Or are they? According to new figures, they're all the rage.

We all had a feeling that the traditional notion of an “office” isn’t what it used to be, and now the latest from the U.S. Census Bureau confirms that more Americans than ever are working from home. In the last year that the government has figures for, 2005, the number of home-based workers jumped by almost two million, from 9.5 million in 1999 to 11.3 million in 2005. The report “Home Based Workers in the United States, 1999-2005” also shows that the number of people who worked exclusively from home jumped from 6.7 million to 8.1 million in that same period.

What this would seem to mean for employers is that workers are demanding more flexibility in their workplace. Among the top reasons cited in the 2005 census for reasons to work at home were “better child care arrangements,” “better arrangements for care of other family members” and “allows for school.”

But perhaps the biggest surprise is that it was most often a “requirement of the job” to work at home, according to 77 percent who did. Employers, it seems, want to redefine the workplace, too.

Another big surprise was the big incomes being pulled in by home-based workers: nearly half of them made $75,000 per year, or more. According to the bureau:

The most popular occupations among those who reported working at home were professional (25 percent), executive, administrative and managerial (22 percent) and sales (18 percent).

High-paying jobs were more likely to involve working at home for some or all of the work time. In 2005, 46 percent of people who said they worked at home some or all of the time earned at least $75,000 per year, compared with 34 percent of non-home workers who made at least that much. Those who worked both at home and in an office had the highest percentage of high-paying jobs — about 54 percent of whom made $75,000 or more annually in 2005.

But there was some trade-off: roughly a tenth of those who worked at home at least some of the time in 2005 said they worked 11 or more hours per day. Still, about a quarter of home-based workers felt they had flexibility in their work hours.

Chances are good that when the results from the 2010 census are in, those numbers will be even greater. Business Week noted that the number of people who are self-employed and working exclusively at home in 2005 increased from 3.47 million to 4.34 million , and they see this as further evidence that the so-called “homepreneur” trend .

In his first write-up on the phenomenon last year, John Tozzi said:

More than half of all U.S. businesses are based at home. These companies often are dismissed as quaint hobbyist ventures, but new research suggests that’s a mistake. An estimated 6.6 million home-based enterprises provide at least half of their owners’ household income. Together these “homepreneurs” employ one in 10 private-sector workers, and by many measures they’re just as competitive as their counterparts in commercial spaces.

With so many layoffs, will more and more workers pack it up and go home, and what kind of brain drain could that create for traditional businesses? Too early to say, maybe, but it’s clear that the definition of the American workforce is continuing to shift.

It’s official: we’re in for a long roller-coaster ride on the job market. After an unexpected drop in unemployment numbers, the government has released new figures that found the number of people filing for unemployment rising once again last week, to 473,000—a gain of 31,000.

The hope, of course, had been that we’d seen the worst of this recession, and that job numbers would steadily improve. The new info means layoffs aren’t slowing as fast as we might have hoped, but it doesn’t change the general consensus that the job picture is improving. The four-week average for new jobless claims dropped by 1,500 to 467,500, and that’s among the best numbers we’ve seen throughout his whole recession (keep in mind, the total of jobs lost is now believed to be around 8.4 million since the end of 2007).

But it’s going to be a long haul. With that in mind, Caroline M.L. Potter over at Yahoo has written a great article about “Super Staying Power” in the workplace.

Sometimes our culture is so focused on upward mobility that we forget about the importance of holding on to the job we have. Naturally, getting the best information possible out there to jobseekers is important, since generally they’re under much more pressure to make a job situation work. It’s also important for human resource professionals to keep up with the latest on how to keep employees happy and maintain an efficient, productive workplace. Even in this job market, there are way too many talented people looking for the Next Best Thing for anyone to rest on their laurels.

But what about employees keeping their bosses happy? In times like these, that’s more important than ever. Job security is at a premium right now. Potter quotes Jason Seiden, author of “Super Staying Power: What You Need to Become Valuable and Resilient at Work,” and the most interesting thing about the top points addressed in her article is that they’re not necessarily the common-sense arguments one might expect. In fact, they’re practically counter-intuitive.

For instance, it might seem obvious that if someone is not exactly clear on his or her work goals, the best thing to do would be to seek as much clarity as possible. But maybe not. According to point number two, “Don’t ask for clarity”:

Nobody seems to get enough feedback or direction these days, and if your workplace is in flux, as many are, you’ll probably get even less. Get over it, says Seiden. ‘When a worker asks for ‘all the details’ about a project, her boss is going to see a lack of critical thinking, a lack of being able to handle ambiguity.’ And, a lack of independence.

He urges professionals to create their own environments at work and resolve problems themselves, ‘whether your boss is a micromanager or not.’”

