Common sense tells us that, in an industry where there is no uniformity of administrative structure, job titles for previous positions on a resume should be irrelevant. But we find that as law firms review candidate resumes they routinely gravitate to the people who have more impressive titles. For example, firms will frequently short list resumes with the title “CFO,” while passing on a candidate with the title “Director of Finance,” even if both have identical qualifications. This is most true for finance and HR positions; less true for general administrative and IT positions. But, as a general rule, the title “Chief” trumps “Director” and both beat “Manager.” Having the word “Coordinator” in the title is the kiss of death in resume sorts. There appears to be very little difference between “COO” and “Executive Director” but titles with the word “Administrator” in them are often passed over for principal administrator positions.

Employee dissatisfaction with employer offered health care benefits reached an all-time low this year. According to the annual Emerging Workforce Study by Spherion Corporation, only 34% of workers are satisfied with their health care coverage. Unresponsiveness of insurance companies and raising co-pays are commonly expressed areas of concern. 

But, at the same time, 78% of workers view health care coverage, including medical reimbursement plans, are the most important retention tool that employers have. The main draw seems to be a fear of a waiting period or loss of coverage for existing conditions with a new employer.

Law firms and other sophisticated employers are the target of a new e-mail threat. Two weeks ago, the EEOC reported that they have begun to receive complaints from HR Departments about emails that include the EEOC logo with the subject line “Employer Liability for Harassment.” The emails show a legitimate “From” address of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and reads in part:

“This is an automated e-mail that confirms the registration of harassment complaint #_____. This harassment complaint can lead to law enforcement action. You can download and print a copy of this complaint to keep for your personal records here______. Our staff will keep you updated regarding the status of our investigation…To check the status of your complaint access:_______”

By downloading the “complaint” the recipient plants a Trojan Horse virus. The emails are specifically targeted to HR staff members, typically at a level below the Director or CHRO. Firms receiving this email should contact the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (U.S. Cert), the agency responsible for coordinating computer threats involving federal agencies.

This is similar to a virus earlier this year being circulated by bogus emails claiming to come from the IRS. This difference is that the EEOC email is designed to attack enterprise applications.

There are several bills on Capitol Hill designed to provide leave time for families of wounded U.S. soldiers. It is believed likely that some level of expansion of the act to cover military situations will be approved.   California, on the other hand, last month approved a requirement that spouses of a member of the Armed Forces, who is home on leave from a scene of military conflict, may take up to 10 days leave. The act took effect immediately upon Governor Schwarzenegger’s signature on October 9th. Several states are in the process of approving similar legislation.

We did a brief telephone survey of large law firms and found that about half of the firms contacted have provided paid or partially paid time off for spouses of armed forces members on leave. None of the firms we talked to have had occasion to deal with the issue of a severely wounded soldier, but most hypothetically anticipated that the firm would at a minimum provide the employee with appropriate amounts of time off.

The biggest problem with effective implementation of diversity programs is the failure to gain commitment from top management, according to a recent survey by Novations Group. The survey indicates that an overwhelming majority of businesses state that they generally accept the importance of diversity and believe a business case can be made for its aggressive implementation. However, 48 percent of chief executives and business leaders surveyed admitted that they only give lip service to the importance of diversity or don’t believe in it.