Irritable Desk Syndrome

Researchers have come up with a new affliction to add to the list of woes endured by the modern office worker - Irritable Desk Syndrome.

Poor posture, cluttered desks and hours spent working on the computer can damaging the health of office staff, according to research carried out for NEC-Mitsubishi.

The problem is exacerbated by the length of time people spend at their desks - two thirds of those questioned said that they are more tied to their desks now than they were two years ago.

As a result, more than a third of office workers said they suffered from back or neck pain because of sitting at their desk in an awkward position.

One in three also said that they now ate lunch at their desk, a habit which, as we reported last week, brings its own health hazards since the average desk plays host to 400 times more germs than a lavatory seat.

"Extra desk-time coupled with more paper and clutter, poor desk set-up, bad eating habits and fewer breaks is creating a new threat to productive office-life in the form of Irritable Desk Syndrome," the research claimed.

Pete's Points

Published in 2004 it is amazing that nothing really much has been heard about this research or indeed the consequences for both employees and employers resulting from spending even longer hours at work

Amazingly in June 2006 the following was also published by Nic Paton:

Working from home may have become almost a mainstream activity in today's modern workplace but, increasingly, workers are also taking their home into work, according to a new British survey.

For time poor, commute heavy workers the notion of "home-ing from work" is becoming more attractive and commonplace, argued the research by recruitment agency Office Angels.

Lack of time, traffic clogged commuter journeys and hectic workloads are the main reasons why tasks traditionally completed at home are increasingly encroaching on the work environment, it said.

From showering and putting on make-up to paying household bills and sorting out our social life, it seems the office is a home away from home more than ever before.

The poll of 1,600 workers found that nearly three quarters of women hoarded a stash of make-up in their desk drawer, while a third did not hesitate to put it on in front of colleagues.

More than a quarter regularly applied their mascara en route to work – either on the train, tube or even in the driver's seat.

More than six out of 10 women and nearly a third of men keep a mini-wardrobe at work – with formal suits on stand-by for unexpected meetings, and for women, an average of two pairs of shoes kept under the desk.

A total of eight per cent shower in the office before they start the working day, while 22 per cent do a regular "office shop" each week – stocking up on breakfast cereals and sandwich ingredients.

A third only keep in touch with friends during work time, using email to organise their social lives.

A further quarter admit to relying on instant messenger for a daily natter with absent friends or family.

From arranging a haircut, to booking the car in for its MOT, 87 per workers use work-time to sort out personal chores, concluded Office Angels.

Paul Jacobs, Office Angels managing director, said: "People tend to enjoy work more when they're allowed to bring a touch of their personal life into their office space, but it's essential employers get the balance right when it comes to setting ground rules about the encroachment of home into the workplace.

"Too many home comforts can create a 'schizophrenic' office, provoking tension amongst colleagues who prefer a more defined working environment," he added.

This was a point backed up by the research, which highlighted problem areas where employees were getting a little too relaxed.

Nearly seven out of ten workers admitted to having been irritated by a neighbouring colleague's annoying 'home-ing' habits.

These included visiting children or pets in the workplace (18 per cent), loud or embarrassing personal phone conversations (45 per cent), festering gym kits left under desks (16 per cent) and being choked by deodorant or overpowering perfume (9 per cent).

Jacobs said: "While it's important people are comfortable in the office environment, it should never be at the expense of fellow colleagues.

"Like anything, apply a bit of common sense before you start importing the contents of your bathroom to office loo," he added.

Add to this the reality that is John Howard's new set of IR policies and you have a recipe where the Treasurer's injunction to workers to have children - "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" becomes a recipe for a highly dangerous new life of virtual slavery to the new gods of money and productivity.

How long will people put up with all of this and when will they realise that they are shortening their life? Of course when they do realise what it really means to them what can or will they do about it?

Sometimes I think it is a good thing to be retired and ill. At least these are issues that I will no longer have to confront.

Aussie Victory

I suspect that for most people in Australia there was simply no way in which "Boston Legal" could compete with the first outing by the Australian Socceroos in their match against Japan.

Certainly this was the case here in my home. After the first goal scored by Japan (which I have to say I still think was due to a poor decision by the referee) it was almost painful to watch the Australian team until the last ten minutes of the game. In my case it was actually painful, but for reasons unassociated with the match.

The last 8 minutes were almost literally heart stopping. My partner kept making little cries of surprise and joy as each Australian goal registered. She had once again woken after telling me that she simply had to get some sleep so as to be able to function in the morning. No hope of that I am afraid once Cahill nailed that first goal.

I have been watching the matches of the other countries and have to say that I am pleasantly surprised and delighted by the level of skill, talent and determination of the members of the team. Frankly my mind went back to the 1950s when I first arrived in Australia and to the memories of the under 16 school boy's team where I participated in the schoolboy championships with my school. I kept thinking of the ridicule that I and others like me suffered because we were the people who played the Wog game and were not interested in learning rugby union or league. I am glad that we persisted.