The other points addressed are “have confidence,” “use positive language” and “find passion where you are.” It’s all good advice, and in this shifting job market, a good reminder that staying focused on one’s present job situation can sometimes be priceless. Change is constant, and not always a bad thing by any means. But a strong showing in one’s current job performance can set up great things down the road.

Every time there’s an economic downturn, the debate over a shorter work week becomes a hot topic. It’s back again with a report from the New Economics Foundation which claims that cutting employee hours nearly in half can cure what ails the global economy. The British think tank’s “21 Hours” study begins with the assertion that:

A ‘normal’ working week of 21 hours could help to address a range of urgent, interlinked problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life.”

The report argues that the current work week is arbitrary, and that despite the reduction in paid hours, “experiments with shorter working hours suggest that they can be popular where conditions are stable and pay is favorable.”

In an interview  with the BBC, “21 Hours” co-author Anna Coote claims a radical rethinking of the work week would benefit both employers and workers, saying “we could even become better employees—less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive.” Meanwhile, the foundation’s policy director Andrew Simms went for the crowd-pleaser: “Hands up who wouldn’t like a four day weekend?”

Since the current recession began in 2008, human resource experts in the U.S. have been tossing around this same idea. The HR Hero ezine published a great article on the subject this month, which jumped off from the assertion by economist Dean Baker that even President Obama’s own economic team doesn’t believe his stimulus package can heal the job market anytime soon. With employers already worried about possible future layoffs, Claudia N. Lombardo writes, shorter workweeks offer an alternative, and she addresses some of the HR worries:

A big concern for employers, particularly in a failing economy, is whether shortening the workweek reduces productivity. Employers may wonder how their company will continue producing at the same level with a reduction in employee hours.

Interestingly enough, according to Aaron Newton, author of “The 4 Day Work Week: Working to Live, Not Living to Work,” a recent survey of more than 10,000 workers revealed that on average, people spend more than two hours each day on personal matters (e.g., surfing the Web or calling friends) while at work. That adds up to 10 hours a week. The study shows that a four-day workweek wouldn’t necessarily reduce production if the focus remains on work.”

Lombardo cites statistics from around the world to back up the argument that maximum time spent on the job does not necessarily equal maximum productivity. If France, with its 35-hour work week, and Norway, with a labor base that works 26 percent fewer hours per year than Americans do, can produce a greater gross domestic product per work hour than the U.S., doesn’t it follow that “face time” at the office may be overrated?

Maybe, but keep in mind that this debate has been going on for nearly a century in the United States. In fact, it was 1926 when Henry Ford famously predicted that “the short week is bound to come because without it the country will not be able to absorb its production and stay prosperous.”

But that major shift in the U.S. workplace never did come. The idea bubbles up every few years, and employers often seem ready to pull the trigger. In a 1997 U.S. News/Bozell survey, almost two-thirds of managers polled said shorter work hours would make workers more productive. But uncertainty on the part of both businesses and their employees has kept it from gaining traction in the mainstream.

It could be that the Great Recession forces a major rethinking in our basic notion of the work week. There are only so many creative alternatives to layoffs, and shorter hours at least offers a certain win-win situation. Last year, the New York Times reported that some employers were trying to save jobs by switching their employees to a 24-hour work week. The article quotes human resource experts and economic analysts, and basically suggests that a strategy of flexibility in these economic times will beat out “the layoff mentality”:

Kim S. Cameron, a professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, found in doing research that the more that companies opt for flexibility in downsizing, the better they fare when the economy turns around.

‘When firms can deliver the message that their employees are human resources, rather than human costs or liabilities, they see higher profitability, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction and employee loyalty over the long term,’ Professor Cameron said.”

Nobody likes a bad boss. Or do they? According to a new study, the answer is: maybe, if he or she gets results. According to “Perpetuating Abusive Supervision: Third Party Reactions to Abuse in the Workplace,” bosses who behave badly may be allowed to run amuck, depending on their productivity.

The effect a tantrum-prone supervisor can have on the employees taking the abuse has been looked at before, but this study by University of Iowa researchers is the first to examine how workers who weren’t specifically targeted react. Not surprisingly, one of their primary concerns is not becoming a target themselves. But, in an unexpected workplace take on “the ends justify the means,” participants in the study also showed a remarkable willingness to overlook the boss’ behavior.

In fact, the results hinted at a larger and rather shocking possibility: that managerial style has very little to do with a supervisor’s perceived effectiveness at all.

To gather their data, the researchers had a group of subjects read about a fictitious CEO that portrayed him either as a high performer or a low performer and as either a verbally abusive person or not abusive. When asked to rate the CEO, the subjects gave high marks to the productive high performing CEO no matter his management style. In contrast, the non-abusive but poorly performing CEO was given low marks as an executive, despite his likeability.

