In evaluating staff, especially when dealing with secretaries and assistants who may only work for a few people, it is difficult to maintain consistency among evaluations. A mediocre secretary may receive rave reviews from one lawyer while a superstar may work for a “tough grader” and be strongly underrated. Most senior HR managers understand the necessity of reviewing evaluations to assure a reasonable level of consistency but, especially in large firms or where evaluations are performed on anniversary dates, doing more than a cursory overview is difficult. 

One technique that large firm Administrators and CHRO’s are finding helpful is to put evaluations in an Excel spreadsheet to compare evaluations of certain qualities by employee and evaluator across the firm. In some firms the data is even compared on a multi-year basis. This provides HR managers with a useful tool to demonstrate the halo effect or overly stringent evaluators. It also points to specific problem areas where there is a consistency of low evaluations on a specific trait.  

A couple of months ago we wrote on the problems of maintaining appropriate office decorum with relaxed dress codes during summer months. We heard from a number of firms with policies on the topic. The one aspect of dress policies that the firm’s found functional and were pleased with was the use of examples of appropriate and inappropriate dress. For example, one responding firm uses the following:

 

Appropriate Dress: casual slacks, pants and capri pants (ankle-length capris with no beads, fringe or ties. Casual shirts and blouses. Jumpers, casual dresses, skirts, sweaters, blazers and sport coats. Casual shoes (loafers and dressy open-toe shoes).

Inappropriate Dress: Denim jeans, skirts or jumpers (regardless of color). Nylon jogging suits, leggings or stirrup/lycra pants or to the ankle tights. Shorts or clam diggers. Hiking boots, athletic shoes, flip-flops. Sweatsuits or sweatshirts. T-shirts and apparel with logos, messages or slogans.   Tank tops, halter tops or bare midriffs. Strapless or spaghetti-strap dresses.

 

We also had two firms recommend the book Casual Power by Sherry Maysonave.

As law firms attempt to slim down their employment costs, there have been debates over the value of various employee benefits in attracting and retaining staff. A recent survey by Randstad Work Watch gives us some insights into what employee’s value. 

Some of the responses were as expected. Among the most desired features of the perfect job were “good pay” (81%), “interesting, challenging work” (66%), “health insurance” (65%), and five weeks vacation” (81%).   There were also some popular surprises: “free lunch” (56%) and “lifetime gym membership” (40%). On the other hand, job attributes with surprisingly low ratings included: “working for a company with a strong corporate social responsibility platform” and “working for a green employer.” Neither were “concierge benefits,” “location flexibility or telecommuting,” or “sabbaticals.”

This is the first such survey since the economic downturn and the benefit that seems to have slid the most since prior surveys is the value placed on employer provided childcare.

In the past couple of weeks we have received a number of questions about what law firms do about Halloween costumes at work. We checked with several law firms and found none had specific policies. Several firms “made it known” that simple costumes that did not interfere with office duties would be acceptable but full costumes such as what one would wear to a Halloween party were not. Several firms found from past years that they had to be more specific about revealing costumes such as French maids, naughty nurses or Elvira. Although no firms seem to have a policy about it, the biggest concern we heard regarded politically incorrect costumes (political masks, pedophile priests, illegal aliens). Some experts recommend erring in favor of sensitivity, especially for firms who have undergone recent layoffs. An example of an employee, who wore a pink slip over her clothing and chased co-workers around a couple of years ago, might cause offense this year.

We would be fascinated to hear about your office Halloween experiences this year.

Last May we asked firms what actions they were planning for a threatened pandemic. Less than half the firms we talked to were planning to take any action (which was consistent with national employer surveys we have seen). Now we are finding firms are actively involved in attempting to reduce the spread of the H1N1 virus.   Without exception, every large law firm we have talked to about Swine Flu has a formal plan for coping with large scale sickness of employees and has introduced protective programs. In smaller firms the rate of plans and programs is much closer to half.

Overall, the expected cost of employer paid health insurance is anticipated to increase 7 percent for 2010 according to a survey by benefit consultants, Tower Perrin. The average cost for employees only will be $5,124, employee plus one will be $10,500 and employee plus dependents will be $15,084. Annual employee premium contributions will increase by almost 10% in 2010. By comparison, the increase in employee contribution in 2009 (which was then a record increase) was 8%. Employers continue to pay, on average, 78% of medical costs but the employees’ increase comes from higher co-payments and out-of-pocket limitations.