Trends: Marriage Education Logic \Divorce and Dads \ Office Romance Contracts - 2/26/08

[Smartmarriages]

- A TREND WE WANT TO EXTEND INTO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION
- CUT-OFF: DIVORCE AND DADS
- MATING TRENDS: OFFICE ROMANCE CONTRACTS

#######################
- A TREND WE WANT TO EXTEND INTO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION

Come January 2009 one thing is certain, we will have a change in
administrations.  I'm sharing this as a reminder of one trend we'd like to
see carried through to the next four years. Here's how President Bush
presented it six years ago today, Feb 26, at a small church, St Luke's, in
Washington.  It's a good reminder of the work ahead - getting the
marriage-education LOGIC to whomever....  I'd sure like to see it show up in
a few speeches or debates. If any of you have an inside track, I hope you
can get the LOGIC of our preventative, cost-effective Marriage Education
message to your candidate.

    - diane 

> THE PRESIDENT: At the heart of all these proposals is a single commitment to
> return an ethic of work to an important place in all American lives. Secondly,
> we will work to strengthen marriage. As we reduce welfare case loads, we must
> improve the lives of children. And the most effective, direct way to improve
> the lives of children is to encourage the stability of American families.
> (Applause.)

> Across America, no doubt about it, single mothers do heroic work. They have
> the toughest job in our country. Raising children by themselves is an
> incredibly hard job. In many cases, their lives and their children lives would
> be better if their fathers had lived up to their responsibilities. (Applause.)

> Statistics tell us that children from two parent families are less likely to
> end up in poverty, drop out of school, become addicted to drugs, have a child
> out of wedlock, suffer abuse or become a violent criminal and end up in
> prison. Building and preserving families are not always possible, I recognize
> that. But they should always be our goal.

> So my administration will give unprecedented support to strengthening
> marriages. (Applause.) Many good programs help couples who want to get married
> and stay married. (Applause.) Isn't that right? We just talked about one such
> program. Premarital education programs can increase happiness in marriage and
> reduce divorce by teaching couples how to resolve conflict, how to improve
> communication and, most importantly, how to treat each other with respect.
> (Applause.) 

#####################
- DIVORCE AND DADS 

Study finds divorce divides dads from kids
Blog.nj.com 
Peggy O'Crowley 
February 25, 2008 

Most teenagers distance themselves from their parents, but after a divorce
that chasm is much wider between fathers and children.

A new study by researchers at Penn State University looked at interviews of
high school students at the beginning and end of a five-year period. They
compared responses of those teens whose parents were married to those whose
parents had split up during that time.

During the first interview, 71 percent of the youth reported being close to
their mothers and 57 percent said they were close to their fathers. Five
years later, 48 percent of the teens whose parents were still married said
they were close to their fathers. Among the teens whose parents had split,
only a quarter reported a close relationship with Dad.

There was no difference in the closeness to moms among kids whose parents
were together and those who divorced, according to the study, published in
the Journal of Marriage and Family.

The authors suggested the difference was because fathers were more likely to
be physically separated from their kids after divorce and often already were
not as close to the children during the marriage.

###############

- MATING TRENDS: OFFICE ROMANCE CONTRACTS

This article is right on target ­ on the one hand. As the age of marriage
increases, couples will more likely meet and court in the workplace (rather
than in high school or college). There have even been suggestions by highly
regarded sociologists that the workplace SHOULD recognize this reality and
this need, reverse non-office/workplace romance policies, and actually
encourage and facilitate such hook-ups.  However, on the other hand, this
article ignores the disturbing fact that the workplace is the incubator for
most extra-marital affairs.  I've heard from countless people who wanted to
sue their spouse's employer for policies that they felt contributed directly
to the slippery slope ­ sending opposite sex colleagues on out of town trips
- traveling together and staying at the same hotel; requiring that sales
teams travel to exotic resorts and cruises for team-building rallies - no
spouses allowed; throwing alcohol-fueled holiday parties where spouses are
not invited - or allowed. If employers want full protection, maybe they need
to add contracts for spouses - "I promise not to sue for alienation of
affection/loss of my spouse practices".
   - diane 

- Office romance? First, sign a contract.
Love-struck workers may be inevitable, but lawsuits from jilted lovers are
not ­ if employees consent to a 'love contract.'
Feb 21, 2008 
By Marilyn Gardner |
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Five years ago, when Nicholas Turner began dating an employee who reported
to him at Kaye/Bassman International Corp. in Plano, Texas, he did not try
to hide their relationship. He was also careful to avoid any perception that
he was playing favorites in his treatment of her. Their romance blossomed.
When they married 18 months later, they joined at least four other couples
who had wed after meeting there.

"The company doesn't frown on relationships," says Mr. Turner, chief
operating officer of the recruiting firm. "They're going to happen. We
support them."

It's an attitude more employers are accepting, however reluctantly, as
Cupid's bow targets employees with increasing regularity. A combination of
record numbers of working women, high divorce rates, and later marriages
make the workplace a prime hunting ground. Surveys show that more than 40
percent of workers say they have dated a co-worker.

"The office has become the village of the 21st century," says Helaine Olen,
co-author of "Office Mate: The Employee Handbook for Finding ­ and Managing
­ Romance on the Job." "Our social contacts come at work. It makes logical
sense that you're going to date people there."

Yet even broad-minded employers often frown on the kind of
supervisor-subordinate relationship Mr. Turner and his wife, Lauren,
maintained. Some now require couples to sign "love contracts" to protect the
company from sexual harassment lawsuits in case a relationship ends badly.

Such contracts are primarily limited to executive-level employees. "I don't
think you're talking about two people in a call center," Ms. Olen says.
Although no one can track the number of these documents, some employment
lawyers see their popularity increasing. They are even part of a plotline on
the TV sitcom "The Office."