The researchers said this could have an impact on how companies evaluate employees because previous studies show that employees who feel they are abused are less productive. Since most organizations rate employees using some kind of third-party assessment — by a boss or co-worker, for instance — organizations that do not specifically have a system in place to assess a supervisor’s behavior may be allowing behavior that leads to lower productivity in the long term.

That last point is, of course, key for human resources professionals. What this study is saying, in effect, is that employee evaluations by their peers may not reveal everything we need to know about hostile workplaces.

The consequences for falling into a false sense of security can be dire. Just last month, ironically, the Conference Board released a report which found that job satisfaction in the U.S. is at its lowest level in two decades. To say this is a long-term trend may be a significant understatement, since the group’s first survey was taken in 1987. The 2009 results found 45 percent of U.S. workers satisfied with their job, a steep drop from 61 percent in 1987, and the lowest level in the history of the polling. There, was, unfortunately, no real upside:

The drop in job satisfaction between 1987 and 2009 covers all categories in the survey, from interest in work (down 18.9 percentage points) to job security (down 17.5 percentage points) and crosses all four of the key drivers of employee engagement: job design, organizational health, managerial quality, and extrinsic rewards.

‘Challenging and meaningful work is vitally important to engaging American workers,’ adds John Gibbons, program director of employee engagement research and services at The Conference Board. ‘Widespread job dissatisfaction negatively affects employee behavior and retention, which can impact enterprise-level success.’ In fact, 22 percent of respondents said they don’t expect to be in their current job in a year.

The conclusions to be drawn from the study aren’t pretty. While it’s tempting to say that this must be fallout from the recession, the trending over time suggests that there are core values at stake here. A healthy workplace—even in these challenging times—is more important than ever.

For quite some time now, it’s seemed like you can’t turn around without finding someone tweeting, re-tweeting, or updating their Facebook status. The reality of social media has sunk into every corner of our culture.

Every corner, apparently, except one: HR. It’s hard to believe that the workplace could be so slow to deal with the social networking phenomenon, but a new study reveals that 75 percent of employers say their business has no formal policy instructing employees on the appropriate use of social networking sites on the job.

The study, “Employer Perspectives on Social Networking,” is being released along with the report “Social Networks vs. Management: Harness the Power of Social Media,” and compiles data from 34,000 businesses in 35 countries.

Beginning in October 2009, these employers were asked four key questions:

• Does your organization have a formal policy regarding employee use of external social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn?
• In which of these areas has your policy been effective?
• In what two areas do you believe external social networks can provide the biggest boost to your organization in the future?
• Has your organization’s reputation ever been negatively affected as a result of employees’ use of social networking sites?

Three out of four employers reported their business had no policy governing social networking, and on top of that, another five percent couldn’t determine if such a policy existed or not!

The implications of these results are huge, for both businesses and workers. In a world where many people don’t think twice about regularly logging in to these sites, employers stand to lose a significant number of number of man-hours to shared Flickr streams and Ashton Kutcher’s latest posts.

In fact, 63 percent of employers who did have social networking policies in place reported that those policies improved productivity. More than a third also said their social-networking policies had helped to protect their company’s intellectual property and other proprietary information.

HR professionals should also consider that the lack of a policy can leave both managers and their employees feeling vulnerable. Many workers have already adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to social networking at work, and may think the lack of specific guidelines protects them from disciplinary action. Managers may be frustrated by a perceived lack of support when they think social networking is leading to a loss in productivity. This is one case where any policy may be better than nothing — only 2 percent felt that their company’s guidelines were not effective.

About two-thirds of the existing policies cover only restrictions on the use of social networking. However, the study also revealed that many employers feel this type of site, when properly regulated, has potential in the workplace, and that this upside should be considered when drafting a policy. Nearly 60 percent saw a bright future for social networking in their own business, believing it could be useful in building their brand (20%), improving collaboration and communication (19%), recruiting talent (15%), and hiring (13%).

According to MarketingVOX, there are even bigger possibilities — and pitfalls — for social networking in the corporate world:

“Social networks have become a goldmine of information for companies skilled in the art of connecting the dots - a little-noticed development that is beginning to concern companies. In many cases mining such information is completely legally. For example, one can examine public statements by company staffers - especially if they are inconsistent - that can point to new initiatives under way.

Bob Fox, head of a competitive intelligence program for Canadian entrepreneurs advises firms to monitor competitors’ comments in the media, on industry blogs, at conferences and, yes, on social networks like Twitter and Facebook.”

The study concludes that, in general, employers are taking a “wait and see” attitude toward social networking. That may be true, but “wait” is a word that doesn’t mean much in the 24/7 culture of social networking,

Sometimes a small change can mean big change for the employment market. That’s what analysts are saying about the January unemployment numbers released last Friday by the Department of Labor.

