The US has a class-based employment system.

I suspect that much of the discontent with young workers today is based upon that realization, whether or not they can articulate it as you do. Thus, we have an obsession with the trappings of class alongside a rebellion about the same. My generation could not expect that attendance at college would be automatic. My mother's sole goal for her children was that we would all finish high school. Ordinary folks did not think about what college they would attend. They did not read U.S. News and World Report to find out the "best" schools. Now, students who have graduated college are entering a downsizing job market. Now, plain old land grant college degrees are sneered at -- to say nothing of the constant jokes about community colleges. It is as if, the working classes, having discovered the benefits of college, are suddenly finding that the degree won't get them the life they had expected.

People who have not had the advantages that accrue to the upper classes -- legacy preference admission to Ivy League colleges for instance -- are scratching their heads. What can they do to catch a break? At a job where you are just a temp, or where you know you are not going anywhere anyway, what does it matter what you wear?

I don't agree with everything Cary said about the world or work, but he sure came awfully close to describing how I feel.

Yes, someone else did mention the reference, but I appreciate that you're getting back to me and appreciate the background info. I read LCL lover years ago and enjoyed it immensely, but I had forgotten about John Thomas.

whether or not the the title and the subtitle to the column are lifted from the letter and then editd out of the body of the letter or whether they are the paraphrased invention of the headline writer.

Look closely readers. They are very, very different in tone. The heading verges upon hysteria, while the letter itself is cautious and measured.

Also, read carefully the difference between the words "theraputic relationship" in the letter itself and the declaration in the title that the LW is actually a therapist.

I have a theraputic relationship with my massage therapist, but that doesn't make her my shrink.

Laws and ethics vary according to the actual job and whether or not the LW is licensed. It is odd that the LW is not well versed in the requirements of his/her profession.

You are absolutely right. If the LW was the "evil" co-worker's therapist, then the LW (Burdened) absolutely cannot share and office with him. That would be completely unprofessional.

Why doesn't the LW already know this? Can it be that there is some other sort of relationship that went on? If the LW was in a supervisory relationship or a parallel relationship to the co-worker, what would be the procedure then?

Please reread and look carefully at the LW's word choices.

I couldn't read the letter without thinking of George Bush.

Now please tell that KR does not stand for Karl Rove. ;)