Everyday an individual could make a choice that could change their life in a certain way. What if I wear the I wear this shirt or should pick a different shirt? Would I rather have a soda or water? These simple decisions are usually made without putting much thought into the decision. This happens because the decisions are not as important as we think they are. When the decision is not easy to make, is when it could be life changing. A person’s conscious is affected by the decision-making process, especially when whistle blowing occurs. In this paper, I explain and evaluate whistle-blowing, when and where it occurs, and the effects and consequences of whistle-blowing. If I understand correctly whistle-blowing is defined as an informant who …show more content…
It can be harmful to future employment of the whistleblower though. I believe that under certain circumstances, whistle blowing is necessary for the company’s welfare, but when the whistleblower’s own career is at risk it is a difficult choice to report. Most of the time when a person's career is not at risk, I believe that there is still no ethical obligation to blow the whistle.
Personally, there is not many situations where I would blow the whistle because of the low guarantee of my employment. Whistle blowing is not usually done correctly, but when an employee is brave enough to speak out against unethical practices of the business in which they work a lot. They are referred to as superheroes to the other employees and can save a company from losing everything. Also, they prevent harm for the business’s customers and employees. Whistle blowing cannot usually be done in an impulse due because of the damaging effects that can be placed on the whistleblower. If I were in a situation where I had to take an action, I would take plenty of time to analyze the situation and think about if it could harm others. I would also keep in mind the consequences that would be placed on me. It is an important tool to enforce on ethical practices for any
However, it may not be the best solution to be used first when dealing with unethical corporate practices. From more of a Utilitarian approach one should seek to do the greatest good. An approach that gives the company a chance to change its unethical behavior internally would follow this idea. Having the ability to change practices internally before outside intervention can have many positive effects. The company is able to make the changes, reestablish its integrity, maintain business, and retain employees. The whistleblowing option brings in outside forces that could lead to repercussions for the company which may include restitution or even being closed down. If the business is closed it effects more than just the corporate entity, all of the employees are also negatively impacted by this as well when they would lose their jobs. Sometimes however, when the company is unwilling to change its practices and do business in a more ethical manner people are left with little choice but to report to outside sources what is occurring within the business. Many see whistleblowing as law-breaking when employees are contractually obligated to
First I will be telling you about the pressure of being a “whistleblower”. In Fahrenheit 451 the pressure of being a “whistleblower” is so real, everyone is told to rat out everyone who has a book in their household, if they find out they have a book in the home it is burned to the ground. This is related to our society because we are pressured to do what is right, and part of my belief system is to do what is right and to point out what is wrong. For example if someone were to gossip behind their back I would try to stand up and tell them it is wrong and tell the person what the others said
Which allows employees that have observed any illegal acts or acts that raise concern to be able to report to a company hotline that allows that individual to report with the secrecy of the act without fear of retaliation from the company. Generally, whistleblowers are employees that are dedicated to the company and is a model employee. They do not have any intentions of hurting the company, but rather to improve the company. By having an anonymous reporting method of any situations allows employees to feel that the company values their opinions and actually care what is happening within the company. Another reason that this is a plus is because this keeps everybody honest, since there is an open door policy of reporting any illegal acts. The best way to implement this protocol is to educate employees on what the purpose of the program is. Then train the employees on the simple reporting procedures and certify that everything is clearly written and efficiently understood. When the complaint has reported an Ombudsperson or manager will report the matter to upper management to conduct an internal investigation. When all is done and the complaint is true, then actions will be done to correct the problems. In this case of the secretary being fired for refusal to prepare false expense reports for her boss, there is no need for her to be terminated instead this allows the creation of the whistle-blowing hotline for the company to investigate any illegal acts within the
Bouville (2008) describes whistleblowing as an act for an employee of revealing what he believes to be unethical or described as an illegal behaviour to a higher management (internal whistleblowing) or to an external authority or the public (external whistleblowing). Whistle-blowers are often seen as traitors to an organisation as they are considered to have violated the loyalty terms of that organisation while some are described as heroes that defend the values and ethics of humanity rather than loyalty to their company. In the medical community, it is the duty of a practitioner aware of patient care being threatened to make it known to those in charge and for those in charge to address the issues and act on it. The General Medical Council (GMC) stipulated this act of raising concern as a doctor’s duty in its Good medical practice guide. This paper will be based on the analysis of the experience of whistle blowers, reasons why they chose or chose not to take such actions and personal opinions on whistleblowing in the medical community.
Whistle blowing according to Boatright, “is the voluntary release of nonpublic information, as a protest, by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels of communication to an appropriate audience about illegal and /or immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in the organization that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest”. (2009).
