An economic miracle or a disaster waiting to happen? As far as Goldman Sachs – and their chief economist, Jim O'Neill - is concerned, China is set to overtake the U.S. to become the world's biggest economy by 2027.

Writing in the London Evening Standard, O'Neill says: "When we first suggested back in 2003 that China could possibly challenge the US to be the world's number one by 2041, many thought it was a pipedream, and had virtually no chance. In fact, it is possible a lot sooner, and indeed, we now think it could happen within 20 years — in fact 2027 to be precise, so 18 years."

But there are plenty of sceptics who would take issue with O'Neil, believing that China's economic miracle is based on smoke and mirrors and is on the brink of collapse. As billionaire hedge fund investor, Jim Chanos, put it:

"You have to keep in mind that the last command economy that really saw this kind of growth was the old Soviet Union and what happened was the misallocation of resources into inefficient plants, dams that burst, nuclear plants that had accidents and so on and so forth, as well as the fairly large defense budget. China's heading the same way."

Chanos may be a famed short-seller, but it's hard to dismiss one of the few people who saw through the Enron charade in 2001 and consistently argued that the company's figures were fiction.

But a melt-down of the Chinese economy has the potential to be far more damaging than the Enron scandal. As a report by Pivot Capital Management earlier this year argued: "We believe the coming slowdown in China has the potential to be a similar watershed event for world markets as the reversal of the U.S. subprime and housing boom."

Hold on. 2010 could be every bit as rough a ride as this year.

You may not have noticed, but another casualty of the recession has been the utterly pointless workplace survey. When times were good, not a week would pass without a press release from an eager PR agency plugging things like "the twelve most bizarre excuses for being late for work"*

Sadly, not any more – or at least, so rarely that we actually take notice when we see one. So thanks is due to Careerbuilder.com for revealing the most memorable requests or recommendations people have received in their office suggestion box, including:

• Allow people to change clothes in their cubicles.
• Add a tanning bed to the break room.
• Put beer in the vending machine.
• Jail time should be covered under family medical leave.
• Institute bikini Fridays.
• Only require work during daylight hours because employee is scared of the dark.
• Request a special smoking area for medical marijuana.
• Request that the HR person wear nicer shoes.
• More time off to pursue side business as a clown.
• Replace a desk with a futon so employee could lay down and work.
• Request that the lactation room with gliding chair be used for naps, so everyone can use it.
• Install a swimming pool for employees to use.
• Have the team meeting held in Hawaii.

Some of these, if truth be told, are not so silly after all: sleep pods were all the rage a few years back, but whether they have survived the recession is another question.

* Meanwhile, a reminder that the prize for the dumbess excuse for skipping work was won by a South African man whose attempt to use a stolen doctor's note to take time off work backfired after it was noticed that he was highly unlikely to be pregnant as the note (stolen from his girlfriend), claimed...

When the economy bounces back, will jobs start to grow again, too? We all hope that the answer will be "yes", but there's a real fear, as articulated in this piece from the New York Times, that this recession marks the point at which the business cycle in some developed economies (notably the U.S.) no longer replenishes the jobs it has destroyed, raising the alarming prospect of a long-term shortage of work.

As for why this might occur, take this example, as cited here.

Or consider American icon General Motors. GM's sales in China are rocking. In the first nine months, the company sold 1.3 million cars in China, including more than 181,000 in September. By contrast, GM in the United States in the first nine months sold 1.5 million cars in the United States, down 36.4 percent from the year before. And in September, GM sold just 156,673 cars in the United States. That growth in China is good for GM's shareholders and for some of its executives. But since most of the cars sold in China are produced there, with parts produced by suppliers in China, rising sales in the Middle Kingdom won't translate into jobs for unionized workers in the Middle West.

That might not bother GM's shareholders or executives in the short term. But they might care to muse on what sort of economy – and society - they wish to see in a decade or so. Because a society without meaningful work for millions of people won't be a healthy one.

One of my favourite movie quotes comes from Clint Eastwood, portraying 'dirty' Harry Callaghan in The Dead Pool: "Well, opinions are like assholes; everybody has one". And he's right. Whether you're a commentator, a writer, a speaker, a public figure, a celebrity or just an average Jo(e), it's your given right to have an opinion on anything, everything or nothing.

