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.

Got a pretty unpleasant surprise in the mail the other day; this is one that I'm sure that many people in the US receive on a daily basis. Let me explain.

We recently took two family members to the doctor's office in a major urban area of the United States for some routine vaccinations. We plopped down our insurance card, confident in its abilities as one of the largest providers in the country.

Unfortunately, we greatly overestimated its capabilities, because I about had a heart attack when I received two bills totaling $1000 for services.

It wasn't so much the $130 fee per each of my family members' visit (yes, this was basically the "walk through the door" fee), nor was it the fact that each vaccination had a $17 administration fee (save for the combined vaccination that had a $32 fee).

No, what really got me was the reason in a separate letter from our former insurance provider telling us that vaccinations, checkups, preventive medicine and wellness are not covered under our plan – only sickness or emergencies are.

So, which is worse? That the employer, a major non-profit organization dedicated to helping the poor throughout the world, that won't even vaccinate the children of its own employees, or the fact that we have an insurance provider (through a job) that won't pay for a hepatitis vaccination, but would rather wait until he has the illness and pay hundreds times more money on the treatment. You decide.

Smoking in the workplace has been all over the news in recent months, especially since many cities across Europe and North America have outright banned it.

However, there is another problem with respect to the implementation of this law that bothers health advocates and law-makers – companies' general lack of interest or perceived value in getting workers to stop smoking.

In short, don't smoke here, do what you like afterwards. A recent article in MarketWatch shows how bad the apathy is.

To some degree, I can understand an employer's reticence to do anything beyond outlawing smoking on the premises. After all, one's private life is just that.

However, the spirit of the law may implore employers to go beyond their duty. Surely it's still in their interest to have their employees in the best health possible? Even from a practical point of view (read: money), getting employees to stop smoking can reduce insurance premiums.

In light of those business reasons for getting employees to kick a bad habit, perhaps more companies will partake in programs geared towards helping employees get cigarettes out of their lives.

Why do governments continue to push the lie that they care about those they are supposed to represent? The American Department of Labor decided to be a sly guy and try to push through new legislation at the last minute that would make it harder to protect workers exposure to chemicals while at work.

Don't believe me? Read for yourself.

See, what's dodgy here is that the Labor Department doesn't feel like they need to discuss it or owe its citizens an explanation. Taking a closer look at the article, the new rules would make it easier for companies to challenge any litigation brought by staff over chemical exposure.

It also means that future generations of workers would likely have more exposure to chemicals than previous generations of workers. More is a good thing, right?

The Labor Department insists that more will be made available once the proposal becomes public. But in Washington, that means it will be made public with little fanfare and released on a Friday afternoon around 4pm

It's hard to believe that our elected officials would toy with the idea of even potentially making our workplaces less safe than in previous generations. It seems to me that past generations should be the bare minimum level of acceptance.

However, as they say in Washington, "follow the money", so pay close attention to how this plays out and who seeks to benefit. It certainly isn't the guy sniffing toxins from 8am to 6pm.

Let's ponder for a moment about what exactly constitutes a workplace, shall we? Before you start to wax poetically for too long, it seems that perhaps the Welsh authorities have come up with a rather far reaching answer.

To put it another way, did you hear the one about the Welsh painter fined for smoking in his office – his van? It's all true, I'm afraid.

According to the story, a painter was pulled over for a random check and was levied a £30 pound fine for in his own van. The twisetd logic here is that he was smoking in his place of work. Huh?

The painter was just as gobsmacked as you probably are. If the police were looking to apply logic, then they'd recognize that a) a painter doesn't perform his or her job in the van, and b) the van isn't a registered place of doing business, so this just doesn't add up.

To me, this is a fine example of turning a reasonable law (no smoking in workplaces) into a farce. With many much more legitimate offenses occurring each day, it's hard to take a case like this seriously.

Then again, perhaps it's time to go back and check out the wording of the law and see how the workplace is defined. Otherwise, people who work from home might have good reason to worry!

Let's have hear cheers for New Zealand's minster of labor, Trevor Mallard, for his recent speech on improving public sector productivity. The independent newspaper, Scoop, was so kind as to reprint the speech in its entirety.

All too often, people bristle when the subject of streamlining or improving public sector efficiency is discussed. This is especially the case for those whose jobs are likely to be affected by such changes.

However, in most countries, the public sector is an essential part of the national economy. For that reason alone, it's important to maintain a public sector that is efficient: it can serve its citizens in a timely, effective manner.

