for trying to organize a union.

Stuart Applebaum, of the Jewish Labor Committee, makes some excellent points as to why it is our duty to stand up for justice in the workplace. However, he loses me when he tries to tie it in to making it a Jewish issue. Frankly, it's a public standard of decency that should compel employers to treat their workers fairly and for employees to stand up for justice.

I suppose any issue can make the argument that their teachings make the case that their followers should follow this basic principle. However, Mr. Applebaum could reach a larger audience with his spot on message if he tailored it to a more diverse audience.

The point to take away from this article is that the employee, Debbie Fontaine, was fired for trying to organize union representation for her co-workers. American labor laws are so management-oriented that it was permissible for her to lose her job for such a heinous offense.

While some may laud such tactics, it's certainly not a pleasant working environment when management becomes like an abusive husband and starts to threaten withholding paychecks, sackings and being spied upon.

Growing up, I was always taught to avoid three sensitive subjects: money, politics, and religion. The main point of interest in this article shouldn't be any religion overtones, but rather weak labor laws or enforcement that allows people like Ms. Fontaine to be sacked.

The Daily Telegraph (UK) recently published an article entitled "Women to blame for failure to succeed in the workplace" that nearly caused me to spit my drink all over the keyboard.

Quite provocative, isn't it? However, a closer read of the article brings out some very valid points. Statistically, Anglo-Saxon women (British, American) and Chinese women were the most reticent to discuss workplace accomplishments and to market themselves. Personally, I found many women in the US quite good at that.

As the author Shannon Goodson, who recently wrote a book on the subject, points out in the article, women aren't "responsible for creating the glass ceiling, but they help maintain it."

This is a spot on sentence. Ambitious people who do succeed, regardless of sex, do so because they give themselves the tools (often exaggerated) to succeed.

Perhaps men are more willing to throw themselves out there and make a name, but it's what works in getting ahead in the workplace. Timidity has never served any one, and you certainly don't see too many successful executives without the gift of the gab.

If women seek to aspire to more success in the office place, they must be assertive and take what is rightfully theirs. Many women have learned this important lesson and have reaped the benefits of shattering glass ceilings instead of holding them up.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned the Department of Labor's recent initiatives to weaken workplace safety initiatives, undoubtedly to the benefit of private industry.

I'm glad to see that my concern is widely shared, with more and more articles appearing in newspapers across America focusing on the deterioration of workplace safety.

The cause of all this fuss is the Department of Labor's new proposals that would actually limit the Occupational Safety & Health Administration's ability to regulate toxins in the workplace even more than is already the case.

What does science think of this plan? It gives it a resounding "F", which to non-Americans should be read as "foolish", "failure", or an expletive of your choice.

Even though this initial response was enough to convince the Office of Management and Budget (keeping track of all these agencies?), the plan was shelved. However, like most dead things in Washington DC, it has come back to life.

There are many well-intended folks in America that believe that government isn't the answer and privatization is the way to go. However, I disagree with that to a point – if government isn't the answer, it's only become they've shown themselves to be incompetent and go to the highest bidder far too many times.

It doesn't take a genius to know that 2008 has been a pretty up and down year with regard to the markets worldwide. To that end, I was quite surprised to happen upon an article that claims that American workers are continuing to fund their workplace savings plans, despite the volatility.

Many employers in the United States allow their employees to fund retirement plans, often with corporate matching or some level of participation. There are a number of advantages to these plans, including tax deductions (contributions are taken pre-tax and decrease tax liability) and faster savings when your company participates.

The downside is that this money is locked up and it's not easy (nor is it suggested) to make regular modifications to your investments. To that end, when things are good, they are good. When times go sour, well, let's just say that I look at my account balance once ever month so as not to be depressed.

Despite being the nation responsible for the subprime mess and that racks up amazing numbers in credit card debt, it's good to see that people are still thinking of their retirement and not being reactionary to the instability of the moment. Keeping a cool head and continuing to save for the future may be one of the smartest things one can do with their money at the moment.

In my case, I've decided to continue a conservative-to-moderate portfolio and ride it out.

It's becoming painfully obvious that CEOs and CFOs around the world are not reading our blog as often, or carefully, as they should. If they did, they'd notice that I've noted on several occasions the true cost of workplace stress on several industrialized nations.

The latest in my missive is Australia, where workplace stress and general un-wellness is costing the Australia economy $14.81 billion (Australian).

According to research recently published in the Herald Sun, the average Australian work misses over 3 days of work solely due to stress. And this isn't taking into account other illnesses, or holiday; this is purely burnout from work overload.

