'Bus 520 Assignment 1\r'

'Consensual Relationship Agreements By: Vickie Gonzalez private instructor 520 †Leadership and Organizational Behavior professor: Dr. Marilyn Carroll October 24th, 2012 Workplace romances argon now ace of the ch all in allenges that placements of all sizes have to address. How they address them varies from organic law to organization. Some personal credit linees and organizations strictly supplant them in any(prenominal) form or fashion, objet dart others prohibit them when the incisionicipants atomic number 18 in received roles within the organization.Some companies have chosen non to address the national at all and others atomic number 18 using a much formal method of documenting and mitigating the risk they timbre these kinds pose. One of the methods of documenting, and potentially mitigating, this risk is cognize as a accordant kin reconcilement or CRA. In the textual matter that follows I go forth fence for the physical exercise of CRA’s in the employmentplace. Secondly, I will present a counter lean for the utilize of CRA’s. Then we will indeed look at the ethical principles convolute in the use of CRA’s. Lastly I will present a nonher woof that may be available for addresses these consensual family relationships.First, let’s look at what brought intimately the need for CRA’s. On June 28th, 1914 Gavrilo Princip, of Sarajevo, kill the Archduke and heir to the thr star of Austria, Franz Ferdinand (Collins, 2008, p. 9). Thirty-seven long condemnation later land War I began, and with it, so did what much or less see as the beginnings of women entering the oeuvre. The Munitions of War Act of 1915 locomote twenty-one percent of Britain’s wives, sisters, mothers and daughters into the manpower (Woolacott, 1994, p. 17). Factory workers became soldiers and the women in their lives became factory workers.By 1941, and the unify States’ entrance into World War II, 18. 9 meg Ameri put forward women had entered the work pluck as well (Weak-Baxter, 2010, p. 14). Japan had attacked Pearl harbor and patriotism was welling exactly as self-colored in Ameri wad women as it was in Ameri stinker men. Now, according to the US section of Labor, at that place are 72 trillion women in the civilian labor force alone (2012). The years following World War II were a time of challenge, adaptation and diversification for business, and revolution and exploration for women. Harassment, preciseally inner curse, is one of those hallenges confront by businesses and employers as of a resolve of oeuvre diversification. Inappropriate conversations, unwanted advances and ill-fitting physical contact are some of the ways cozy torment kindle occur. According to Hellriegel and Slocum, â€Å"Sexual agony refers to unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual estimations, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. ” (p. 52). To be clear, s exual curse screw, and has, affected twain women and men everyplace the years however up to half(a) of all working women have describe experiencing some form of sexual bedevilment in the career (Vijayasiri, 2008, p. ). It wasn’t until 1986 though that the Supreme hail recognized sexual badgering as a ravishment of Title VII in the mooring of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (O’Brien, 1994, p. 1). Before the mellowed cost’s ruling, however, the Equal transaction Opportunity Commission had begun to address the issue by drafting antipathetical work environment guidelines that included sexual harassment (O’Brien, 1994, p. 4). These guidelines would serve later to guide the lavishly court’s decision. There are many more cases standardized this one we could look at.In 1991, sexual harassment became a household term as Anita hill testified before congress stating she was sexually vex by a current prospect for the Supreme Court. In her af firmment to the Senate administration Committee Ms. Hill stated, â€Å"It is only subsequently a great deal of torturing consideration, and cautious, number of , great number of sleepless night, that I am able to public lecture of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends” ( blackamoor Scholar, 1991, p 1). For many American this was the source time they had really thought ab break or discussed sexually harassment.It was on our televisions, out in the open, for the whole world to see. As a result of brave employees resembling Ms. Hill and many others sexual harassment is no less tolerated in the piece of work and employers are required to have specific policies addressing it. Now what happens when the relationship between twain employees is consensual? No harassment has occurred. dawdle is in the air. Some organizations have policies that prohibit workplace relationships of any kind and dynamic in one is grounds for termination. some other businesses o nly prohibit these relationships in the caseful that one companionship reports to or bangs the other.More and more firms are using consensual relationship assortments or CRAs. A CRA is a written agreement or contract in which the drived parties agree to specific guidelines in the workplace (Hellriegel/Slocum, 2011, p. 65). This is one of the practices or policies an organization can use to extenuate the risks associated with workplace relationships. In this agreement the parties involved state that the relationship is voluntary. They agree to abide by any and all anti-harassment or anti-discrimination policies the business has in place, including reporting any invasion of these policies that may occur.They withal agree to deport professionally at all time which includes avoiding even the style of secernment. There are proponents and opponents of the use of these agreements in the workplace. I agree with the proponents of the use of CRAs in the workplace. Hellriegel and Solcum mention several(prenominal) arguments in favor in CRAs in the workplace in our text. I would like to look at three of these. The commencement ceremony argument that Hellriegel and Solcum mention is that CRAs help mitigate the risk of any sexual harassment litigation (p. 65). I have to agree with this argument. Office relationships can be wonderful.I get several happy couples who met at the office. They manage their personal and professional lives well. However this is non always the case, and when the relationship fails, things may change. This can be especially true if this relationship involved one part that directly, or even indirectly reports to the other. The employee may stir they were pressured into the relationship by their manager. The manager may resent the employee and treat them unfairly. Both of these scenarios, and many others, open the doors to litigation. The employer in both of these cases could be found liable in a sexual harassment outfit.Damages award ed in these cases can be punitive and compensatory. In 1997 wide-ranging corporations spent more than 6 million for each sexual harassment suit they defended themselves against and/or settled (Vijayasiri, 2008, p. 2) Employers can foster themselves from this risk by ensuring they have a very clearly stated workplace relationship policy that, in my opinion, should involve the use of CRAs. The second argument is favor of the use of CRAs is that they help to reduce the appearance of favoritism in the workplace (Hellriegel/Slocum, 2011, p. 65).Ensuring that there is not even the appearance of favoritism in the workplace is not just a matter of fair policy. In many cases a tierce party can sue their employer for sexual harassment if they feel they are being discriminated against as the result of a workplace relationship. Employees are human and emotions and perception are part of being human. No employer can squall what behavior will be gratifying to one employee and offensive to an other, A CRA requiring both participants in the relationship to behave in a professional manner can help minimize this risk of offend a third party.In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a finding of fact in favor of Diane Leibovitz for $60,000 against the New York metropolis Transit Authority or NYCTA for what the court determined to be a hostile work environment (Leibovitz v. NYCTA, 2001). Ms. Leibovitz sued the NYCTA for sexual harassment and emotional distress after confronting her employer regarding the sexual harassment of 3 other womanish co-workers. Ms. Leibovitz’s job was threatened if she did not remain silent.As a result of these threats she suffered from slack and sleep deprivation. Ms. Leibovitz was not the victim of any sexual advances or misconduct, however, witnessing it and her employer’s inertia crapd a hostile work environment and a $60,000 judgment on her behalf. The third agreement presented in the text in f avor of the use of CRA’s is that they create a forum where human resources can talk openly with employees about the responsibilities and complicatedness that come with an office romance (Hellriegel/Slocum, 2011, p. 5). This is apparently an opportunity for the employer to remind the employee what behavior is and is not appropriate in the workplace. The employer can also restate the company’s shipment to preventing sexual harassment. This is the time for open and effective discussion in the hopes that awareness and understand may prevent litigation. Those who argue against the use of CRA’s in the workplace argue that they are a violation of the employee’s privacy and in-effective.\r\n'