It's hard to believe that yet another year has gone by. The workplace has certainly been an interesting place this year; it certainly isn't for the meek! While we've seen some highs, the year kind of went out on a negative flourish of job loss and fear of job loss.

As we look to 2009, it's hard to stay positive and hope that the worst is behind us. From where I write in France, the general mood is that the layoffs will come - and in mass quantities - soon after the New Year. So, what does that mean for us?

For most of us, it means staying in the job we're at – it's hard to believe that job hunting at the moment, especially when you have a job, is a professional "best practice". But it should also mean is that this is a period of careful reflection.

Personally, in bad economic times, I like to re-focus on my job to make sure that I'm doing the best job I can. I don't want to give my employer any ammunition whatsoever if he or she is looking to get rid of me.

Also, it's a good time to start asking "what if?" What will you do if you lose your job? How long will you stay afloat financially? Do you have any other professional skills upon which you can fall back? Do you have any ways of keeping your skills sharp in the event that you are unemployed for a significant period of time?

These aren't the most positive questions to ask, especially when it's out with the old, and in with the new. However, in a global slump, everyone owes it to themselves to ask the pointed questions.

I was always taught to avoid three topics in polite company: religion, money, and politics. Fortunately, the workplace is not polite company, quite the contrary, so I suppose all three topics are theoretically fair game! However, a recent lawsuit filed in California begs to differ, and from where I sit, they've hit the nail right on the head.

Employees at Diskeeper were required by their CEO to attend Scientology-based training sessions as part of their employment. One employee took particular exception to this rule and expressed his disagreement. The CEO, a rather devout Scientologist, insisted that this was "non-negotiable" and that the employee must attend as a condition of employment.

The employer took the issue to his manager, who supported the employee. As a result, both employees were subsequently dismissed. As one might guess, they are both suing Diskeeper for religious discrimination and employment law violations.

Assuming that the details in the suit are true and accurate, this should be a shut-and-closed case. Employers, no matter how large their salary, ego, or religious conviction, simply cannot force their employees to submit to propaganda promoting the CEO's religion.

If you really need an explanation as to why, then I'm not really sure my explanation would suffice. Quite simply, it is unethical to expect one's employees to have the same religious beliefs and practices as yours. In fact, those beliefs and practices have nothing to do with one's employment and should be kept to one's self.

Though the CEO of Diskeeper may feel that I'm intolerant by holding such views; my views would keep people employed for their talents rather than sacked for their beliefs.

Did you know that managers are valued more for their people skills than their technical knowledge? Well, the Washington Business Journal says it's so, so who am I to question it?

But what does that mean in reality? Doesn't going for a manager who is lacking in technical skills (especially in fields that require them) mean that you're diluting your product, or even brand?

There is a case to be made for people with good people skills. Just look around your office. According to this article, 40% of a manager's time is spent putting out fires – in other words, dealing with people and their "issues". The other 60% of the time is wishing he hadn't hired so-and-so.

Looking around at your colleagues, you'll see what I mean. We're a complex bunch of beings, us humans, and our foibles can make the workplace less pleasant for some.

In every place I've worked, the characters have always been the same. You have your ambitious, go-getter type. Then, you have the princess who manages to get out of work. There's always the geek, and then the anti-social guy, etc.

The poor manager who has to rub all those egos and make his team work like clockwork, well - there's no amount of money you can put on that!

We can help by learning to be better with our emotions and not letting them get hold of us. Rationality is the key to getting through the workday. The only question is this: who is managing the manager and his or her emotions?

Today's post can be filed under "things I shouldn't have to tell you, because you're too old and (supposedly) too smart ". OK - let's talk about domestic abuse. Now, perhaps you're thinking that I should pipe down and talk about something related to the workplace. Ok, fair enough: domestic violence in the workplace is on the rise.

A recent report (and an alarming one at that) discussed how spousal abuse, which one used to be the dirty and dark secret that people didn't discuss, is now rearing its ugly head at the office. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is due to married couples who work together and couldn't separate their professional and private lives. I'm talking about enraged spouses (read: husbands) tracking their wives down at their place of business to finish what they started.

I suppose that it's really not surprising. After all, someone who engages in this behavior at home isn't likely to have enough smarts or reason to keep it there. Besides, as the article points out, an abused woman's likely place of peace and normalcy is when she's at work. These guys are now ready to take away even that! One can assume that this is more of a problem in small to midsized companies that do not require employees to badge in or guests to be approved before gaining entry.

