Critics of CRAs assert that they are too intrusive, ineffective, and unnecessary and that they can cause as many problems as they solve. Identify the specifics reasons and examples that might justify these criticisms.
Consensual Relationship Agreements (CRAs) are “essentially a written “contract” in which the romantically involved parties acknowledge the following: Their relationship is voluntary and consensual. They agree to abide by the employer’s antidiscrimination, anti- harassment, and workplace conduct policies. They promise to report any perceived harassment to management, if it occurs. They agree to behave professionally and not allow the relationship to affect their performance. They agree to avoid behavior that offends others in the workplace. They agree not to engage in favoritism” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011).
The critics of consensual relationship agreements do so based on the legal ramifications as well as the possibility that the relationship itself could possibly disrupt the work environment. “A romantic relationship between a manager or supervisor and his or her subordinate may result in allegations of favoritism, with coworkers claiming that the subordinate has received preferential treatment as a result of the relationship. For example, the subordinate may receive longer breaks, be given preferred shifts or receive unfairly favorable reviews. Over time, this perception of favoritism could lower employee morale and productivity. These complaints also may trigger sexual harassment claims against an employer under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 sec U.S.C. 2000e, which enables employees to base claims of sexual harassment on, first, a “quid pro quo” argument where an employer conditions benefits, promotions or even employment itself on the receipt of sexual favors, or second an argument that sexual harassment has produced a hostile work environment. 12 Title VII further holds an employer vicariously liable for “actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct as well as the plaintiff victim,” to quote the U.S. Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton.13” (Wilson, Filosa, and Fennel, 2003).
Furthermore, another criticism is that “while two employees are romantically involved in a consensual relationship, neither will claim harassment, but after the romance ends, one party may come forward with the contention that the association was unwelcome, even coerced. This situation presents at least two additional problems unique to workplace relationships between managers or supervisors and their subordinates, because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties. First if the subordinate is disciplined, demoted, or terminated, he or she may allege retaliation. Second, the party who ended the relationship may bring a sexual harassment claim based on allegations that the other party is forcing him or her to stay in the relationship, stalking or continuing to make unwanted sexual advances, thus subjecting the complainer to sexual harassment. Even if the relationship does not terminate, co-workers may attempt to make a claim against the employer for sexual harassment. That claim may be viable if the employees involved in the relationship repeatedly display sexual favoritism or other inappropriate sexual behaviors in the work place that result in the creation of a hostile work environment” (Wilson, Filosa, and Fennel, 2003). The criticisms for consensual relationship agreements when examined to determine the necessity of such agreements are valid. One may argue that said agreements could become more of a liability than benefit.

How would you assess the ethical intensity of CRAs from the perspective for the employer? From the perspective for the employees in a consensual relationship? Ethical intensity is the degree of moral importance given to an issue and is based on six determining factors such as magnitude of consequences, probability of effect, social consensus, temporal immediacy, proximity, and concentration of effect according to Hellriegel and Slocum. When applied to consensual relationship agreements from the perspective of the employer, the following determinants apply: magnitude of consequences and probability of effect. “Magnitude of consequence is the harm or benefit accruing to individuals affected by a decision or behavior” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2010). An employer must take into account both the benefits and detriments of CRAs. An employer must look at the liabilities as well and the possible impact of the decision to include or ignore workplace relationships and there effect on productivity and morale in the workplace. “Probability of effect is the likelihood that if a decision is implemented it will lead to harm or benefit predicted” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011). An employer must not only look at the immediate consequences for their decision to either adopt or abandon consensual relationship agreements, the employer must also look ahead to see that the later ramifications of the decision made and this where the creation of policy becomes important. However, when exploring CRAs from the employee’s perspective magnitude of consequences and temporal immediacy apply. Magnitude of consequences because based on the company’s policy on consensual relationship, this may determine if the employee has a position or not at all. “Temporal immediacy is the length of time that elapses between making a decision and when the consequences of that decision are known” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011). This affects the employee because if the employee is made aware of the company’s policy on CRAs from the beginning of employment, then employer is well within protocol to expect the employee to govern him or herself accordingly (eg. Signing CRA or not indulging in workplace personal relationships).
