Twitter.

For those who don’t know, Twitter is a social networking site that lets users post short updates about what they’re currently doing or thinking. Naturally, work is a common topic.

But poking around the site shows many users don’t understand that what they say can be read by not only friends and colleagues, but also bosses and HR. Updates range from the simple “goofing off at work” to more serious admissions.

Here are some examples of most ridiculous workplace Twitter gaffes, according to the online resume service ResumeBear:

1. “I used a new Autosend email feature last night on my boss. Completely fooled him! He called me this a.m. to thank me for working so late!”
2. “I’ve been sleeping with my boss for years and haven’t gotten a promotion yet. It’s not worth it.”
3. “I am currently trying to decide which disease to fake so I can leave work early.”
4. “Work was crappy today, my boss is a stupid idiot.”
5. “I lied about being sick on Friday, now I really am sick.”
6. “I hate the fact that they have Twitter blocked at my job … Gotta do it from my phone.”

What would happen if a manager at your company found a quote like those on an employee’s Twitter page? Is it grounds for firing? Or should the boss look the other way? Let us know in the comments section below.

But when the executive is the newly appointed head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence agency, there’s even more reason to be concerned.

Pictures on Facebook show John Sawers on a family vacation posing with his children, wearing a Santa hat, and playing Frisbee on the beach. Of most concern to officials though, were the details about the couple’s three children and the location of their London home.

Some authorities said this kind of exposure borders on “reckless”, while others have taken a much more laidback approach, the Associated Press reports.

“It’s not a state secret that he wears Speedo swimming trunks. For goodness’ sake, let’s grow up,” said one official.

Has any member of your company’s upper management team put embarrassing or personal info online? Would you take any action if they did?

The Associated Press reports that members of New Zealand’s national airline cabin crew have come up with a fresh though cheeky video of in-flight safety for their customers. Shedding traditional clothes in exchange for nothing but painted-on uniforms, three cabin staff and a pilot talk viewers through the aircraft’s safety procedures. But don’t worry, the crew’s more sensitive areas are well concealed behind a demonstration seat belt, life jacket and arm rests.

The “Bare Essentials of Safety” has been a major hit among passengers, as well as online viewers. The video had 1.2 million YouTube hits within four days of its launch.

With such popularity, the same idea is also being used in a series of television advertisements for the airline, one featuring the chief executive in nothing but full body paint.

With everyone walking on eggshells about the economy, it pays to be the company that makes people smile.

Ryan Pacifico, a former junior foreign-exchange trader on Wall Street, is suing French financial firm Calyon in the Americas for terminating him over personal preferences. Pacifico, who was hired by the company in 2005, claims that he was endlessly mocked by his boss for avoiding meat and wearing tight shorts during triathlons.

He admitted that from day one, the “trading floor was certainly a manly man’s world.” Pacifico went on to say that he “never expected someone to think it’s gay to be a vegetarian or to constantly poke fun” at him. He was eventually terminated from his position because of concerns over his job performance, but specifics were never made clear to Pacifico.

His suit is aimed directly at former manager Robert Catalanello, who is accused of saying “it’s [Pacifico's] fault for being a vegetarian homo,” according to the lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Now, there are no federal or state laws protect vegetarians from adverse employment actions. But Pacifico could have a case for sex discrimination if he can prove he was fired not living up to his boss’s male stereotype.

We’ll keep you posted.

Staffing firm OfficeTeam recently asked recruiters and hiring managers about the strangest things they’ve seen interviewees do.

Our personal favorite was the guy who performed well in the interview — but on his way out, he walked right through a glass door, shattering it.

Some of the other highlights:

• One candidate took a personal approach and repeatedly addressed the interviewer by first name — too bad it was the wrong one.
• Another realized halfway through the interview he was applying for the wrong position. He unsuccessfully tried to convince the company he was right for that job, too.
• One particularly dedicated candidate was told he didn’t get the job — and then showed up to work the next day.

What strange behavior have you encountered? Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Bobby Brown was employed by a Jiffy Lube in Massachusetts. He worked on vehicles and doubled as a salesperson, greeter and cashier.

The Jiffy Lube franchise owner brought in a consultant to determine how to improve business.

Among the recommendations was that the shop institute a grooming policy for its employees who had customer contact.

The policy stated, “customer-contact employees are expected to be clean-shaven with no facial hair … hair should be clean, combed, and neatly trimmed or arranged. Radical departures from conventional dress or personal grooming and hygiene standards are not permitted.”

Brown is a Rastafarian, a religion he had adhered to for ten years. The religion does not permit him to shave or cut his hair.

The employee told the Jiffy Lube’s manager that he wanted to maintain customer contact without having to shave or cut his hair.

The manager told him if he didn’t comply with the new grooming policy, he’d only be allowed to work in the lower bay and could not have customer contact.

Undue hardship?