In addition to the obvious toll on the victim, it's also a frightful experience for colleagues to witness. Do they jump in and help? What if the abuser is carrying a knife or gun? What happens if it goes from yelling or humiliation to violence? What responsibility, if any, does a victim have to alert their employer that their spouse may be capable of coming to the office to harass them?

Unfortunately, this topic raises me questions than answers. If you have any answers, I'd love to hear them!

We're really a lot like dogs, if you think about it. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because as a whole raft of studies demonstrate, what most of us crave at work is recognition and praise for a job well done.

In that respect, we're a lot like my golden retriever – give her a good home and a pat on the head, and she's your friend. Give us a positive working environment and acknowledge the work we put in, and we're your good employee.

If I sound a bit glib, I don't mean to be. What I'm trying to point out is how marveled we can be by how easy dogs are to please, while it doesn't take much either for us to be contented at work. Management can take the cue and provide simpler pleasures, including praise, to get the best out of us.

It's very easy to get run down or frustrated after a hard day of work; I bet a large number of people go home stressed only to make their poor families endure the results. That could easily be changed. Don't get me wrong, it takes more than a pat on the head to make things right. Providing a positive work environment with competent management who takes into account their company's worker's needs is a huge step in making that happen.

Most of us, regardless of our age, can still remember the bully at school in our adolescent years. In fact, it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that he probably still is a bully, even though he now wears a tie to work and has an MBA.

I'm reminded of this timeless character because I was reading an article offering advice on how to prepare for confrontation with the workplace saboteur (their words, not mine).

The article offers your typical politically correct, made-for-corporate-America response: be assertive, take notes, get management involved, look for explanations.

But while this is all very good advice, is it usually effective? Will the workplace saboteur appreciate that you've taken the time to rationalize his or her logic and behavior? Is he or she going to back off once a middle manager proceeds to issue a mild telling off?

Count me among those that believe that people don't change. I don't believe that the onus should be on us non-saboteurs to have to find peace or common ground with someone else who is the problem. While this article is full of good advice (much like a parent gives their child about not fighting back when the playground bully rears his head), it's not necessarily full of advice that will make the victim of the workplace saboteur any easier.

Unfortunately, I don't have any better solutions to offer, at least not ones that are likely to be applauded by readers, but, on occasion, it would be nice to see the saboteur get a taste of his or her own medicine!

Though I realize it's fashionable to deride cars for the nuisance that they can be (and yes, I realize that they do pollute quite a bit), I also realize that they still have a practical and useful place in our society. Going one step further, after reading a recent article in the Daily Telegraph, I have to come out against yet another way the British government has come up with to tax people.

A plan is currently under consideration whereby people who drive to park and park in company parking lots could find themselves with a new tax levied.

According to the article, the government is considering whether or not to impose a levy of around £350 per year per commuter on businesses across the United Kingdom. The article continues that while companies will likely pay most of the tax, it's likely that individual drivers could become legally responsible for the amount.

I take public transportation most mornings to work, which entails a nice 10 minute walk to my subway station, a 20 minute commute to a central station, and a 10 minute walk across the station to the commuter trains. This leaves me with a 35 minute train ride to my suburb, and then a 15 minute bus ride to my office. In short, I'm looking at a 90 minute train ride.

Let's compare to the days when I drive to work: I walk 1 minute to my care and 25-30 minutes later, I am at my desk. It's not a hard decision?

It's hard to justify the extra commute when I lose so much time in productivity. If my company were to levy me a tax of over 400 Euros for the privilege of driving to my place of employment, where I help keep the national economy going - well, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand would like to take a moment to remind you the dangers of drinking. Their concern isn't so much drink-driving, but rather getting smashed at the company party and having to deal with the unintended consequences the next day.

And I'd like to take a moment to pass on their reminder – although unlike the AAC, I'd first remind people to not to incur beer leeriness at the company party and then to drive home. Drinking and then operating a vehicle is simply unacceptable no matter what country you happen to be reading this. That's my public service message to you. That said, the AAC is concerned about your inability to function correctly or be productive the next day at work.

Don't get me wrong - this is very important, and AAC does well to remind companies of the dangers of alcohol during the holidays and their impact on the office. I, on the other hand, am concerned about the other aftermath – coming to work the next day only to find out that you were acting like a little sod, or worse, that you're actually a crashing bore. Just think of what upper management would think – "clearly there's no room for Fletcher, here!"

