Barclays Whistleblower

The corruption rate in a community that does not support or protect reporting illegal activities is significantly high. Employees who work in public or private organizations are the first to identify wrongdoings in a workplace since they have up-to-date information. Whistleblowing can be an essential tool to identify and report these actions in the public, private and non-profit sectors. However, by revealing wrongdoings, whistleblowers often take high personal risks. Lacking strong legal protection might increase the change of facing dismissal, harassment and other forms of retaliation (“Whistleblower protection”, 2012).

Whistle blowing does take courage. There is the risk of being bullied or harassed as a result, but anyone who whistle blows has the right to protection from the person they have raised concerns about. If you suffer as a result of a whistle blowing incident the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 offers legal protection.

The last stakeholder of this scandal are the stockholders who have suffered financial lost in having to pay out millions in the lawsuits filed against Wells Fargo. The stockholders have also lost confidence in the leadership on the organization affecting how and if they will continue to invest and whether they will demand for a leadership change among the board of directors. This scandal not only affect how these investors will spend their money but other investors as well. Scandals of this magnitude as a negative domino effect on how investors and how they will spend their many within the

A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about a wrongdoing in their workplace or within the NHS or social care setting. If a person wishes to raise their concerns they should obtain a

The various forms of retribution that whistle-blowers endure at the hands of employers both financially and psychologically for attempting to correct mismanagement, fraud, and dishonesty are often too much for the whistle-blower to bear. Careers are in jeopardy because individuals with strong ethics decide to pursue law suits against their employers. One example is where the US Forest Service employees found their careers ruined by either demotions or loss of jobs when caught speaking out in favor of the environment or sound science, or when

1. Describe the key characteristics of a whistleblower, and briefly summarize one (1) researched instance of whistleblowing in one (1) publicly traded company within the last 12 months. Include the details of the issue that the whistleblower reported and the effect of the whistleblower’s actions on both the whistleblower himself and the company.

Whistle blowing in organizations can be an outstanding source of needed information to the organization. On the other side, that same information that is delivered can have a negative effect on the employee that has decided to take matters in to their own hands and inform management of potential unethical behavior. An article called “Nonprofit whistle-blower employee nets $1.6 million retaliation award” written by Tricia Gorman is in reference to an employee whistle-blower that her place of employment violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, which is part of the organizations policy for hostile work environment.

Whistleblowers’ motives often come under intense scrutiny, since the consequences of sensitive data disclosures can seriously impact an organization’s operations, finances, and public image (Lawrence & Weber, 2014)

This memo is to address the changes and consequences brought forth by the implementation of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act. The Sarbanes – Oxley Act was signed into law in efforts to eradicate company misconduct and protect public confidence by regulating management, accountants and legal counsel that represent the company (Noorishad, 2005). When passing the Sarbanes – Oxley Act, Congress also planned to protect whistleblowers because it is those who work in the organizations every day that see first-hand the indiscretions that frequently end in substantial corporate fraud (Watnick, 2007).

The article is about a former internal auditor, Matt Erhart, who thought that there might have been some shady things happening behind the scenes at Bank of Internet. Bank of Internet provides loans and mortgages to well-off persons who do not have

Introduction: Agree: “In too many organizations, those who speak unwelcome truths are fired or at least marginalized” (p.xxi). Rationale: I believe that leaders should be able to listen to everyone and everything, no matter how bitter the truth can be. Employees who try to stand against wrong are usually the ones put in trouble or easily fired for little things. I remember a nurse who always stood against the management because they would not listen to her regarding the short staff. When she finally threatened to report the facility, she was easily put in trouble over a small thing and fired. I believe leaders who are in power should not stoop so low and should respect others points of view and encourage others to unite to achieve the goals. Disagree: “One hard-won bit of advice he gives would-be whistle blowers—make sure you have another job lined up first” (p.xxi). Rationale: Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing corruption, fraud, and mismanagement, and in preventing disasters that arise from negligence or wrongdoing. Whistleblowers who speak out about wrongdoing potentially save lives and resources. I believe that the treatment whistleblowers get is unfair and they should be treated better. Currently, US whistleblower law offers no protection. I believe that people should be able voice out their concerns when something is wrong and not have to worry about being reprimanded. The concept that might be particularly helpful in my personal development as a leader is to

Whistleblowerers are protected by law, against actions of retaliation from the employer or former employer, among other things. Companies can intimidate and even cause harm to those wholesale report unethical or illegal activity. John decided to report

To many, the revealing of companies’ private information is an ethically reasonable action that deserves either less punishment than what it does today or no punishment at all. With some punishments for whistleblowing being ostracism, harassment, and demotion, people deem the amercements as unreasonable (Martin). These kinds of punishments are usually doled out to whistleblowers who work for large businesses, making their work environment more hostile and uncomfortable. Whistleblowers get themselves into these situations when they expose information about controversial and illegal actions committed by a company in the hopes that they will face justice or make corrections to their business. As stated by Brian Martin, a social sciences professor,

During the G20 summit in Seoul 2010, the whistleblower protection law was evaluated across the countries and Australia was one of the highly rated countries with US and Canada in the public sector (Wolfe. 2014, p. 4). On the contrary, the level of whistleblower protection in the private sector is found weaker than the public sector (Wolfe. 2014, p. 4). This report critically examines the current protection regime in both public and private sectors and depicts the lives of whistleblowers after disclosing the wrongdoings of the organisation to our society. Despite the legislative requirement to establish stronger whistleblower protection law in Australia, it is not applied

This editorial covers a challenging topic on whistleblowers. The article, “MassMutual whistle-blower finally identified,” written by Michelle Williams, discloses the information pertaining to a company by the name of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and their whistle-blower that saved their proverbial tails in the long run. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) delayed in identifying the Mutual Life Insurance Companies whistle-blower do the sensitivity of the information disclosed. This man, by the name of Bill Lloyd, was a loyal, straight laced individual who enjoyed his 22 year career as an agent. Lloyd knew of some compounding issues with their annuity programs, which guaranteed monetary benefits to their customers. This issue needed to be addressed, and it was on Lloyd’s conscience to bring this to the attention of the company and later to the SEC as a “final effort.” The SEC promptly addressed the matter to the Mutual Life Insurance Company and corrected the problem. Two years after reporting the issue to the SEC, the commission granted Lloyd monetary compensation for bringing the concern to their attention.