So its sad that so many people decline to express their viewpoint or share their opinion freely and openly. After all, an individual's opinion is just that; it's theirs to keep to themselves or share as they choose.

The challenge for most people is the fear they harbour about whether their opinions are right or wrong. But surely, the personal nature of any opinion which any of us may harbour is neither good or bad, right nor wrong; it's unique to us. It might be shared by others and it will certainly have been influenced by situations, circumstances and other people, but it will fundamentally be ours to do with whatever we choose.

And this brings me to the dilemma of what opinions are and why they are consistently sought out - and then rejected - in the workplace.

This is never more apparent than listening to politicians trying to wriggle off the hook of responsibility and apportion blame elsewhere than at their own doorstep. They are the elite in this field of abrogating responsibility for their actions (or lack of them), and now this seems to have found its way into the everyday culture of the workplace.

Managers who don't know how to lead and organisations which care little about their own self-improvement, have only resulted in embedding this culture of dispensable and irrelevant opinion-seeking into the everyday mix of employee engagement strategies.

In the old days, it used to be the suggestion box placed strategically next to the coffee machine or water cooler. Today organisations have at least learned how to mask this exercise under the cloak of openness, by holding 'team meetings' and company 'off-sites' at which employees are encouraged to engage openly and freely.

In reality, though, these are nothing more than exercises in 'smoke and mirrors' so that organisations can demonstrate to their owners and shareholders that they have gone through the exercise of 'engaging' with their workforce.

Why is it that these organisations and the managers who are tasked to lead them, are so fearful of the opinions of those who work for them? Could they really be so insecure in their ivory towers, with their executive washrooms, private dining rooms and chauffeur driven limousines, that the opinions of their workforce are going to make any significant difference to the strategies they are developing and implementing?

I hardly think so. Their insecurity is much, much deeper rooted than that. It is based on the certainty that they, and their executive flunkies, don't hold all the answers (yet as often as not, their compensation and benefits packages will suggest that, even if they don't have all the answers, then they should).

So the very concept of seeking opinion from the floor is something that undermines executive authority, because it challenges the illusion that those leading organisations really do know what they are doing.

Perhaps if senior managers acted with the courage of their convictions and put their egos in the bottom drawer, organisations everywhere might just start to realise that the best ideas often come from within and that the assholes, as Mr Eastwood deftly put it, are not the opinions of others - they are those who choose to ignore the opportunities these opinions present.

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!

Perhaps, like me, you have noticed an increase in the use of 'WE' in our language over the past number of years. If so, have you also noticed how the context of the word has changed from one which used to presume inclusion, but which now implies exclusion?

Both in the written and spoken word, I have now decided to take an exception to the use of WE, other than what it was originally designed for.

So, for example, when my wife tells me that at the weekend that 'WE' are going to clean the car or clear the garden, I now incur her displeasure by correcting her that what she really means to say is "I will clean the car", or "I will clear the garden".

All of which is fine with me, because I don't mind doing either task. However, I do object to the implication that we are going to do this collectively and collaboratively, when I know only too well that she doesn't mean US; she means ME.

So how and why did this simple transition take place and what are its implications on the behaviour of people at work ?

I believe, (and this is not something I can corroborate) that this transition is a direct result of a significant sociological change in people's behaviour over the past 50 - 60 years; in other words, since the end of the second World War.

Since then, not only has speaking plainly and directly become distinctly unfashionable, it has, horror of horrors, become a key component of political incorrectness and impropriety.

I'm not asking you to swing to the extreme end of the pendulum and adopt words and language which might be construed as undiplomatic or perhaps even rude. However, there are times when directness and plain speaking are required; and other times when a little bit of diplomacy and sensitivity will suffice. The challenge seems to be able to understand the differences between both approaches and the effect they may have; and this is where you and I, not WE, can make the difference.

However it is up to you and I to do so through our actions and deeds, and not just to postulate a principal of intention to the greater WE. After all, should I culminate this column by asking that WE all do something about this, then those of you foolish enough or sufficiently enlightened to read this article, will just dismiss it out of hand.