I can't tell you what to do off the clock, but I can offer free advice for time spent on the clock or on the company dime. So, at the company holiday party, don't strip, sing, have a go, etc. And, by all means, leave the receptionist's backside alone. I only want what's best for you – I'm not interested in your productivity the next day (besides, aren't these usually on a Friday or Saturday?); I just want you to be respected (at a minimum) or employed (even better) the next day.

Those who know me know how much I enjoy a good social protest (for justifiable reasons, of course) every now and then. I firmly believe that they only way to advance social progress is to hit offenders where it hurts – the bottom line. Otherwise, you'll never get their attention.

You may disagree, but I think the Day Without a Gay event recently held in the US is a fine example of social protest.

To show the impact that gay men and women have on society at large (and particularly in the workplace), what better way is there than to drop out and spend the day performing community service. Many people likely do not realize how many gay men and women they encounter in their everyday lives – people who are no different than any other group of folks, some good, some bad, all of whom just wanting the same things every other human being wants.

What's unique about this campaign is that people are urged to call in to work, not ill, but gay. In some areas of the US, this is actually a potential reason for termination. Despite that, I support this approach because it forces people to confront their prejudices or worries and reflect on the subject.

Regardless of any of the factors that influence your opinions on the topic, keep in mind that gay men and women are human beings with the same needs as everyone else. If this sounds patronizing, then this post isn't necessarily directed at you – but the message isn't as clear to everyone.

With the global economy heading downhill fast, should we look to leaders to be leaders and fall on their swords? Will there be any accountability whatsoever? Is anyone willing to step up and take ownership? Hello? Anyone? Are you there?

Well, if this article is anything to go by, I'm going to wait a long time for a response (or any integrity). After all, when the chips are down, it's hardly surprising to note that people like to bask in glory, yet duck and cover when it's time to admit defeat.

That's why, in these particularly trying times, the ever-popular habit of blaming someone else for our errors (or just errors in general) are a prevalent part of our workplace.

If I had to venture a guess, I would point fingers at the low-hanging fruit of the company – young, inexperienced, middle managers. Since they're the ones who get their hands dirty (more so than VPs), they also know that their asses are more likely to be on the line.

I'm sure there's some sort of psychological condition or pathology that makes weak-willed people feel validated by making others feel small. I'd just call it lame, though a psychologist probably would not. This habit of quickly pointing out the fault of others, or throwing colleagues under the proverbial bus, is a sad reflection on the state of our society as a whole.

I have to conclude that New Zealand is a pretty wild place, or at least a country full of people that live on the edge. Because at a recent health conference, it was revealed that methamphetamine is becoming a real problem in Kiwi workplaces.

Now, I realize that every country has different customs, some good, and some bad. However, this type of information is likely to attract the wrong kind of workers to New Zealand!

I can appreciate that the fact that there may be the odd bit of drug use in some industries, but what struck me in this article was the fact that people are actually using their workplaces to cook this stuff up before using it while on the clock (or off the clock). Talk about unprofessional (and dangerous, and unethical, etc.)!

Despite all the comical material such news stories provide us with, it's still a very serious matter! Would you want a physician who is high on meth? Would you want a construction foreman dropping acid?

Probably not, most of us would find that ridiculous and unacceptable. At the same time, how much time and how many resources should we spend hunting down mobile meth labs in the break room? The article mentions guard dog companies enjoying profitable periods in New Zealand. Surely the problem could not have reached that point, could it?

Have you ever been to Philadelphia? If you're thinking about going there to work, you may want to think again. Lest you find my premise unfair, let me share with you this headline from the Philadelphia Business Journal: "Almost a third of 07 workplace deaths in area homicides".

In other words, people who die on the jobs there, they're dying because they were killed, not because of accidents.

In fact, in Philadelphia, more people were killed (27) in a workplace death, than in car accidents (12) or falls (14). I have to wonder how many of those falls were due to help from behind.

I would be curious to find out more about such findings. What were the causes of death in these homicides? You could reasonably think that they were likely due to firearms. What does that tell us?

There's a lot of conclusions to which one could jump based on these figures. Of course, news sources picking up these stories could help by painting a more accurate picture of what's going on. Most of us probably don't have either the time or inclination to read the actual report from the US Department of Labor.

In the meantime, I'll let the good people of Philly (the city of Brotherly Love) sort out their death in the workplace title before I consider applying for positions there.

I'm a sucker for a good press release every now and then; after all, it's not often that you come across something that's actually worth buying.

More to the point, it's even less likely that you find something that might improve the quality of your workday. However, the folks at sitbetter.com may be on to something that even the hard-to-please might find useful.

