Comparing Two Articles
Companies survive due to numerous factors but the number one reason that they are able to run their businesses is because of their employees. These employees do everything from paperworks to making sure that money continually comes in the company. This is the reason why companies make sure that they offer the best to their workers and that they receive the best performance from their people as well. This is also why some companies are particular with office romances because they believe that most often than not, this type of relationship can affect an employee’s work performance.
The debate presented in The Costco Connection entitled “Should dating co-workers sign a ‘love contract’?” is an important issue, especially because workers spend most of their time inside the workplace and are very prone to becoming romantically involved with their co-workers. “A love contract establishes workplace guidelines for dating or romantically involved co-workers” (The Costco Connection “Should dating co-workers sign a ‘love contract’?”). Companies believe that a “love contract” will protect them in the future in case problems arise from the employees who are romantically involved. The problems can include sexual harassment lawsuits if the couple decides to break up and the other believes that what happened between them is non-consensual. The behavior and work performance can also be affected if the couples do separate and the other or both parties feel uncomfortable working together because of their history.
It is not surprising that this issue has become a debate topic. Many people do not see the need for it because they believe that these workers are adults and mature enough to handle their personal problems and can separate their professional lives from that of their personal affairs. However, there are those who think otherwise and believe that a “love contract” is ultimately for the best of the company and its workers.
David Ritter, in his response, states that “while a love contract cannot guarantee complete insulation from the potential pitfalls of an office romance, it can certainly help.” Because the number of employees who choose to date people within their workplace is increasing, the need for “love contracts” is considered by many employers. He believes that a “love contract” is the best tool in managing conflicts that may arise from workers who are romantically involved. It is supposed to serve as a reminder that the involved employees should always work for the good of the company. In addition to this, the contract will serve as a protection for employers so that the employees will not be able to drag the whole company if they ever decide to file sexual harassment against their exes.
On the other hand, Francie Dalton indicates that “a ‘love contract’ exists solely to protect an employer from litigation associated with bosses who engage in sexual relations with their employees.” She does not believe that it is made for the employees’ sake. She also states that although “love contracts” can prevent lawsuits from being filed, they do not decrease the complications that may arise due to office romances. As such, she advices everyone to act as adults and professionals so that such situations are not encountered and complications do not arise at the workplace.
Analyzing the two articles, it is apparent that the two authors have different point of views regarding the issue at hand. Ritter believes that a “love contract” is a good idea and should be implemented by companies to help them manage office romances. If co-workers sign the said contract, they will be more aware of their actions and will keep in mind that the company will not be held liable if there are allegations of sexual harassment. Dalton points out, however, that such contracts are not needed because they do not really solve the issue, which is the complications that arise from office romances. “Love contracts” cannot solve behavioral problems that exes may show if they break up. She states that there is a better way to handle these kinds of situation, which is by “acting responsibly.”
The point of views expressed in the articles are obvious, especially in the first few lines of the articles. In his introduction, Ritter indicates that a “love contract” is the best tool to manage office romances. With this line, it is already obvious which side the author is on regarding the debate. The second sentence of Dalton clearly states her stand regarding “love contracts” saying that these only serve as protections for employers. It is not difficult, therefore, to determine the point of views of the authors as they are already indicated in their introductory paragraphs.
Comparing the two authors’ writing style, it can be said that Ritter has a more casual style and tone. He uses everyday words and terms that are easy to understand, especially to those who are not in the legal field. His tone is friendly and is more informational than persuasive. In contrast, Dalton uses a more formal approach in her style and content. She uses legal terms that may be a bit difficult for those who are not familiar with such language. Her writing is persuasive and will make a reader believe that such contracts are not needed. She also presents alternatives for employers to implement so that “love contracts” are not implemented.
Personally, I believe that the differences between the two articles are the factors in which readers decide which side to take regarding the issue. The content and style of writing can make a difference in the reader’s decision because it can persuade him or her which side to support. It is apparent that Dalton’s article is more persuasive as compared to that of Ritter’s, which makes it easier for readers to believe that “love contracts” are not needed. Ritter’s argument is weak, which is made even weaker by his writing. Dalton’s argument, on the other hand, is strong and is made stronger by the alternative that she presented because she proved that there are other things that can be done aside from implementing “love contracts.”
After this exercise, I realized that it is important to be accurate, especially in the field of journalism. It is essential that journalists present accurate and factual information because readers depend on them for information. They cannot present false data because this would cause confusion. It is also important for journalists to be unbiased when writing articles because this would lead the readers to the same attitude and feelings toward an issue, which would be unfair because the journalist is taking away their freedom to decide on their own. Being biased can also disrupt a journalist’s credibility in terms of his or her writing.
The media is an important part of our society because it is the best way to disseminate information to the public. They have the responsibility to present accurate, factual, and unbiased information to the public because the public deserves to know the truth about the current events that are happening around them. At this time, the media is doing a good job in presenting truthful and up-to-date information to the public. There are those who commit errors in some of the details but they are fast in trying to do damage control by apologizing and correcting their mistakes as early as possible.
“Should dating co-workers sign a ‘love contract’?” The Costco Connection. February 2009. 14 April 2009. ;http://www.costcoconnection.com/connection/200902/?pg=19;
Dalton, Francie. The Costco Connection. February 2009. 14 April 2009. ;http://www.costcoconnection.com/connection/200902/?pg=19;
Ritter, David B. The Costco Connection. February 2009. 14 April 2009. ;http://www.costcoconnection.com/connection/200902/?pg=19;