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.

In another sign that the business world and economy are heading even further in the wrong direction, it appears that there are fewer and fewer female executives in Australia.

In fact, based on a census taken by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (perhaps you might be more familiar with its EOWA appellation?), the number of female executives in Australia has actually decreased by 2% over the past two years.

OK, I'll be the first to admit. I snickered when I read that factoid in the Sydney Morning Herald. OK, forgive me, but I got up at 5am and spent 10 hours continuous at my desk trying to catch up from a humdinger of a cold. But I quickly stopped laughing when I read a little further into the Herald's article. Did you know that of 1,700 executive positions in companies listed on the ASX200, there were only 182 women?

That paltry number is just a little over 7%! Keep in mind that an executive isn't necessarily a CEO, but perhaps a director, vice-president, etc. The number of chief executives is - four.

Mix the current state of the economy and downsizing in management teams, along with the fact that women face a number of challenges and prejudices that us lads don't have to worry about, and it's a bad time to be a lady exec (or want to be one) in Australia.

Technology isn't always the life saver that some of us hoped it would be. Perhaps, I'm just getting old and don't have the same perspective as the young upstart just getting out of university, ready to taken on the corporate world. Or, perhaps I'm just someone who enjoys being accessible during the work day and not afterwards.

Simply translated, I'm not glad to see that mobile phones are outselling desk phones for the workplace.

Don't get me wrong, I love a mobile phone as much as the next guy. They're practical, they keep me entertained on the subway, and they can provide information almost instantly these days – especially if you've got a smartphone. However, there are some negatives involved. For example, the batteries tend to die quickly. The reception can be quite horrible, especially if you have thick walls in the office. They are easily lost or stolen.

However, the biggest reason that I don't want to have a mobile phone over a desk phone at the office is this: you're not getting my mobile number. See, my private life is mine to enjoy or to squander as I see fit. Since I have a private mobile phone, I can refuse my managers or colleagues the number when they get insistent.

When I have to use an office mobile phone, I can't justify refusing the number (if it isn't already shared in the company directory). This means that you are perpetually in the office and on call. Turn off the mobile, fine, and you're safe. However, perhaps your manager expects you to be easily accessible whenever, wherever.

However, cellular technology isn't a bad thing. Companies are quickly replacing standard phone systems with more modern VOIP-enabled mobile phones. This means chewing up bandwidth instead of phone bills. Long-distance and international calling become more easily accessible for companies, especially if they are trying to establish an international presence.

Keep an eye out on technology. While lots of it is excellent and truly enhances the quality of our lives, they can also open up other unintended cans of worms.

It's certainly no secret that the economy – regardless of where you live – has started to go to hell in a hand basket. Some of our readers may recall me discussing the effects of this downturn on office morale. Now an article calls to our attention another effect of the bad economy: an increasing number of violent acts at work.

Excuse me if I tend to question any ulterior motives by the poster in question, but I think this article does raise a valid point. The CEO of the company in question – which provides security services – mentions anecdotal evidence from law enforcement officials, but no real numbers to back up their claims.

While I'd be surprised to see that bomb threats were dramatically on the rise (though who knows, perhaps they are), it's easy to believe that office theft (from the company and other employees) is on the rise. It's also plausible that the stress of economic negatives (including layoffs or loss of benefits) could lead to an increase in spousal abuse.

While the author of this article suggests taking the necessary steps for your particular environment – read: hire me – that might not be the best answer. Hopefully, companies (especially small businesses) will see the value in being up-front and honest with their employees.

If times are hard, reassure them and help assuage their stress. No one likes being in the dark – especially with respect to their continued employment – so think about how a lack of communication can quickly make the workplace environment explosive.

Hot from Australia, here's a great, yet seemingly obvious, way to get more out of your people. Retrain, award, retain. This seems like it would have big benefits for both employers and employees alike. After all, if employees thought that they might have a real chance at advancement in their company, this might also boost their productivity and morale. Let's think about it.

In Australia, this has been bandied about as a solution to help companies weather the current economic conditions. Instead of having to worry about turnover and lost productivity while finding the right employee, why not make a known quantity (employee) the right employee? From an employer's perspective, it eliminates the risk of making a bad hire, it also helps reassure employees of their value to management, etc.

From an employee's perspective, it allows for greater flexibility. After all, it's only natural that one might get bored with their position, might want to assume greater responsibilities, or just try something new. Taking the time to train for a new position gains you new skills and an improved resume – above all, it helps you continue job continuity and to increase earning potential.

Whether or not Australian companies will heed experts' advice and adopt this plan is still unknown, but I think time will prove it to be an innovative solution to a serious problem.

I came across an interesting article this morning about alcoholics in the workplace; frankly, it made me re-think the issue and even change my point of view.

To be honest, my initial reaction was just to fire someone with an alcohol problem in the interest of workplace harmony and employees. But Adam Fuge's comments made me rethink the question: after all, don't employers need to find a balance between supporting an employee (including their personal problems that affect their performance in the workplace) and the overall health of the company?

Mr. Fuge also brings up important legal questions as to whether or not alcoholism or related conduct due to the illness constitutes a legitimate reason to sack an employee in the UK (where the story was written).

Obviously, in at-will employment areas - such as the United States - the answer is a resounding yes; there would be no impediment to firing. In the UK, however, such action could put the company in breach of contract.

On the other hand, failing to take action against such concerns could also land a company in hot water – and a lawsuit- brought my employees that feel ill-protected.

At the end of the day, I think the question that must be addressed is whether or not the employee's work performance and social courtesies are compromised in any way. If this is not the case, the company should work with the employee to keep him or her in line with job expectations. If not, perhaps it's time to solicit advice from counsel and look at protecting all parties' best interests.

Just in case some of you weren't worried enough about your jobs, did you happen to hear that in the US, workplace retirement plans have taken a hit to the tune of $2 trillion dollars? What's even scarier is that this figure is just about the last 15 months!

Let's face it, this is hardly surprising news - in light of all the crumbling banks and other financial institutions, Americans could hardly expect our retirement plans not to take a massive hit. For those of us in our 30s or 40s, we still have time before retirement to pray to the market deities and hope that we recoup our losses. However, for those who are facing retirement within the next couple of years, the future just got a little darker.

What does this mean? Well, for starters, it means that there are a whole lot of people who are going to have to rethink retirement plans and continue working.

For this population, will their companies continue to allow them to work at their current position and wage? Will these people be forced into a mandatory retirement and then have to start looking for work elsewhere? Will this mean that with fewer departures that there will be fewer promotions and fewer entry level positions that can be created?

Obviously, the answers to these questions remain to be seen. Indeed, we've yet to see the end of the tunnel with respect to the current market conditions. Maybe, as one expert in the aforementioned article suggests, it's time to call the 401k (which 60% of American workers rely as their primary retirement savings source) a "failed experiment." Maybe it's also time to rethink how we invest for our retirements.

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 ¥.