Memories are nice - but these new ones are even nicer.

I was at my very best an insignificant even mediocre soccer player. However, I enjoyed the training and the games I played in. Watching those with real talent is a complete buzz. I still recall as one of the best memories of my life as a small child, kicking a goal against the then world champion goalie, Grosz, on Margaret Island in Budapest in the 1950's. It was a put up job of course, but what a sense of purpose and accomplishment it gave me. Coming to Australia only fostered that sense and enabled me to participate in however a limited way in a sport that I am delighted to say I have always enjoyed.

Half a century - amazing!

Congratulations socceroos - congratulations Guus and above all congratulations to all those people who have devoted a lifetime of effort to bring this game into Australia.

Death of a Terrorist

It is almost impossible to feel any sorrow or regret when it is announced that someone who has committed the sort of atrocities that are attributed to the chief terrorist in Iraq, has died.

Yet there is something that just does not feel right whenever I hear the news or listen the posturing of the world leaders who have been paraded across the screens of our media exhorting the death of this terrible person.

I am not sure what it is that causes me so much concern.

When I reflect on my issues I keep coming up with a picture of the old west as it has been portrayed by American movies and the sight of a "‘wanted dead or alive"’ poster is what springs to mind.

In todayÂ’s society I suppose we still have bounties that are placed on the head of people in every country including Australia. You can go to any police station and see posters that offer a reward for information about the whereabouts of individuals. However I have not seen the posters that promise a financial reward placed on the head of an individual whether it is alive or dead. That surely happens only in the movies.

Well, perhaps not any more.

The high school drop out who became the blatant terrorist and killer that led the insurgency in Iraq had a 300 million dollar bounty on his head. Dead or Alive. He apparently came from Jordan and I am sure we will discover in the days to come how his early life experiences influenced his rise to become a terrorist and fight for his beliefs, however mistaken some will feel these might have been.

The fact that he kidnapped innocent people and publicly executed them by means of a televised beheading is surely one of the more revolting and inexcusable crimes that one can imagine. So why is it that I feel such unease at what has happened? Why is it that I feel so squeamish about two F 16 aircraft being targeted to bomb him and his cohorts out of existence?

On the one hand anyone who engages in the sort of barbaric acts that are attributed to the terrorists in Iraq should not be permitted to continue to perform further such acts and if they are killed I guess I am not one who will mourn their demise.

On the other hand . . ..

Someone, no doubt, got rich identifying the hiding place of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. When they were captured they were put on trial and are going through due process as we speak. Of course I am aware that when the war on Iraq commenced the first act of the war was a strike by US aircraft attempting to take out the leadership of Iraq. So there is some precedent for all of this.

In this case though there was no attempt made at capturing this individual so that he could face trial for what were undoubtedly heinous crimes. Instead, two F 16's with appropriate super accurate bombs on board were targeted to take out an entire building in which it was known he was and not only took him out, but also any sundry associates.

Looked at from one angle, —it was a military strike at the leadership of the opposing commander of a warlike group and it was successful. Similar strikes have been initiated by countries at war in the past and have been considered legitimate. One only has to see the strike on Erwin Rommel in the 2nd World War as an example.

So why do I feel squeamish about this strike?

I suspect that it is because those of us who are supposedly part of the civilized world are having to resort to the same level of behaviour that is being used by the terrorists. We are willing to hand out summary justice to someone who is a criminal and use all of the forces of the most powerful nation on the face of the planet to do so.

We do not try and arrest the man and try him we just go in and bomb him to hell and beyond regardless of what I am sure will be called '‘collateral damage'’, along the way.

Somehow I have this vision that in the future it might also be considered OK for a very rich person to offer a bounty on the head of someone he dislikes and thereby initiate a search and destroy mission that will eliminate the person in question. To go from the sublime to the ridiculous I can see a sort of '‘pay as you go'’ military where for a 'fee'’ you can engage to have an F 16 deliver your payload to eliminate anyone you deem fit.

The question is whether or not the principles are right or not. Once we agree that it is OK to do this to one person then how do we set the limits as to when it is OK and when it is not?

I honestly do not know the answer to this question and I suspect that we have some difference between what happens in a war and what happens in a normal civil society in which policing is more appropriate. What is Iraq and what are the terrorists? Are they and the civilian populations in which they operate part of a war zone or are they part of a civil society?

I am happy for others to comment on my sense of unease.

You have to be kidding!

ABC News Online - Home: "Nicole Kidman has allegedly banned fiance Keith Urban from having sex with her until their wedding night."

Pete's Points

I always knew that there was a reason for Nicole's surname - she is kidding her man - obviously!