Whistle-blowing in the Workplace: An Ethical Responsibility?
Working in any environment, some people are subject to see things that may be illegal or unethical. In any situation like this, how do you determine the best decision, whether to keep quiet or speak out? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a whistle-blower is one who reveals something, converts or informs against another person’s transgression in the workplace. In 1989, the United States passed the Whistleblower Protection Act. This act protects federal employees in the workplace if they report any misconduct or wrongdoing. Whistle-blowing is becoming more universal, however is it really worth the whistle-blowers risk and integrity? I will attempt to analyze key facts regarding
…show more content…
In my opinion blowing the whistle is always a good decision because it makes people aware and knowledgeable about practices or activities in question. Also, I believe the decision to blow the whistle can ultimately bring forth the truth, save careers, funds, and the reputation of the company. Jeffrey Wigand actually blew the whistle on his employer at the time, Brown and Williamson, a cigarette company. Wigand made it known that the company was adding harmful addictives, such as ammonia, to cigarettes to get cigarette smokers hooked (Leung). After blowing the whistle, Jeffery Wigand received death threats and was constantly harassed, however he did not change or regret his allegation at all. He knew he was doing it for the right reasons. CBS News team actually conducted an interview with Jeffrey Wigand, CBS …show more content…
Whether it is right or wrong? When is the best time to say something? Should I say anything at all? I am in favor of whistle-blowing in the workplace because it ties into ethics morally and socially. Universally, it is becoming more relevant. The government has many laws protecting whistle-blowers rights and speech against retaliation against employers and others. These laws are becoming more enforceable as ethical responsibility increases. For example, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 was passed after the Enron scandal. This act is another that protects the rights and civility of whistleblowers. Many companies have strengthened their
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
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
For this essay, I will evaluate the Employee Loyalty Argument derived from ‘Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty’ by Ronald Duska. I will argue that this Employee Loyalty Argument is deductively valid but is not deductively sound because premise 2 is false. I will justify my claims that premise 2 is false by arguing about how it is rational for employees to expect their companies to recognize and fulfill a duty of loyalty to their employees if the employees also have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them.
The corporate world has been rocked by scandals occurring in well-known companies such as Enron and WorldCom. These blatant examples of fraudulent financial reporting and related corporate corruption created the necessity for more stringent and comprehensive laws and punishments to avoid such corporate scandals in the future. On July 30, 2002 President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The law was enacted to bolster public confidence in our nation’s capital markets. It imposes new reporting requirements and significant penalties for non-compliance on public companies and their executives, directors, attorneys, auditors and securities analysts. In my opinion, one of the significant provisions of the Act, that covers companies registered under section 12 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, provides federal protection for “whistleblowers”. The Act requires that companies covered in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act should encourage employees to come forward and provide management with information regarding potential corporate fraud. It also specifically prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who provide such information. This Act was passed as a result of Enron’s attempted retaliation against Sherry Watkins who blew the whistle on the company. It’s purpose seems to be to enable ethical employees help keep management abreast of unsavory activities that will in the long run not only harm employees, stockholders and other stakeholders, but as past experience has shown will often lead to the demise of the company.
Throughout all of humanity, people have been shunning other people for many reasons. Whether it be the differences between two people or the wrongdoings of a person, it almost seems like human nature for people to turn away from each other. A person would think that over time, society would become more accepting of others, but instead, it seems that the things that have been seen to be unfit for society in the past still hold true today. Traditions and beliefs are still prevalent today, and when someone goes against them, it is seen as a reason to create a pariah out of the person. Whether it’d be the lepers of the past or the whistleblowers of today, shunning is still commonplace in todays society.
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).
...y. Congress has passed laws to protect whistleblowers because they protect the accountability of the government and private companies by sharing the truth of their actions. Although there have been laws to protect whistle blowers many still are receiving punishment from corporations today.
It is estimated that somewhere between half and two-thirds of all whistleblowers lose their jobs. In general, the more systematic the wrongdoing within an organization, the greater the reprisal against those who expose it. (Dictionary definition of a whistleblower: a person who reports or discloses information of a threat or harm to the public interest in the context of their work-based relationship.)
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.
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.