The reason for this is that by suggesting that this something WE can influence and affect, I'm doing nothing to gain your backing or commitment; and I really do want your backing and commitment. So in this context, WE has become what I intended it to be; an excuse for you to nod your head in agreement with me and do absolutely nothing. A great idea, but with no call to action.

By appealing to you directly, I'm in danger of isolating most of you and perhaps even angering some; and if that ends up being the case, then I'm OK with that. But if not, then you just might want to make a note, take action and see where it gets you.

I've taken the direct route in both my writing and speaking for 20 years now and it doesn't seem to have damaged me irreparably. But then, I'm at the far end of the scale of directness and I've had to learn the subtler, gentler and more sensitive art of diplomacy in my development.

However, my World of relative variations of black and white seems to have attracted more opposites than repelled them, as more and more people seek to find their own balance between what they saw and heard and what they believe that they saw and heard.

Well, I'm off now to do my bit to save mankind from itself; how about you ?

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.

Job cuts, endemic uncertainty, too much change too quickly – it's little wonder that so many people feel pretty alienated from their organisations at the moment. So here's some very sound advice from consultants Watson Wyatt about the steps you can take to reconnect employees.

1. Create an organisation structure and job architecture that is clear, effective and efficient so that everyone understands their role and how they contribute to organisation success.

2. Articulate and be honest about your employment deal, even in today's tough high unemployment market. This is key to effective attraction, retention and engagement of key talent.

3. Review executive compensation to achieve the optimum balance on alignment with shareholders and driving value in the business, including risk effectiveness, performance and retention.

4. Review sales compensation regularly to ensure that the plans are aligned with new business priorities and drive optimum performance at optimum cost.

5. Review how performance is managed to ensure it accurately reflects the new corporate reality and is motivating your key talent.

6. Identify the talent you have to ensure you continue to retain those that will contribute most to your business in the long term.

7. Ensure you reward for exceptional performance and not the norm. Make this a reality now and it will ensure you are able to manage whatever the economic situation.

8. Ensure you have excellent management information and let the systems take the strain. Base decisions on facts and analysis, not emotion and rhetoric.

9. Ensure you understand where critical roles and skills sit. In times of retrenchment businesses may have looked to keep good people rather than those in key roles that will drive future performance.

10. Continue to keep leadership visible and communication open. Let staff know where the business is heading, what they need to do and how they will be rewarded.

Writing in Money Magazine, Tyler Cowen offers an insight into one of the major causes of procrastination: we over-estimate the amount of control we have over our day.

So we could do that unwelcome task first thing in the morning but we say we'll do it later. However, as the day goes on there are more interruptions and more demands from others and it becomes more and more difficult to do what we've postponed - so we promise ourselves we'll do it tomorrow. - but not necessarily first thing.

What can we take away from this? I, too, find it tough to tackle the least appealing task first thing but one strategy I've found helpful is to apply the micro-task method to this.

Spend a minimum of five minutes on the hardest or least appealing task first thing. Often going that far makes it easier to finish right then. If not, then give it another five minutes first thing the next day.

The European Court of Justice is going to win few friends among employers following an extraordinary ruling that means employees who are ill during their holiday can demand extra holiday from their employers to make up for it.

The court, ruling on a case brought by a Spanish council worker who was injured shortly before taking his annual holiday but was not allowed to move his holiday by his employer, stated that statutory holiday can be "reallocated" if it was spoilt by sickness.

"If the worker does not wish to take annual leave during a period of sick leave, annual leave must be granted to him for a different period", the ruling states.

Under the terms of the judgement, employees would even be allowed to carry any annual leave marred by illness over into the next holiday year.

The potential for abuse here is obvious. An employee could simply increase their amount of holiday by claiming they had been sick.

But as Owen Warnock, a partner at London law firm Eversheds, told People Management magazine, the ruling is unlikely to open the floodgates to a stream of "super sickies":

"Until the European or UK courts say otherwise, our view is that employers are entitled to require workers to produce convincing evidence of their illness while on holiday and that it would have rendered them unfit for work before allowing workers to 'reallocate' holidays," he said.