What specific ethical principles might be used to justify the use of CRAs? Explain. The ethical principles that may be used to justify the use of CRAs are the organization interests and utilitarian principles. The organization interests principle states “you act on the basis of what is good for the organization and the utilitarian principle states you act on the basis for whether the harm from the decision is outweighed by the good in it-that is, the greatest good for the greatest number” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011). Consensual Relationship Agreements have the capacity to “decrease the sexual harassment litigation risk, reduce the perception of favorisitim, create a forum to discuss professional workplace behavior and reminds dating employees of the lack of privacy in the workplace” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011). By adopting CRAs a company or organization is acknowledging that such relationship happen and inform employees that the company or organization are proactive in protecting itself and other employees from the legal liabilities of such relationships.
What ethical principles might be used by employees in consensual relationships to oppose signing such an agreement? Explain. Employees in a consensual relationship may use disclosure and distributive principles to oppose signing a consensual relationship agreement. The disclosure principle is defined by Hellriegel and Slocum as “acting on the basis of how the general public would likely respond to the disclosure of the rationale and facts related to the decision” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011). Employees in a consensual relationship give up privacy when they bring their relationship to the attention of management and co-workers. This is because depending on positions held by the parties involved and their proximity within the company others may view the relationship differently and accuse the couple of favoritism or the appearance of it. “This doesn’t mean the employer has the right to ask about intimate details, but when employees are in the workplace; the employer has the right to set reasonable rules” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011).
The distributive justice principle is defined as “acting on the basis of treating and individual or group equitably rather than on arbitrarily defined characteristics” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011).The employees in a consensual relationship now must adhere to an additional set of rules that employees that are not in a workplace relationship do not have to and may view this as a discriminatory action based on who they have chosen to be in a relationship with.
Do you personally favor or oppose the use of CRAs in the workplace? Explain. I personally oppose the use of CRAs in the workplace. Consensual relationship agreements increase the liability for sexual harassment litigation and infringes upon an employees’ right to privacy in the workplace. Consensual relationships between managers or supervisors and their subordinates should be prohibited. “A romantic relationship between a manager or supervisor and his or her subordinate may result in allegations of favoritism, with coworkers claiming that the subordinate has received preferential treatment as a result of the relationship” (Wilson, Filosa, and Fennel, 2003). These feelings for perceived unfairness can lead to other discriminatory law suits. “While two employees are romantically involved in a consensual relationship, neither will claim harassment, but after the romance ends, one party may come forward with the contention that the association was unwelcome, even coerced. This situation presents at least two additional problems unique to workplace relationships between managers or supervisors and their subordinates, because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties. First if the subordinate is disciplined, demoted, or terminated, he or she may allege retaliation. Second, the party who ended the relationship may bring a sexual harassment claim based on allegations that the other party is forcing him or her to stay in the relationship, stalking or continuing to make unwanted sexual advances, thus subjecting the complainer to sexual harassment. Even if the relationship does not terminate, co-workers may attempt to make a claim against the employer for sexual harassment. That claim may be viable if the employees involved in the relationship repeatedly display sexual favoritism or other inappropriate sexual behaviors in the work place that result in the creation of a hostile work environment” (Wilson, Filosa, and Fennel, 2003). All of which are more legal liabilities rather than benefits in the work place. Having worked in environments where co-workers were involved in a consensual relationship and witnessing how badly things can turn out, I am more a component for leaving your romantic life out of the work place all together.

References
Flynn, Gillian. “‘Love Contracts’ help fend off harassment suits.” Workforce. 01Mar.1999:106. eLibrary.Web.
Hellriegel, D.,&Slocun, J.W., Jr. (2011). Organizational Behavior: 2011 custom edition(13th ed.) Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learining.
Wilson, Rebecca J., Filosa, Christine., Fennel, Alex.. “Romantic relationships at work: Does privacy trump the dating police?.” Defense Counsel Journal.01 Jan. 2003: 78. eLibrary. Web.