Case Study: Cras
1. 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 specific reasons and examples that might justify these criticisms.
They are intrusive because informing an employer of a relationship is getting into the personal life of an employee. CRAs can be ineffective because even after signing an employee could still break it without the company noticing, and when it gets to that point they become unnecessary.
2. How would you assess the ethical intensity of CRAs from the perspective of the employer? From the perspective of the employees in a consensual relationship?
From the prospective of the employer, I would believe that CRAs are very necessary. Because on the job relationships are very likely to happen, and almost guaranteed so it is good to have a policy in place to address issues that may possibly arise from on the job relationships. Also it protects the company from being sued by employees (example, …show more content…
favoritism).
From the prospective of the employee, I would not want to sign an agreement based on my personal relationship with a co-worker.
I would want to keep the relationship private. In think if I did sign the CRA then my superiors and co-workers would then keep extra eyes on me to insure that I wasn’t breaking policy. That in the end would distract me from performing my job to the best of my ability.
3. What specific ethical principles might be used to justify the use of CRAs? Explain.
The principle used to justify the use of CRA would be Organization Interest Principle (your act on basis of what is good for the organization). In situations where one can foresee a possible issue and can impose a policy to prevent that issue from affecting the company it is best to do so, this can save you time, money, and problems in the long run.
4. What ethical principles might be used by employees in consensual relationships to oppose signing such an agreement?
Explain.
The two ethical principles that might be used by employees are the Hedonist Principle (you do whatever is in your own self interest), and the Might-Equal-Right-Principle (you do whatever you are powerful enough to impose on others without respect to socially acceptable behaviors). Clearly having a consensual relationship on the job is in the self-interest of the employee. They are not concerned with the consequences of the relationship affecting the job if it turns sour. In my opinion a relationship on the job is not a socially acceptable behavior. The couple would be imposing on their fellow co-workers, which I’m sure would be disrespectful especially if it got to the point of favoritism and affection on the job.
5. Do you personally favor or oppose the use of CRAs In the workplace? Explain
I personally favor CRAs in the workplace. Ultimately it protects the company at the end of the day. When an employee is at work it is to perform a job or task, not to form relationships, especially if that relationship could possibly affect the company and the performance of other employees.
They are intrusive because informing an employer of a relationship is getting into the personal life of an employee. CRAs can be ineffective because even after signing an employee could still break it without the company noticing, and when it gets to that point they become unnecessary.
2. How would you assess the ethical intensity of CRAs from the perspective of the employer? From the perspective of the employees in a consensual relationship?
From the prospective of the employer, I would believe that CRAs are very necessary. Because on the job relationships are very likely to happen, and almost guaranteed so it is good to have a policy in place to address issues that may possibly arise from on the job relationships. Also it protects the company from being sued by employees (example, …show more content…
favoritism).
From the prospective of the employee, I would not want to sign an agreement based on my personal relationship with a co-worker.
I would want to keep the relationship private. In think if I did sign the CRA then my superiors and co-workers would then keep extra eyes on me to insure that I wasn’t breaking policy. That in the end would distract me from performing my job to the best of my ability.
3. What specific ethical principles might be used to justify the use of CRAs? Explain.
The principle used to justify the use of CRA would be Organization Interest Principle (your act on basis of what is good for the organization). In situations where one can foresee a possible issue and can impose a policy to prevent that issue from affecting the company it is best to do so, this can save you time, money, and problems in the long run.
4. What ethical principles might be used by employees in consensual relationships to oppose signing such an agreement?
Explain.
The two ethical principles that might be used by employees are the Hedonist Principle (you do whatever is in your own self interest), and the Might-Equal-Right-Principle (you do whatever you are powerful enough to impose on others without respect to socially acceptable behaviors). Clearly having a consensual relationship on the job is in the self-interest of the employee. They are not concerned with the consequences of the relationship affecting the job if it turns sour. In my opinion a relationship on the job is not a socially acceptable behavior. The couple would be imposing on their fellow co-workers, which I’m sure would be disrespectful especially if it got to the point of favoritism and affection on the job.
5. Do you personally favor or oppose the use of CRAs In the workplace? Explain
I personally favor CRAs in the workplace. Ultimately it protects the company at the end of the day. When an employee is at work it is to perform a job or task, not to form relationships, especially if that relationship could possibly affect the company and the performance of other employees.