This is precisely what the Minister is getting at, and I applaud his efforts. In his case, the government is focusing on technology and training. What better way to make people work better than to get them both the knowledge to do their job better and the tools to do their job right.

Of course, time will tell if this is more demagoguery, or perhaps we've seen a politician who thinks like someone rational. If this plan for increased productivity does go forward, it's a win for all involved.

Newsflash: British and Irish employees don't give a hoot about the environment – at least, judging by the amount of paper they waste every day at work. The facts, according to a study by Canon, are indisputable. They are also, according to me, unacceptable.

Yes, I fully realize that not every recycle bin actually makes it to a recycling plant. However, we can't allow ourselves to become too cynical and just throw out the baby with the bathwater because of it. In other words, don't stop recycling because you don't think your recyclables are ending up in the same landfill as your leftovers.

According to the study, Irish employees waste eight pages of paper per day, which turns into 3.8 million unnecessary printouts every day in Ireland alone! Can you imagine what the number must be in America?

I suppose it doesn't help that 42% of employees also believe that corporate environmental policies are just a dog and pony show and not intended to make a real difference.

Come on, people, didn't your mothers teach you about turning off the lights when you leave a room (especially in Europe, where electricity prices are outrageous)? Or to not waste food? Well, why not be more attentive to not wasting paper? It can't be that hard.

Just the other day, I wrote about worldwide workplace problems, most notably the rampant sexual harassment in Singapore, and how it needed to be better addressed by authorities.

Now comes South Korea, which seems to have a thing against disabled people in the workplace, if an article in the Korea Times is to be believed.

According to government data, the current hiring rate for disabled people is 1.54%, which is under the required 2 percent. On a positive note, this is a better result based on earlier results from one year ago. What is disappointing is that it is the larger companies that are still quite reluctant to hire disabled people.

One might think that a larger company would have more resources with which to welcome a disabled employee. They would have worksites better adapted to meet specific needs, such as ramps or accessible toilets, etc.

The same cannot be said for smaller companies or shops, yet these are the ones who are most likely to hire a person with disabilities.

The government is taking steps to rectify such concerns; fines are now levied against companies that do not meet a minimum number of disabled employees. There is also a chance to win $1 million in subsidies for any company that creates an affiliate that hires severely handicapped people.

It will be interesting to see how many companies (large ones) decide to go for the big prize. If doing the right, or legal, thing isn't enough of a motivator, then perhaps a cash payout is.

Though it's likely that many of us tend to think of workplace ills, such as discrimination or sexual harassment, as home-grown, you may be surprised (and disheartened) to know that these are problems that know no borders.

Just take a look at this recent survey by the women's advocacy group, Aware, of workers in Singapore.

According to the study of 500 employees, over half of the respondents claimed to have suffered some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. Of that number, 1 in 5 were men!

What's more alarming is that the number of tips and calls received on the Aware hotlines have skyrocketed in the past few years, indicating that this is a problem on the rise.

Not being well-versed in Singapore law, but remembering them to have a somewhat "tough" penal system, I am somewhat surprised that government authorities haven't taken a harder line against discrimination and inappropriate behavior in the workplace.

But currently, it seems that the government (based on comments from a Labour MP interviewed in the aforementioned article) is more interested in having companies find solutions themselves to address such issues.

While having companies implement such policies is a nice dream, how do you ask a company guilty of sexual harassment from the top down to police their own behavior? If you find the sense in that solution, please do leave a comment.

European often love to take the moral high ground when it comes to controversial issues, but this time, the Irish are smack dab on the wrong side of the issue. Because according to a recent article in the Herald a number of Irish companies are banning foreign languages (notably Polish) from their workplaces.

Lest people start thinking that these are low-wage earning workers who are being shown a lesson or two from the boss man, please think again. Some of those involved worked in white collar, well-paid professions.

Due to a deafening lack of comment from the companies involved, it's hard to find out what the real issue is. However, it smells of insecurity on the employer's part. In one case, foreign languages were even banned from the canteen! What's even more ironic is to see European companies banning the use of another European language!

While I can appreciate the need for a common working language, it seems ridiculous to require a common language for non-work conversations or when everyone in the group speaks the language in question.

Working in France, I frequently speak in English with colleagues both French and non-French. For starters, to outlaw English in my case would cause definite problems, resulting in some great talent leaving the company. Secondly, though I work primarily in French, a large number of my co-workers enjoy speaking English with their American and British counterparts.

