Whistleblower Protection Australia

Review “Just pucker and blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers” in Chapter 2. Please respond to the following:

The Public Interest Disclosure Act consists of providing protection for official workers who wish to make a disclosure in the public interest. In the past, any disclosures affiliated within the PID Act will not be subject to a criminal prosecution under the Australian Border Force Act. However, with these new changes to the ABF Act, TCPC and PID Act are being overthrown and thus the legal safety of official workers (including contractors) are questionable. The new changes to the Border Force Act are as follows; Section 24 now requires any departmental workers or contractors of the department to subscribe to an oath. Section 26 consists of giving permission to the Australian Border Force Commissioner to instruct departmental employees who work for foreign governments or public international organisations. Section 42 (1), states there will be a 2 year imprisonment as a punishment for any employee that has been entrusted into Detention Centres or the Australian Border Force whom discloses protected information of a patient, environment or

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

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,

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.

In an age when accelerated communications contribute to growing perceptions of organizational improprieties, the ethical and legal implications of whistleblowing have become a major topic of discussion. According to Lawrence and Weber (2014), whistleblowing is an employee disclosing apparent organizational misconduct to the government or media; however, this reporting of information should come after attempts at going through proper channels in order to persuade the organization to take appropriate actions has been ineffective.

To start, one must first address laws surrounding whistleblowing before looking at ethic-based authorities. While there is not a law that requires one to whistle blow, there are laws that have been put in place to ensure that

Several theories indicate why the whistle-blowing process has become more prevalent and characteristics or processes encourage individuals to come forward a report instances of wrongdoing or making organizational behaviors public knowledge (Lennane, 2012). The process of whistle-blowing often involves an individual being conflicted between loyalty to their organization or their belief that they have a responsibility to protect public interest above the practices of their organization (Soma & Nirmala, 2011). Individuals may attempt to initiate

Whistleblowing is the act that employees commit when they cry foul on their own organization for misdoings, corruption and illegality. I shall argue that whistleblowing in the workplace is “sometimes permissible” in order to keep businesses and corporations in check. I shall do so by presenting the best argument for whistleblowing to be “sometimes permissible” and not “always permissible”.

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).

Well-known companies such as the Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and 7-Eleven have broken the law and mistreated their employees and customers. The value of the brave whistle-blowers is irreplaceable in these circumstances and their contribution is the only thing that prevented these companies from continuing to mistreat others.

Employees involved or witnessing any acts of retaliation will be protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. This Act “...establishes procedures for employees and applicants for employment at the CSU to make protected disclosures of improper governmental activities or significant threats to health and safety (whistleblower protection).” Any employee who has revealed information about acts of violation or has failed to act in accordance with local, state, or federal statutes, rules, and regulations, or if they claim an unsafe working environment to higher authority, than those employees are referred to as whistleblowers. California provides protection for whistleblowers, such as; No employer may adopt or enforce a rule, regulation, or policy

In the case study Why Didn't We Know, there are a number of problems that the company Galvetrens faced. First, the company's policy for the confidential reporting of misconduct is flawed, and as a result, it leaves employees vulnerable to being retaliated against. Furthermore,

Companies in today’s society are often required to abide by an abundant amount of rules and regulations imposed upon them which stem from government and law enforcement authority. In analyzing the Case of “The Reluctant Security Guard” we will examine the decision making process which led to David Tuff effectively ‘whistle blowing’ for what he felt was the right thing to do.