Hayley Whistleblower

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.

Whistleblowing has always been an important and controversial issue that employers and employees need to understand and stay up to date with. They need to make sure that they know what it means, what it involves, and what consequences are associated with whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is defined as, “…an employee of a company or government agency makes a protected disclosure to the public or authority regarding concerns for wrongdoing” (What is a Whistleblower?, n.d.). In short, a whistleblower is defined as a person who is concerned and discloses and divulges misbehavior in the workplace. This paper will focus on the pros and cons of being a whistleblower, the ethics behind it, the details of s specific whistleblowing situation, and reflect on my personal experience regarding whistleblowing.

For many whistleblowers, fear of persecution and retaliation has prevented them from speaking out against improper behaviors at their institutions. Because of the dangers that whistleblowers are exposed to, many companies have become proactive in promoting and protecting whistleblowing. As a case and point, we need to look no further than the banking giant, Barclays.

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.

Whistleblowing has been part of the American history since 1773 when confidential letters were provided by Benjamin Franklin to the Parliament that the governor of Massachusetts misled information to promote a military buildup in the new world, this led to a dishonorably discharge of the governor and exile. A whistleblower, as defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary , is “one how reveals something covert or informs against another. “ a whistle-blower doesn’t remain silent but will speak to reveal corruption or dangers to the public or environment. This information may be described in many ways; such as, violations of a law, regulations or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety issues. Whistleblowers make

The point can be made that “whistleblowing” within a firm, large or small can be encouraged by putting in place policies and a process within a firm that will protect the employee’s and benefit the organisation by:

This definition captures clearly the traditional use of the term in business contexts. In the context of research, however, the concept of whistleblowing seems to be understood a bit more broadly, so that it is not limited to public disclosures brought to an external entity. In what follows, I will use the term to refer to internal as well as external reporting to include situations in which a wrong-doer’s supervisor or department chair is notified of a researcher’s misconduct. This broader understanding may be an appropriate translation of the definition for the academic research context given the organizational and power structure differences between business and academia. The idea that there may be a moral requirement to report research misconduct is not novel. The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy has taken a position consistent with the above claim, stating that “someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act” (COSEPUP, 2009). A similar requirement can be inferred from articles 1 and 10 in the IEEE Code of Ethics, which state that its members agree “to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment” and “to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics” (IEEE, 2006). In

Whistle blowing occurs when an employer asks an employee to do something immoral, such as falsifying data or offering bribes. The employee may “blow the whistle” on the company revealing the immoral and most times, illegal practice(s) which will result in them losing their job and are blacklisted from the industry, leaving them without a way to support themselves and their families. When deliberating on blowing the whistle, the employee becomes an ethical egoist. The employee focuses on his or her self-interest which determines what they should do in the situation (Rae,

Whistleblowing can be a major issue for private organizations who may bend or break the rules to get an upper hand in the business world. This can be a key threat to both every day employees as well as middle and upper management level positions. The two articles being looked at for this argument are both one that supports whistleblowing in the workplace as well as another article that argues against whistleblowing. The article supporting whistleblowing is titled “Why are there so few whistleblowers? Blame evolution,” and is written by Paul Rauwolf and Dominic Mitchell, who have both earned their PhD’s from the University of Bath. The article was published in the Washington Post. The theory that most supports this article are the ideas of Kant. The title of the article against whistleblowing is titled “Why Are Some Whistleblowers Vilified and Others Celebrated?” The article is written by David M. Mayer, he is a writer for the Harvard Business Review. This article was published by the Harvard Business Review. The theory supporting this article is utilitarianism, this can be seen through the importance of doing what is best for everyone involved, not just yourself. The third theory that can be argued is the idea of W.D. Ross and his prima facia duties. The concept of whistleblowing can be a touchy subject in the professional world, but it can be a vital towards promoting a healthy and stable work environment. The

I do agree with De George and his arguments for whistle blowing. I think it is important to continually try and keep the problem internal no matter what. I feel it is the best way to solve the problem because nobody will get hurt that much by the act of whistle blowing. Using De George's five steps lays an essential foundation for anyone who feels that there is a considerable problem, which is harmful in nature and needs to be resolved. An employee needs to continually try and keep the problem internal so as not to look disloyal. If the problem continually gets overlooked, than there must be a step taken to make the problem known externally as De George suggests in his fourth and fifth steps.

The length of the process and the uncertainty that comes with it can be incredibly taxing on the whistleblower.” (Pros and Cons of Becoming a Whistleblower) Just seeing that your identity will be revealed to everyone who wanted to see what the case was about is a scary fact. People will see you as nothing more than a rat to the company and may make it much harder for you to ever get a job with any corporation. That being said I cant see how anyone would want to be a whistleblower at all because it could ruin your life in the long run.

The things whistleblowers do are very serious. One should always remember that such actions may lead to the loss of money and

There are various cases about whistleblowing, one of them is the case of Motorola CFO, Paul Liska.1 He has been fired after giving a presentation. In the presentation, Liska pointed out to Motorola directors that the cell phone unit, Mobile Devices, missed its sales projection for the preceding three months. Liska intended to attack Sanjay Jha, the head of Motorola’s cell phone division, by doing the presentation at the board meeting. The whistleblowing occurred because Liska and Jha did not get along well, and Liska tried to save the situation with an attack on Jha. Liska objected to Jha’s hiring, his compensation package and the co-CEO agreement. Liska’s behavior markedly deteriorated after Jha’s hiring,

Internal whistle-blowing within an organization involves over 75 % of employees of wrong doings such as vandalism, absenteeism and damages. Even though several companies detect some misbehavior within the company, whistle-blowing was first presented as an ethical issue over more than 20 years ago. Many

There are varied motivations that drive whistleblowers to take action. As Schrieber (2006, 42) explains, whistleblowers manifest in myriad ways, "from disgruntled employees or customers to high-level executives trying to do what they see as the right thing." Thus, their motivations are just as likely to be altruistic as they are self-serving. Regardless, whistleblowing reflects poorly on the company and can severely damage the company's well-being, as the cases of Enron and Freddie Mac testify. There are, however, a number of measures that corporations can take to protect themselves. First, a company should anticipate that whistleblowing will occur; jaded employees invariably exist, and while a company should do their best to promote worker satisfaction, whistleblowing may still occur. Accordingly, the company should construct complaint procedures, internal investigation procedures, and a training program for managers and high-end officials, as this will allow them to quickly and efficiently deal with whistleblowing before it reaches a court of law. It is also necessary to keep track of employees' behavior, in order to identify the possibility of whistleblowing occurring before the event takes place. In order to protect whistleblowers, it is necessary to disclose as little as possible and avoid retaliation, which is illegal.