Is the news all good for jobseekers? No, but it’s much better than anyone expected. Consider this: After losing 150,000 jobs in December, the U.S. economy lost only 20,000 jobs last month, a small statistical change that could signal much bigger things—most notably, that after a string of brutal jobs reports, the worst may be over. After revising its numbers from the end of last year, the Labor Department determined that unemployment fell to 9.7 percent last month from 10 percent.

Job-market watchers have jumped all over the unexpected good news. On the White House blog, Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer wrote that “while unemployment remains a severe problem, today’s employment report contains encouraging signs of gradual labor market healing.”

Employment did rise in a few areas, including retail trade and temporary help employment, as well as manufacturing. The results of the Labor Department’s survey of households showed that 541,000 more Americans had work in January. But Romer’s choice of words may be an even bigger indicator in itself, as it marks the first time anyone analyzing the labor market has really talked about “healing” for the jobs outlook. Could the jobless recovery finally be getting back its jobs?

There are several caveats, of course. First of all, as Romer herself notes, the DOL’s revised numbers revealed that more than a million more jobs than previously thought have been lost in this recession. The new numbers suggest 8.4 million jobs have been lost in this recession, and it will likely take several years for all of those jobs to be restored to the economy.

But let’s look at that in a different light. Economic analysts believe we could add as many as 1.5 million jobs to the U.S. economy this year. For proof that 2010 is beginning to show signs of an improved outlook, look no further than CNN/Fortune’s new list of the best companies to work for in 2010. Out of those, almost a quarter have at least 500 openings each, which equals almost 88,000 jobs. In other words, Fortune’s top companies are hiring.

The top rankings this year, by the way, went to:

1. SAS
2. Edward Jones
3. Wegmans
4. Google
5. Nugget Market
6. DreamWorks Animation
7. NetApp
8. Boston Consulting Group
9. Qualcomm
10. Camden Property Trust

To some degree, this year’s list of top companies is just a reshuffling of last year’s, but it’s interesting to consider who moved and who didn’t. North-Carolina-based software firm SAS jumped all the way from #20 to #1, while Edward Jones remained at #2 and Google held at #4. Camden Property Trust made the biggest upward move in the top 10, from #41 to #10. Meanwhile, Cisco Systems, Genentech and Goldman Sachs all fell out of the top 10.

Unlike 2009’s list, not all of the top 10 companies had positive job growth this year, and the upticks were generally small in any case.

However, judging from what the companies are saying about their hiring for this year — and all of those openings — expect that to change on next year’s list.

Affiliated Computer Services, a Fortune 500 company and global leader in business process outsourcing and information technology services, has introduced a new service offering, ACS Transition Services - Powered by RiseSmart.

Said Mark Squiers, executive managing director of ACS Human Resources Outsourcing services, in the company’s press release:

This is a new model for transition services, one that is geared to providing strong returns for both employers and employees. By eliminating costly traditional services like office space and group seminars, which have been found to be of low value to employees, the focus is on aggressively helping workers find a new job. Valuable services such as professional resume writing and personalized support for individuals remain, while companies have the ability to quickly deploy the additional services without dealing with infrastructure issues.

We are delighted to partner with ACS as we continue to transform the way outplacement works, both for employees and employers.

I don’t generally think of myself as a movie reviewer, but my critique of “Up in the Air” — written, of course, from my perspective as the CEO of an outplacement firm — has gotten some attention, first in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and then in the online Wall Street Journal.

Wrote the Journal’s Josh Beckerman of our press release on the movie (which this week was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture):

Best of all is RiseSmart’s debunking of the theory that “laid-off workers can be mollified with generic pep talks.” The company invokes Clooney’s line that “anyone who ever built an empire or changed the world sat where you are sitting, and it’s because they sat there that they were able to do it.”

RiseSmart says “the thought that this kind of condescending pep talk would ‘work’ on people is insulting to those who have actually had to go through this experience.” Right on. The downsizing victims in the movie are too easily impressed - the cynical J.K. Simmons character is rapidly persuaded about the merits of opening a restaurant during the credit crunch, and there’s a queasy suggestion that layoffs are okay because you get to spend more time with your family.

Since Hollywood doesn’t make many movies about HR consultants, my 15 minutes of fame as a film critic is probably over. So Roger Ebert, don’t quit your day job.

But I would like to add one more point about the movie, which I’ve come to upon reflection. The unflattering treatment of HR consultants in “Up in the Air” might normally be dismissed as standard Hollywood storytelling. But the movie’s popularity and Oscar nod suggest it has struck a chord of authenticity with audiences.

Why so? I think it’s at least partly because hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers who have been laid-off in recent years have been less than pleased with the quality — and the results — of the help they have received from traditional outplacement firms. It’s the real story of old-school outplacement, which the Wall Street Journal told a few months back.

So ironically, for all its inaccuracies, “Up in the Air” points to the reason I started RiseSmart Transition Concierge in the first place — to make outplacement services more accountable to both displaced workers and their employers, by getting employees back to work sooner.