An Evaluation Of An Employee Is Morally Justified By Informing The Government Or Media

771 WordsJul 4, 20164 Pages
Whistle-blowing is defined as when an employee believes that their employee has done something wrong, or that may be harmful to the public, and they feel obligated to report these actions to the government, media, or higher levels within the organization (Lawrence & Weber, 2014.) This type of reporting of unethical or illegal behavior, seems that it would be a “no brainer” that an employee should in fact, report it to someone. However, our text identifies four main conditions that must be met before an employee is morally justified by informing the government or media: • The organization is currently doing (or planning to do) something that may seriously harm others. • The employee has both tried and failed to resolve the matter internally. • That reporting the problem publicly will stop or prevent the potential harm to others. • That the harm is in fact serious enough to justify the likely costs of the disclosure to others (Lawrence & Weber, p.372.) The federal government has created several laws throughout the industrialization of our nation that have provided some sort of protection for whistleblowers against retaliation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) provides very broad protections for whistleblowers, including contacting the media and provides protections even if the employee never filed an allegation of wrongdoing with the SEC (Kohn, 2016.) The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also expands the list of remedies a whistle-blower may be awarded including indirect compensation for

More about An Evaluation Of An Employee Is Morally Justified By Informing The Government Or Media

Open Document