David Ritter, a partner in employment law at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg in
Chicago, calls them "consensual relationship agreements," saying, "It's not
really a contract. It's an acknowledgment by two people that they're in a
consensual relationship, have not been forced to be in this relationship,
and understand the company's policy on sexual harassment. If either one of
the people in the relationship ever claims sexual harassment as a result of
this, this is pretty powerful evidence."

These documents have not yet been tested in court to see if they're valid or
enforceable, attorneys say.

Some of those who have signed have been "incredibly embarrassed," Mr. Ritter
says. "The company's human resources department, maybe an outside lawyer and
in-house lawyers, we're all sitting around a table having a conversation
about their relationship, as if they're teenagers."

That embarrassment could be minor compared with the anguish of a breakup. "I
don't care what the ages of the couple are," Ritter says. "When they break
up, it's as though they're teenagers.... Managers need to be sensitive to
that. Co-workers can wind up being akin to high school guidance counselors."

Even so, he disagrees with companies that maintain no-dating policies,
because they cannot be managed. At minimum, Ritter says, "You should never
permit someone to have a relationship with someone they supervise or have
input over their raises and promotions."

The tangle: When it's supervisor/supervisee

Margaret Hart Edwards, an attorney with Littler Mendelson, a labor and
employment law firm in San Francisco, offers a hypothetical case. "Suppose a
manager has a romance with a subordinate. It breaks up. Five or six months
later, the manager has to make a decision among two or three subordinates.
If he gives a promotion to the person he used to be [dating], people might
say he gave it to her in order to win her back. If he gives it to one of the
other people, she can say, 'He didn't give it to me because I broke up with
him.' "

Some companies simply include a conflict-of-interest policy in the
employment handbook. It typically provides that supervisors cannot be
involved in romantic relationships with subordinates, says Brian LaFratta,
an attorney with Fisher & Phillips in Chicago. "If there is such a
relationship, the company doesn't want to say, 'You have to break up.' One
of the parties has to transfer to a different department or branch."

He calls the policy problematic. "It disrupts the workforce and requires
companies to replace an employee anytime a relationship develops," he says.
"Sometimes the only solution is for one to resign. It's a good idea, but in
practice it may cause morale problems and cause people to try harder to hide
their relationships."

Even without a contract, some companies find ways to protect employees and
themselves. Zachary Hummel, a partner with Bryan Cave law firm in New York,
tells about a group of restaurants that employed many young people. Although
owners disapproved of managers dating waitresses, they didn't forbid it.
They said, "If you date the help, you have to tell us. If you don't tell us,
you will be terminated." During a romance, they moved the manager to another
local restaurant. "If you have true affection, there's a certain sacrifice
you'll make to continue the relationship," Mr. Hummel says.

Whatever the arrangement, Francie Dalton, a workplace behavioral expert in
Columbia, Md., believes it is "not smart" to allow romantic relationships at
work. "There are always issues of trust, confidentiality, and favoritism
with office romance. The people who are involved always think they can hide
their romance. It's naive."

She makes a possible exception for lower-level employees, when neither party
supervises anyone, and when their positions do not make them privy to
anything confidential. "But it's not OK to make office romance OK for one
hierarchical level and not OK for another." At every level, she warns,
"You're going to lose productivity."

Still, when Olen and co-author Stephanie Losee researched their book, they
found employers who either did not mind or actively encouraged
relationships. "Southwest Airlines is famous for encouraging and promoting
them," Olen says. "They say, 'We consider ourselves a family.' "

Office romances may actually boost productivity

She adds that some evidence shows that productivity actually goes up when
love is in bloom. "When you have a best friend in the office, you tend to
feel better about coming to work. Anything that increases your emotional
commitment to work is generally not a bad thing."

Turner of Kaye/Bassman International Corp., agrees. "Our retention is higher
because of it," he says.

For those involved in workplace liaisons, rules of decorum apply. Just
because you met your partner at work doesn't mean you should conduct your
romance at the office, Olen says. "Don't hang around their cubicle. Don't
have coffee with them every day. Don't involve them in your workplace
imbroglios. Most important, stay away from e-mail and instant messages. If
you're doing it on the company phone and e-mail, they're not private."

Taking a long-range view, Ms. Edwards says, "Office romance in the workplace
is never going to go away. Employers cannot realistically come up with
policies that prohibit romance. It's not practical, and it runs contrary to
human nature."

Send submissions and comments for the listserv to: diane at smartmarriages.com
Do NOT hit "reply". If you hit reply your email will disappear into
cyberspace.  

This is a moderated list. Submissions and comments are read by Diane Sollee,
editor. Please indicate if your comment is NOT to be shared with the list.
PLEASE include your email address and/or url as part of your signature.

With thousands of subscribers, not all comments can be shared. Also realize
that opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by members of the
Coalition.

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
visit: http://www.smartmarriages.com/app/Newsletter.Subscribe

To read past posts to the listserv, visit the Archive at:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/

12th Annual Smart Marriages® Conference, Hilton San Francisco Hotel,
June 30-July 6, 2008  (General Conference July 2-5)
Pre-Conference Training Institutes June 30-July 2
Post-Conference Training Institutes July 6
DOWNLOAD a conference brochure and register at:
http://www.smartmarriages.com/download.brochure.html

List your program and resources on the Directory of Classes at
http://www.smartmarriages.com/directory_browse.html

Order conference audio & video CD/DVD/MP3s: 800-241-7785 or
http://www.iPlaybackSmartMarriages.com

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
Diane Sollee, Director
5310 Belt Rd NW, Washington, DC 20015-1961
http://www.smartmarriages.com
202-362-3332

FAIR USE NOTICE: This e-newsletter/site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We make such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family
breakdown, etc. We understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to
use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.