At the end of the day, the problems caused by such laws far outweigh any perceived good that could come from it. It may be time for some of these companies in Ireland to rethink such measures before they embarrass themselves with the pending lawsuits already filed against them.

This recent article in the USA Today told me something that I could have very easily guessed: some people need precious few excuses to let our their inner jerk (at best) or inner purveyor of discrimination (at worst).

In this particular case, we're led to believe that the current soft economy is fuelling workplace bias. What a load of rubbish!

So, if I'm to understand correctly, people of color, those with disabilities, and fat people are disproportionately likely to feel the brunt of white male frustrations? The only possible response to that is the name of one of my favorite albums (which I will not reprint here as this is a decent website).

However, the article – which in no way condones such thinking – raises some interesting points. For example, it's not just employees that might suffer from the emergence of what we'll call "bad economy biases", but third-parties as well.

The article points out that companies may close ranks and choose to work with only "certain" suppliers whereas they would previously work with a diverse set of service providers. When it comes time to promotion or layoffs during leaner times, it also appears that certain groups may be more apt to get the short end of the stick.

Of course, we won't get carried away here. It's not because the economy is just so-so that companies are abandoning all sense of reason or taking anti-affirmative action. However, to see that this has a direct affect on workplace bias and how people are treated (or treat each other) is certainly indicative of a general sense of malaise that isn't good for employees, their confreres, or the company (managerial white guys included).

Would it surprise you that a dead-end job with no benefits is still an ideal environment for workplace backstabbing? You don't say!

Well according to this study undertaken by The Creative Group (yes, that's right), screwing over your confrere to get some sort of advantage or other benefit is not only quite common in the workplace, but also quite en vogue!

Obviously such behavior is more common the higher up the ladder you climb (which is sad because you'd expect better behavior from people who are supposedly better educated).

In fact, out of the 250 people surveyed, over half experienced backstabbing from their colleagues. Let's just hope they have good health insurance coverage!

What is surprising is that 70% of "victims" tend to favor face-to-face confrontation as the best course of action. That's quite funny, since there is no way to actually prove this. I'm sure 70% wish they had the gall to confront their would-be attackers in broad daylight next to the coffee machine, but I'm not buying it.

From a managerial standpoint, I hope that there are enough competent and experienced managers out there who do not fall for this type of behavior. In my eyes, there's little worse than an over-ambitious employee pulling cut-throat maneuvers in order to curry favor with the boss.

For better or worse, it is a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm quite certain most managers buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I had a great laugh reading this article from Reuters India that mentioned that 25% of Americans feel that their company is a dictatorship and over half feel that their employer stifles creativity.

Sadly, I think most countries would display similar study results. However, I still have to ask… what???

If you're the type of person who wants democracy on the job, you've got two choices: don't work or create your own business. In both cases, you can decide how democratic or not you want to be.

When one chooses to work for someone else, they basically agree to take on a job or task and to execute it in order to make profit for the person cutting the paycheck.

The same goes for creativity, but unless you are in marketing or some other profession that requires creativity, why offer yours? Again, most jobs are created with a specific role in mind; some people just like to expand those roles to make them more interesting.

Don't get me wrong, I've worked for many dictatorial companies in the past, and I've often felt that I haven't been able to contribute my talents to the benefit of the company. In those cases, I left. To me, this study suggests that 25-50% of Americans (and probably workers worldwide) are unhappy and aren't in the right job just yet.

Would it surprise you to know that Scotland has an obesity problem second only to the United States? It surprised the hell out of me, and apparently it did to Scottish health officials who are taking decisive action. According to the Financial Times, Scotland has an obesity rate of 22% of men and 24% of women.

While many might feel that this is a personal issue to be dealt with privately, the fact of the matter is that most of us spend the majority of our daylight hours at the office. In other words, it's at work where we are most likely to indulge bad habits, such as inactivity, sugary snacks, unbalanced meals, etc.

The Scottish response is to address the issue at the source in an original way. The government has commissioned software that would offer an interactive way of seeing the dangers of obesity or putting on too much weight. This software would be made available in companies across the country.

I agree with government officials that targeting companies in order to address the dangers of obesity is the right approach to take; I'm still not convinced that software is the way to address the issue.

For example, everyone knows the dangers of smoking yet they do it in light of massive ad campaigns against the issue. That's not to say we shouldn't try, but creating software doesn't seem like the most efficient idea to me.

Perhaps we could start by no longer selling cola or junk food at the office or taking away boxes of biscuits or pretzels.