In response to his lawsuit, the Jiffy Lube argued that allowing an exemption to its grooming policy would be an undue hardship because it had a right to control its public image.

In a deposition, the owner presented evidence that sales increased after the grooming policy went into effect.

However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said the evidence was insufficient to show increased profitability was caused by the policy, so Jiffy Lube did not prove it had an undue hardship.

The court remanded the case back to a lower court to determine whether assigning Brown to the lower bay where he’d have no customer contact was a reasonable accommodation.

Religious appearance requirements may include hair, yarmulkes, veils and even the mark on the forehead that denotes Ash Wednesday. What do you think about this case and the potential conflict between workplace grooming rules and religious freedom? Let us know via the Comments Box below.

Brown v. F.L. Roberts & Co., Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, No. 10155, 12/2/08. You can click here to download the court’s decision.

So the outrage over AIG, Inc., spending $440,000 on a retreat for its executives while it was tapping into an $85 billion bankruptcy bailout loan from the federal government shouldn’t come as a surprise.

The retreat came to light this week at a Congressional hearing that revealed findings of an investigation into AIG’s meltdown.

Rep. Henry Waxman said the executives spent $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa at the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, CA.

Bonuses OK’d despite big losses

The $440,000 expenditure seems like a drop in the bucket compared to executive’s compensation packages which were also revealed at the hearing.

Documents from AIG show as the company’s risky investments were imploding, executives’ pay plans were altered to pay out regardless of losses.

AIG lost more than $5 billion in the last quarter of 2007. When the company’s compensation committee met in March 2008 to award bonuses, CEO Martin Sullivan urged that those losses not be considered. Including the losses in calculations would have slashed executives’ bonuses.

The board agreed to ignore the losses from the financial products division and gave Sullivan a cash bonus of more than $5 million. Sullivan also got a new compensation contract with a $15 million golden parachute.

Sullivan countered that he was mainly concerned with helping other senior executives.

The hearing also showed that AIG executives hid the full impact of its risky financial products from outside and inside auditors.

Of course, there are obvious financial management lessons to be learned by the AIG story. But what about an employee morale angle? How do employees feel when company executives are treated to multi-million dollar salaries, bonuses, and special perks? Does it hurt morale, or are these compensation packages for executives easily explained because of their responsibilities? Let us know your thoughts in the Comments Box below.

It really happened. And it wasn’t just any employer — it was Microsoft.

The software giant attempted to recoup some severance money from 25 recently fired workers it mistakenly overpaid.

The employees received a letter which said, “This letter is to inform you that an inadvertent administrative error occurred that resulted in an overpayment in severance pay by Microsoft. We ask that you repay the overpayment and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience to you.”

There’s no word on the amount of the overpayments.

On second thought …

A scanned copy of such a letter first appeared on the Web site TechCrunch. After that — well, you know how things spread on the Web.

Shortly thereafter, Microsoft announced it had made a mistake.

“We should have handled this situation in a more thoughtful manner,” an e-mailed statement said. Microsoft “will not seek any payment from those individuals.”

Microsoft had laid off a total of 1,400 employees, the first of 5,000 planned layoffs.

As usual with these types of stories, Microsoft has refused to give any more details — so that’s all there is.

But, we’ll pose some questions anyway: Was it correct for Microsoft to ask for the overpayments back in the first place? Would it matter if the amounts were $10, $100 or $1,000? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Curlee was an administrative worker at Kootenai County Fire and Rescue (KCFR) in Idaho. She thought two of her co-workers wasted too much time on personal conversations and brought the matter to various supervisors.

Curlee claims two supervisors told her to document her co-workers’ behavior that she believed to be wasteful.

For several months, Curlee hand wrote a detailed, minute-by-minute log of what the two co-workers did.

One day, while filling in for Curlee, one of the co-workers found her log and also showed it to the third co-worker.

Curlee often referred to her two co-workers as “Buffy” and “Muffy” in the log. Both women thought the nicknames were derogatory and insulting, and spoke to the Fire Chief about the log.

When the chief discussed the situation with Curlee, she said she would never be able to have a good working relationship with the other two women and that she wouldn’t apologize to them. Curlee was fired.

Is she a protected whistleblower?

Curlee sued KCFR, alleging she was wrongfully terminated in violation of the Idaho Protection of Public Employees Act, commonly referred to as the whistleblower act, for documenting a waste of public funds.

KCFR denied the allegations and moved to have the case thrown out.

The stated purpose of the whistleblower act is to “protect the integrity of government by providing a legal cause of action for public employees who experience adverse action from their employer as a result of reporting waste and violations of a law, rule or regulation.”

Given that, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that there are genuine questions of whether Curlee was fired for conduct protected under the whistleblower law. It refused to throw out the case. The high court said a jury should now determine whether her employer discharged her in retaliation for her documentation of waste.

Should someone who kept minute-by-minute logs of her co-workers’ actions be protected by a whistleblower statute? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.