If you're like me, you spend far too much time sitting in front of a screen. Since there are very few scenarios that would actually change that (bad) habit, it's time to make the best of the situation.

While we have optometrists to help us keep our eyes healthy, most of us probably don't think about other health risks (besides obesity via inactivity) such as back aches, carpal tunnel, etc. Face it, how many of us are actually sat in a decent chair for the 8-10+ hours per day at the office? How many of us use ergonomically designed keyboards, writing utensils, etc?

In addition to such worries, let me also rant about the importance of remaining active, even when we have desk jobs! Getting up every now and then to stretch our arnms, legs, and back will help offset the lack of a good, ergonomic chair.

Of course, you'd be better off with a decent chair, but in today's economy you're not likely to get the boss to pay for one!

The sitbetter.com folks are a good resource for finding out more about such important, but under-discussed, workplace issues. I don't wish to sound like an advert for the site, as that's not the point. The point is this: workplace exercise, including good posture when seated or even when typing, is critical to our health.

Please, someone awake me from my nightmare! I just read that some companies are responding to the recession by asking employees to take unpaid holidays. What? Yes, it's true.

Of course, it's not likely that your well-paid, well-fed bosses will be asked to take a pay cut from $500,000 per to a paltry $475,000 for the greater good of the company. Nah, I d say that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

This isn't the first time I've heard of such antics from employers. However, when I've seen it done in Europe, it was often in restaurants or small companies. Often, in those cases, the holidays were "forced", but they were still paid.

What's remarkable to me is this: it's no secret that the economy is crap and things are slowing down. But why do we so often expect the lowest earners to make the first sacrifices?

If we're going to hawk the idea that we're a team – we win as a team, we lose as a team – than perhaps we should ask a little more of those who are earning more. After all, most of us don't blame those who are supposed to guide our companies through feast and famine.

Taking unpaid time off is not only bad for individual people, it's not good for the economy. After all, we're supposed to spend to keep things flowing.

Running a small company or an independent consultant practice (a one man/woman shop) is no easy task. In fact, it often seems like you've got everything stacked up against you most of the time.

After all, you've got to market yourself, find clients, provide services, and play billing department and then collection agency when you're not paid. Let's add one more woe: a government looking to make your life even more difficult by upping your expenses, something small business owners in Canada will be only too aware of.

There is talk of legislation in Canada that would require such companies or one-person shops to take out mandatory workplace insurance. At first read, this sounds like a reasonable requirement, one to which most responsible business owners already adhere.

However, take a closer look and you'll notice that the law would require these companies to actually kick in to the government kitty. In other words, your current, private insurance would not exempt you from having to pay a separate, mandatory insurance premium governed by the government. This would a) render your private policy useless, and b) give the government a complete monopoly over insurance premiums and coverage benefits.

It certainly makes sense to require workplace insurance (these are one of those things I like to refer to as the "cost of doing business"), and, hell, it even makes sense to offer a state-controlled policy for companies or people who cannot afford a private policy.

But it makes no sense to force the many Canadian companies to change their current plan and fork over more cash to a different plan. In fact, it almost sounds like an extortionist plot.

Without a total jettison of the law, let's hope that someone in charge comes to their good senses and allows those who already enjoy coverage to continue to do so.

The operative word these days around the world is "change". It's something I never seem to have enough of when I need a cuppa, and it's also what President-elect Obama has been championing the past two years. But should Americans really expect to see a difference in the workplace? Surprisingly (to me), the Wall Street Journal says "yes".

While American workers shouldn't expect higher pay, less hours, and Ferrari corporate cars, there are a number of things that are likely to change from the Bush years.

For example, it's likely that unions will have a greater sphere of influence within the workplace. It's also likely that American workers will have an easier time forming unions. During the last guy's term, companies often felt that the government was on their side, giving them carte blanche to get rid of those who would organize.

According to the WSJ article, a re-focus on work/family life would also return. Without enjoying the flexibility that European countries offer, mother can hope for improved maternity leave, as well as strengthening the Family and Medical Leave Act., This would allow parents to feel safer in taking time off to address personal and family needs, without fearing the proverbial axe.

Regardless, it seems to be an exciting time in America. But let's not get carried away, as the new President will have his hands full untying past knots. As Mr. Obama put it, change starts from the bottom up – it will be up to employees in America to hold their governments' accountable for their actions – or lack thereof.

