Whistleblowing

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”.

The Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 (“the Act”) supports the Government’s commitment to the principles of open, honest and accountable governance. It is designed to protect the public interest by: • exposing serious public sector wrongdoing; • ensuring public organisations are responsible and accountable; and • protecting whistleblowers from detrimental action and protecting their privacy.

Before all of these events, the 1912 Lloyd-LaFollette Act was already in place-which allowed employees to give that type of secret information to Congress. But when these more modern whistleblowers were constantly exposing information to the public, rather than just the Congress, more effective protection was called for. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1997 protected them for all exposure and even prohibited retaliation. But the biggest achievements for whistleblowers were made by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which required rewards for successful whistleblowers along with protection. With whistleblowers constantly risking their own lives and reputation to keep the public informed, it was finally time for them to get the thanks they deserved instead of

It used to be that whistleblowers were applauded, and they still are in the private sector, but it seems as if government whistleblowers are criticized and many are even criminally charged. There is certainly a different take on their activities. In fact, some advocates counsel federal employees not to come forward with information because if they do, their lives will be destroyed (Shulman, 2007). What often happens is that they will never be able to work in their careers again in the same capacity (Shulman, 2007). Many whistleblowers not only lose their jobs, but they lose their families and friends, and much of their money ends up going to attorneys (Shulman, 2007). Indeed, in today’s day and age, there is a surge of whistleblowers

If the CEO received a report of his misconduct, the business would surely fall as the boss was the key person who kept the business running steadily. Most often, this event can cause massive damage to employee’s salaries, and affect the economic values as well. Furthermore, one may argue that whistleblowing may violate individual rights as employee’s signed a contract abiding by company’s standard. In an article called “Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibilities” by Sissela Bok, she emphasizes “employees have a loyalty oath of confidentiality and secrecy” (Bok 178) which may violate human rights as well. Individuals often view that they often have the right to privacy. However, whistleblowing to the company can create a breach in loyalty. Similar to a friend posting every secret about the person, employers contain information to avoid mass media and future damages to the community. Therefore, whistleblowing may create further chaos and future problems. While whistleblowing has its flaws regarding the standards placed on the employee, moral and ethical rights are higher than what an employer can offer for their

Some of the key characteristics of the whistleblower are the ability to cause dissent, breach loyalty and withstand accusation. Dissent is important because it is one way of ensuring that large bureaucracies operate under a legal, efficient and ethical manner. However, blowing the whistle puts one’s loyalty against the public’s loyalty that may bring shame to the person exposed (Gao, 2011). Accusations result from disloyalty created against the public, and this is neglect and abuse of public interest.

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

When companies choose the wrong path to take and default thousands of people at times the corporations or government loses sight of what is really important for everyone involved or the general public. “Were it not for these whistleblowers, many companies would have gotten away with corruption that in some cases led to the public losing money, and in others, potentially their lives” (Gray, 2012). Those that bring light to problems within a business or government have a lot at risk including their own job and integrity. The choice in which one needs to make is does one ignore and put aside what may be happening, or take the stand against what is not right; no matter what may happen or any consequences or repercussions that may become as result. “It also seems to be an idea that appeals to common sense and is often regarded, therefore, as one that most people use even when they don 't realize they are applying a specific ethical theory” (Mosser, 2013).

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,

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

Organizations that encourage a culture of whistleblowing by their employees have been known to be more transparent characterized by free employee communication and trust. The benefit of this is that wrongs can be easily detected, and it also promotes an ethical work environment (Berry, 2004).However, whistleblowing is not an easy thing that anyone can do especially in an organization. It always come with consequences that may not only affect the whistleblower but often those he cares deeply about such as spouse and

The best solution to this problem may lie between yes and no. One does have a certain moral standard to uphold. This would include blowing the whistle on a company that is hurting others because of unsafe products. This would also include the moral responsibility to provide and care for yourself and a family. A person does have a moral responsibility to both of these. One way to accomplish both would be to inform the public about the company's wrong doings, but do it anonymously so no one would know who did it. By staying anonymous, you can keep your job and still

If something happens in the organization, for example, a worker is thought to be engaged in illegal activities, then a whistleblower reports on this to the legal institution. As a rule, a whistleblower is an employee, so to encourage him/her to disclose the information and to assure that one is making a right step the Whistleblower Protection Act was adopted (Ethics and corporate social responsibility, 2009).

Unfortunately, during most of this century many people equated whistleblowers with tattle tales. For instance, until the early 1980s, legal indices often listed the law of whistleblowing under the word "snitch" or "informant." During the Nixon era, much of that negative attitude changed. With the advent of Watergate, the public began to recognize the service whistleblowers were providing to taxpayers at great risk to themselves.