My Response to an Inspiring Blog About Whistle Blowing Essay example

While the argument “permissible always” was able to provide an explanation why we are to not feel loyal to corporations, it doesn’t mean that their argument is true. I shall now examine what I see as the best powerful against “permissible always”. While the argument appears above, there are more factors to be considered than just blowing the whistle. We need to weigh the gravity of the situation. If the matter being considered is of utmost danger to the company and could be

Well, according to Miceli, Nearand and Dworkin (2008), whistleblowing is an act of revealing wrongdoings in an organization by the former or current employees of the very organization. As such, a whistleblower is an individual who reveals wrongdoings within an organization to the public or the senior management. The key characteristics of a whistleblower include, but are not limited to, dissent, accusation, breach of loyalty, altruism, sportsmanship courtesy, conscientiousness and civic culture (Miceli, Near & Dworkin, 2008).

“When any employee acts contrary to the interests of the stakeholders, particularly the shareholders, she breaches her duty of loyalty.” For example an employee who goes to the news to expose the company’s leaders for fraudulent acts could harm the company and stakeholders ‘interests

Chuck Mackness, the president of Bantings department stores recently appointed Matt Moreau as head of customer services due to customer complaints at the other department stores. To help Matt in the staffing of his newly created department, Steven Judson, corporate personnel manager, refers Sally Armitage, an ideal candidate who holds many years of management experience at other department stores. After calling Tony Abbott, regional manager, who worked with Sally and gave her performance appraisal, Matt finds out that Sally recovered from cancer a few years ago and is unsure whether Sally would be capable for the high demanding position. This paper will analyze the ethical issues

Whistleblowing in the US has long been a controversial topic for many. Whistleblowers are people who work either as outsiders, like journalists, or insiders who uncover secrets from the inside of a corporation- who expose wrongdoings and secrets in the government or businesses. Being a whistleblower is risky business; reputations are put on the line and they commonly face legal trouble. While in the last century Congress has done more to protect these whistleblowers, many people are still on edge about the practice of whistleblowing and protecting it under laws. A big debate that has come to play is whether whistleblowers should be greater protected, or if they should be prosecuted by the law. Whistleblowing has in many instances been extremely helpful to US citizens, and here’s why it should be fully protected by the government.

Whistleblowers are characterized by strong ethic-moral values. They are perceived as an active person with enough courage to expose the wrongdoing occurring inside their company. They are “perceived as altruistically driven individuals who are steered by their attitudes.”

While companies don 't appreciate employees talking against them, there would always be certain prejudices present amongst the employees against the management functions.

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

The twentieth President of the United States once said: “The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable” (Quotes, 2008). When there is wrongful doing, illegal activity, or unethical behavior happening within a government industry or business it can be difficult to bring this information out in to the open for the public to know. Whistleblowers have the difficult ethical responsibility, with a lot of scrutiny that happens as well, when telling the truth about their findings about a company that is not doing the right thing. Whistleblowing can create a variety of feelings and ethical perspectives for all that might be involved or even just witness the process unfold and

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,

article called, “The Ethics of Leaks.” Within this article, the author defines what leakage of

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).

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

Whistleblowing can be described as the disclosure of illegal, immoral, underhand or unlawful transactions, deals or practices of their employers or companies to people, institutions that are most likely to take action. What sets whistleblowing apart from other types of disclosures such as a tell-all is that it is made for the purpose of reporting wrongdoing in a company or organization to an agency or person that can take some actions. Whistleblowing is gaining popularity at such a fast pace, and more people are coming forward with dirty deals of their companies in the hope that something can be done about it. The reasoning behind whistleblowing is that the rights and interests of the public are hampered and interfered with by organizational abuses that go against the accepted societal norms and may breed inefficiency if something is not done about it (Weinstein, 1979).

The whistleblower him or herself must be carefully scrutinized. What are the personal and the professional reputations of the whistleblower? What is the motive driving the whistleblower? Is it to benefit the client or the organization, or is it a need for attention or revenge? Is the whistleblower's cause seen as legitimate and significant by trustworthy colleagues and friends? Is the whistleblower aware of the potential consequences of blowing the whistle and still willing to accept responsibility for actions taken?