In my line of work, listening to headphones has never really been an issue. Of course, it's likely that I've not allowed it to become an issue by blocking out any protests with some righteous guitar riffs – although as this article discusses, that's only going to fuel the ire of opponents of tunes in the workplace.

Listening to music can be a wonderful escape from the often vile realities of the workplace. When I'm settling in to do some serious writing, listening to familiar, comforting sounds can be a great help in passing the time and getting things done. Of course, I listen to music with respect for my environment, as should anyone who does.

Keep your music at a volume that isn't likely to bother anyone sitting next to you. Even with expensive headsets, it's likely that listening to music at a loud volume is noticeable to those around you. Also, make sure that you listen to music at a volume that won't prevent you from hearing the phone or another colleague trying to get your attention.

While some people may feel that listening to music throws up a wall between the listener and the work environment, I disagree. Being comfortable and in the "right place" to get ones work done is important to producing quality work.

Keeping basic etiquette rules in mind and reducing reasons for colleague to be against you listening to music can result in a rewarding aural sensation that makes the day go by just a bit faster.

One thing I've noticed about the US election campaign is that it increased water cooler talk around three often taboo subjects, namely race, age, and gender. In the end, I suppose we can thank W for one of the few positive aspects of his presidency!

Regardless of one's politics, it's hard to deny that so many taboos have been blown right out of the water in this election cycle. For the first time ever we had three serious candidates poised to knock down one of three walls in presidential politics: we had a serious female contender for both a major party's nomination and also a vice-president candidate, we had an African-American (or at least bi-racial candidate to be honest), and a senior citizen. Talk about a lot to digest in one election cycle!

This, I have noticed, has caused the scourges of ageism, racism, and sexism to be more frequently discussed in the workplace. This article reaffirms that it's not just me noticing it.

From a European perspective, the race issue seems to be the one that is drawing the most attention. It's been quite interesting to see how Europeans perceive American attitudes towards race. It's often a case of assigning their own feelings on Americans.

Despite the historic level of this American election, I don't think that the end result changes much in the workplace for women, people of color, or those on "the wrong side of 40".

While we may be ready to elect one of the above to the highest post in the land, it's not likely that tolerance for any of those qualities are going to serve you well when it's time for a merit-based promotion or a raise.

When it comes to another day at the office, stable is the place to be. No, I'm not talking about working with or around horses (which might not be such a bad life), but in routine.

As boring as it may get, your heart may one day thank you for choosing the route of stability. At least, that's what this recent study out of Finland is telling us.

That's not so hard to believe though, is it? The unknown or fear of the unknown is often a great source of stress for many of us. When we find ourselves working in organizations with poor communication, or otherwise ambiguous working conditions, it's easy to see why our blood pressure our heartbeat might rise.

Unfortunately, it's hard to find jobs these days that are heart healthy. Even the guy who has a seemingly cool job is likely to have a list of grievances for you.

In this study, the bottom line (as we are told) is this: give a worker ample training and a clear outline of what is expected and his or her health will be less stressed. While I agree that this is a likely byproduct of an ideal work situation, I'm not sure that it would be wise to draw a link between this and decreased chances of cardiac arrest.

It's easier for us to change than it is for an employer to change. Trying to take situations in stride, eat healthily and regular exercise are all great ways (along with reducing office stress) in helping reduce chances of heart attacks or other heart diseases.

Is it ok for a boss to sleep with his (or her) subordinates? I guess it depends on if you're a so-called mysterious (or old) French lover. If you're the lascivious, really gross boss with coffee breath and lunch stains on your tie, don't even think about it.

The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the topic in light of IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn's recent dalliances with a young'un at the office. Surprisingly, the WSJ doesn't actually take a position in the article (while it wasn't an OP-ED, that hasn't stopped them in the past).

The decision not to punish DSK for his behavior is surprising; the claim was that the affair was consensual (hardly a consolation to Mrs. DSK). However, is the fact that it wasn't a rape sufficient? I'm no prude, but my understanding is that a boss can't sleep with a subordinate because that is the textbook definition of sexual harassment. Of course, the IMF isn't subject to American laws, so he may enjoy immunity from any such questions.

Still, take a look at the man in question. It's almost enough to give one nausea just thinking about him in the throes of pleasure. He certainly had to be aware of his position of power (no pun intended) and sphere of influence over the younger woman. For those feminists who are offended by asserting that she walked into a trap or wanted something other than love and affection, all I can say is that the story stinks.

Nevertheless, DSK is the winner here. He got what he wanted, and he gets to keep his job.