Whistleblowers can highlight and prosecute wrongdoers within a company by releasing and discussion information only very few have access to within an organization. When observing the common model of whistleblowing, the process of whistleblowing is composed of five stages (Henik, 2008): “the occurrence of the triggering event, recognition of the event and decision of actions to take, conduct of action, organizational reaction to whistle-blowing, and whistle-blower’s assessment to the organizational response”. The second stage is critical in that the decision to blow the whistle is made in that stage. Many people who want to come forth about information regarding an organization that they work for are usually too afraid to do so because of certain limitations. These limitations can include losing your job, lose of benefits, media locked on to you, and the organization itself can come after you. President Obama emphasized the importance of whistleblowing by saying, “Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out” (CBC News, 2013). Sometimes, people interchangeably use the terms “whistleblowing and voice”. Earlier, Hirschman (1970) listed four ways to respond to dissatisfaction: “exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect”. “Dissatisfied employees adopt “voice” when they decide to stay in the organization and seek to improve current conditions (Zhou & George,
Duska argues that whistleblowing is always justified. He claims that employees do “not have an obligation of loyalty to a company, even a prima facie one, because companies are not the kind of things that are properly objects of loyalty” (Duska, pg. 424). Duska denies one of Bok’s key conditions to blow the whistle, loyalty. This is because Duska sees the purpose of business is to produce goods and services and to make a profit. Duska’s view of a business’s purpose prevents the company, or in Case C the university, from becoming an object deserving of loyalty.
The 1983 film Silkwood, was inspired by Karen Silkwood of the monumental Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. (81-2159) whistleblowing case. Silkwood, a union activist and whistleblower, worked at the Cimarron Kerr-McGee Nuclear Fuel Processing facility in Oklahoma from August 1972 until November 1974. While the activist was investigating alleged corporate wrongdoing, specifically plutonium contaminations on her body and throughout her house, she was killed in a suspicious auto accident. The case portrayed in film shows implications for modern whistleblowers, set a precedent and was essential in creating proper protections for whistleblowers. This paper will gave background on union organization and the Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. court case and then further analyze the context of the case in modern day whistleblowing.
The 1983 film Silkwood, was inspired by Karen Silkwood of the monumental Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. (81-2159) whistleblowing case. Silkwood, a union activist and whistleblower who worked at the Cimarron, Oklahoma Kerr-McGee Nuclear Fuel Processing facility from August, 1972 through November 1974. While the activist was investigating alleged wrongdoing, specifically plutonium contaminations on her body and throughout her house, she was killed in a suspicious auto accident. The case portrayed in film shows implications for modern whistleblowers, set a precedent and was essential in creating proper protections for whistleblowers. This paper will analyze the context of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. in modern day whistleblowing.
In addition, whistleblowers should be portrayed as being good in order for society to begin seeing them in a positive way. Furthermore, the government should make this type of crimes a public matter. Allowing the public to be able to see all charges and outcome regarding these cases could bring out other wrongdoings in other organizations. The government should also impose greater punishment such as jail time for these types of crimes rather than imposing fines that they are able to
Review “Just pucker and blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers” in Chapter 2. Please respond to the following:
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
Unfortunately, as an employee of an organization several years ago I was involved in a whistle blowing the case. I can personally vouch for the fact it is unpleasant at best and quit a headache. My “employer” was violating multiple OSHA and PEOSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) codes and requirements for training and personal protection. My colleague and I brought these issues to management in a written form on more than one occasion, and we both were promptly removed from the personnel roster without cause. The next several months were meetings, interviews, letters and legal correspondence to prove our case which was ultimately decided in our favor, reinstating us and led to a hefty fine for the agency. This was a volunteer
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.
Steve Rigg and Richard Caruso were two corrections officers that discovered the unethical practices in Corcoran State Prison. In spite of the risk of being terminated and other retaliation, Rigg and Caruso made a decision to come to the defense of the prisoners by becoming whistle blowers. “Whistle blowing may be defined as the attempt by an employee or former employee of an organization to disclose what he or she believes to be wrong doing in or by the organization” (Callahan, 1988, p. 315). According to Dryburgh (2009) “the motives of a whistle blower can be classified as rational, normal based or affective” (p. 158). Rigg and Caruso’s motives for becoming whistle blowers are more in accordance with normal based motives as they “encompass a desire to serve the public interest and advance social equity while preserving an individual level of loyalty to the responsibilities of the position as well as a commitment to government” (Dryburgh, 2009, p. 158). A
What is the explanation of the standard view on whistleblowing presented by Sissela Bok and reported by Robert Larmer in his article?
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
Jackson and Raftos (1997) referred to whistle blowing as an avenue of last resort. Employees find themselves in these situations when the authorities at their organisations have failed to take actions on reported issues affecting that organisation. Wimot (2000) likened whistleblowing to a spectrum. At one end of this spectrum whistleblowing would only cause minimal pain and scars on the stakeholders and organisation while on the other end is the worst scenario where the whistleblowing effects are turbulent and often experienced to be negative to all those involved (ibid).
advantageous information, and the abuse by the government and lack of legal protection provided to these whistleblowers.
Hayley, I absolutely agree with you. Each individual must make his or her own decision as to whether the disturbing unethical offense is worth the personal cost (Reece 2014, pg 111). When I was personal faced with trying to decide to whistle blow or keep quiet and do nothing at all; I had to tell. I tried to just keep my head down and be silent but, the silence was literally making me sick. I couldn’t eat, I couldn’t sleep, and what I knew was constantly on my mind, I felt like I couldn’t function properly. The reason I was unable to function was because not being honest was not in my charter. I made the decision to be the whistleblower, and yes I did receive some back lash but for me that was better than the silence. Every individual is different,
2. What measures can and should be taken to make it easier for corporate employees to ‘‘blow the whistle’’ on a fraudulent scheme they uncovered within the firm?