According to the Medibank report, the actual amount of monies lost due to stress is at $5.12 billion per year. However, adding the cost of those who decide to weather the storm and come to work, only to be useless, brings us to the number of $14.81 billion.

Australia is likely no different than work in Asia, the Americas, or Europe (the three areas that we tend to discus most often here) in that employees are expected to take a lot from their employers. Often, the return on an employee's investment isn't that great (unless you're one of those types who think that an employee is just spending a company owner's cash and should count his or her blessings just to have a job).

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, companies need to find a way to deal with stressed employees in a more efficient manner. Obviously, there will always be some stress in the workplace, which can be a motivating factor as well.

However, working someone to the point that their health is in jeopardy, or to look at it from another angle, to the point that they cannot make you any money, it's simply unacceptable in the 21st century.

If companies aren't going to look at it from a human health standpoint, perhaps they should see how much of that $14.81 billion represents their company's share and then act accordingly.

The United States released census data last week with headline-grabbing results that are sure to freak out white Americans. Because by 2050, minorities will be the majority in the United States.

Of course, this has some pretty big implications too for the workplace. And buried in the stats is another interesting figure. The percentage of the population that is able to work in 2050 is expected to drop to 57%.

When I think of how little diversity I see in the workforce, I am grateful that I won't be working in 2050. In 2008, it seems that we have difficulties dealing with race and equality in the workplace, how will things be in 2008?

For that reason, it seems that perhaps a little more flexibility and sensitivity are in order. While many people are thinking that these statistics refer solely to African-Americans and Hispanics, these aren't the only minorities in the U.S.

2050 is still a long ways off; it seems that each generation is slightly more tolerant than the previous one. Fortunately, that leaves us some time to get our act together and learn to work together as a people, instead of continually applying labels and stereotypes.

There are days when I think that I should become a journalist. Even though I am sure that I take more than a few liberties here stating the obvious, they get much better paid for doing so!

Take, for example, this recent article, Experts say workplace, politics don't mix.

You don't say! Having worked in several countries, I've seen the proo, although I can only wonder how appropriate this statement is in the East or Middle East. One recent survey by Vault.com reveals that 35% of managers open share their political views in the workplace, while a whopping 66% of employees do the same. I'm quite certain that such statistics would make any HR manager spit up their coffee.

Anecdotally speaking, it seems to me that those who love spreading their views the most are those who are on the fringes. It's either the "all foreigners out" group or those who would have you bathe in cow dung to protect the environment – neither of which group appeal to me.

Here's a friendly reminder: the workplace is a place for you to make a living, earn a check, etc. It's not a public forum for people to wax poetically or to spread their own political agenda while at the water cooler.

I can almost see the HR folks nodding their heads in agreement, which must mean I'm on to something here.

Strewth mate! According to a news story that I read last weekend, foul-mouthed bosses in Australia are now persona non grata.

While it's nice to see that abusive language won't be tolerated from superiors to their subordinates, I've had more than one manager in my career whose colorful use of the English language was more humorous than anything else.

Australia's Workplace Ombudsman recently ruled in a case involving a woman employee who was on the receiving end of a foul-mouthed tirade during the Workplace Agreement dealings last year. Bosses were put on notice that such behavior wouldn't be tolerated, especially when dealing with HR-related issues.

I was surprised to see that previously, such language wouldn't have been considered as harassment or abusive language. It's likely that there still are a few bosses out there that tend to overstep the line when speaking with their employees. Fortunately, in this case, the Ombudsman made the right call and put such bosses on a short leash.

In cases such as this, it might be more worthwhile to try and find a company that is more suited to one's tastes - or at least doesn't abuse employees.

Whether bosses believe it or not, every employee deserves respect. Since this employee in question wasn't getting it, perhaps she should have dropped a few F-bombs of her own in kind.

A large American company recently took a very controversial position, which is likely to cause quite a stir as it is more widely reported. Tyson Foods has decided to repeal its Labor Day holiday and institute a Muslim holiday in its place.

The company's workers union, which has hundreds of Muslim members, has decided to make this a "priority".

Of course, Tyson is perfectly within its rights to implement such a decision; as the aforementioned article points out, it hasn't had to take extra measures for its accommodation.

But why should somebody's religion have an effect on their work? One can argue that Christmas is a Christian holiday, however many non-Christians (indeed, non-religious) people in the United States celebrate it. Indeed, it's more of a cultural event than a religious one in many, many households.

Such a decision opens a larger can of worms – do companies need to make arrangements for Pagan employees? What about for Jewish employees? Atheist employees who want no religious holidays?

While the union had its heart in the right place, I find it difficult to make accommodations for one minority and then neglect other minorities or religions in the workplace.

Don't expect the criticisms to die down soon; still, this is of Tyson's own making.