The act of whistle-blowing is an ethical issue that all employees have the right to. Whether they decide to make the corrupt information known publicly or anonymously, the information they provide can protect everyone involved. The ethical and moral sides of whistle-blowing can go both ways. In order to protect the customers, patients, or consumers of the harmful products the companies are offering, employees that have morals and feel the need to make the truth be known have an ethical responsibility to do so. Issues of being a whistle-blower are more controversial than the responsibilities of the employees doing so. When a whistle-blower takes action, they expose information from their company that it not meant to be public. They basically turn their backs away from their company and colleagues by revealing the truth. When surveying these issues, an employee who is torn by exposing information or keeping silent must decide whether it is more ethical to stay loyal to their organization or to the organization's
In doing so, he compromises his own moral ethics; however, the chance of Dwight being exposed is limited. If caught, Dwight can fall back on the training relationship and how being a trainee his career would be likely ruined by Michael if he reported him. In addition, many case studies provide evidence where the whistleblower is punished indirectly through limited advancement opportunities or other various forms of retaliation. By choosing to ignore the company policy and accept the reward for his silence, Dwight has sacrificed his personal ethics.
Organizations that are more established and prosperous will have a more favorable way of looking at acts of whistleblowing and will have more resources at its disposal to devote to investigate the claims of the whistleblowers. On the other hand those firms which are less prosperous may see acts of whistleblowing as a threat to their existence and, have a hostile climate in general towards whistleblowing. The acts of whistleblowing may be perceived differently by different people in the organization. The superiors and the supervisors of the whistleblower may see such an act as questioning their ability, integrity and conduct. The fellow employees and colleagues may perceive the whistleblower as being disloyal to the company and the owners and the top management may see it as an effort on the part of the whistleblower to destroy the organizational image and threaten its stability. It is thus difficult to predict the outcomes across organizations in case of whistleblowing. A number of factors determine the outcome but these factors and the outcome itself vary from organization to organization and from individual to individual (Paul and Townsend,
“Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage” (Confucius Quotes, 2012). The person who does her duty, at great risk to her own interest, when most others would defy from fear is considered a hero (Schafer, 2004). Dr. Nancy Olivieri is a hero who blew the whistle on Apotex, University of Toronto (U of T) and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC); and fought for her academic rights till the end. Whistle-blowing refers to actions of an employee that breach her loyalty to the organization but serves the public interest. When other constraints proved to be ineffective, whistle-blowing acts as a check on authority of the organization. Whistle-blowers expose severe forms of corruption, waste, and abuse of power within their organization and put the organization in a position where it is answerable to the public, thus enhancing its accountability (Cooper, 2006, pg. 198-205).
On November 29th, Mary Inman gave us a talk on the topic whistleblowing, which let me know more about the whistleblower activities and the whistleblower protection. According to the definition given by the website whistleblowers international, whistleblowing is someone who reveal the unethical or illegal activities within the company. The person can be current or past employee, or an outside individual who is familiar with the unethical activity. This whistleblower does not need to be U.S. citizen.
In the 1970’s, Ralph Nard coined the term whistleblower referring to when a referee blows a whistle to indicate an illegal or foul play. Oxford dictionaries define whistleblower as “a person who informs on a person or organization regarded as engaging in an unlawful or immoral activity.” This can be in either the government or corporations. The debate on whistleblowers continues to be pertinent in light of recent scandals. Many believe in the value of transparency, but disagree about the correct way to achieve it. This is why we created laws, such as the Whistleblower Act and the Espionage Act. The Whistleblower Act was put in place in order to protect “[A]ny disclosure of information” that a covered employee “reasonably believes” evidences “a violation of any law, rule, or ...
A whistleblower is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. A whistleblower can be classified for violation of a law, rule, regulation or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations and corruption. The first protection law for whistleblowers in the United States was on July 30, 1778. The Continental Congress had an unanimous vote. In 1777 Richard Marven and Samuel Shaw blew a whistle, they suffered severe retaliation by Esek Hopkins, the Commander in Chief of the Continental Navy. There have been many whistleblowers since Marven and Shaw, one of the biggest whistleblowers today is an Australian editor, activist, publisher and journalist named Julian Paul Assange, which he's known for as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks.
“To define the term further within the scope of nursing, whistle-blowing is an action taken by a nurse within his or her organization to correct a dangerous situation. Whether this be towards a fellow nurse or another person on the healthcare team” (Firtko & Jackson, 2005).
Whistleblowing is the action of an employee, who reports any unethical violations they see or come across in the firm. Employees should be encouraged to practise whistleblowing, also, organisations should encourage them to act up against unethical behavior.
Morality is the biggest and best reason for this act because people generally want to do the good moral thing. If a person should have to blow the whistle on a company they should know that for every action there is a reaction, and the reaction of whistle blowing might lead to getting fired. One of the most controversial types of whistle blowing is that of impersonal. If a company is making products that are unsafe because they are trying to save a few dollars, an employee could see this as immoral and tell the public about it. The whistle blower would do this based on Kant's theory. It would be following the moral law to do so. If a company is cutting corners and hurting others, it would be morally unacceptable not to blow the whistle on this company. To knowingly let innocent people get hurt because of something that you could have stopped is morally wrong. A lot of people would blow the whistle on a company that is making unsafe products, but not all. A number of people would not inform the public of the company's wrongdoings. They would not do it out of fear that they might loose there job or even be blacklisted from the industry altogether. If they are not fired they will most likely be outcasts at their job and looked over at promotion time.