More on Whistle-blowers

I have always said that despite the increasing numbers of legal protections for whistle-blowers, the decision as to whether to report illegal activities of your employer must be an ethical one. The price a whistle-blower pays is high if you look closely at historical examples. A NY Times article from this weekend emphasizes my point. Not only are whistle-blowers usually fired, but they are typically unemployable thereafter. Personal strife follows, including divorce, loss of friends, and depression. This is an interesting study in how the law can start a societal change by creating an incentive to blow the whistle, but it takes a long time for people to change how they view whistle-blowers. What else can we do to make it less traumatic for those that report wrongdoing?

9 Comments

Thuy Pham posted on September 23, 2012 at 7:52 pm

I think it is fairly difficult to make it less traumatic for whistle-blowers, and I agree it’s because we can’t dramatically change a society’s point of view quickly. The NY Times article linked to here mentions preserving their anonymity, but that method has problems and doesn’t always work. I think that the degree of trauma incurred however depends on the individual: if they are strong-willed and are reporting wrongdoing purely for ethical/moral reasons, then they will (are more likely to) remain resilient even after suffering the consequences of whistle-blowing because those are values that they deem important enough to risk “everything” for. Conversely, people who do it for the money probably don’t have the same amount of will-power to persevere. At the same time though, I also believe that everyone must crack eventually, especially when they have lose all other sources of support. Maybe they can form an organization for whistle-blowers to band together? But that would probably fail because all of the pristine individuals would eventually just be working for each other so wrongdoings would stop being reported. It’s so complicated! The only thing the government can give is money, but unlike in lawsuits, the government doesn’t consider future damages whistle-blowers may incur. Perhaps they should. But then again, money can’t fix everything. I ultimately think the only way to get around this is to make it so that society values ethical/moral righteousness, and that could possibly be accomplished through some cognitive dissonance programs being incorporated into company-wide trainings or something like that.

Tsz Hung Chiu posted on September 23, 2012 at 7:55 pm

I’ve always wondered as to why there isn’t a confidential agreement between the whistle-blower and the government/OSHA?
Maybe by granting the whistle-blowers with a guaranteed job opportunity will reduce the traumatic effects forced upon them. This way not only will it be less horrific but also increases incentive to report wrongdoing.

Sofia Gracian posted on September 23, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Every decision has its consequences, even the right one. Ethically, people should expose all wrongdoings. However, they are not requires to, it is still their choice. So it depends on the type of life they want to lead, and how strong willed they are to maintain and abide by that lifestyles. Once they decide what type of people they are, and how they want to lead their life, the decision is easy, they either tell or not. The consequences are just part of that decision, and while no one can control external consequences, how you feel about yourself as a person is what you can control and is what should matter the most.

I am not saying that its then easy to come forward and tell the truth, exposing people or corporations. I have to say I am shocked that whistle-blowers’ privacy is not protected. I don’t think it would encourage more people to become whistle-blowers, people either are whistle-blowers or they aren’t, and they’ll talk regardless of what can happen to them. That is why there are whistle-blowers even now. I think its the best solution to avoid consequences with the whistle-blowers. I don’t think its fair for anyone to be punished for doing the right thing, and I believe that the government should do what it can to prevent punishment.

During the summer I worked at a financial society and the governmental institution that regulates institutions of the sort was implementing a system in which employees could report wrongdoing from anyone else in the company, from other workers, suppliers, directives to customers, while maintaining complete anonymity. I don’t see why the US government can’t or won’t do so if whistle-blowers help them. I am confident that the US government knows how to maintain anonymity for certain people, and they could do so too for whistle-blowers.

Valeria Brito posted on September 24, 2012 at 6:59 pm

I believe that the only solution left to help whistle blowers is anonymity. I think the government should grant that to whistle- blowers. Even if it does not work perfectly in some cases, the government should try to preserve the anonymity of these individuals. Thus, I deem the government have the resources to do so if they put it as their priority.

Also, I think an effective solution to the problem could be to increase even more the penalty that the companies have to pay when committing a violation such as this one. By increasing this amount, the whistle-blower will have more incentive to talk and the companies would have less incentive to violate the law.

Joe DiFilippo posted on September 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm

I believe it is very difficult to make it less traumatic for whistle-blowers in the event of a trial due to their information being made public. Though the whistle-blower is kept anonymous at first, it would be impossible to keep them “swept under the rag” if they need to testify. Given the gravity of the situation, I do not believe any monetary value associated with whistle-blowing would be able to keep most at ease. It pretty much destroys your reputation because most people will know who you are and why you were fired from that job. They would not want to hire someone with that type of excess baggage into their respective firm. I think steps should be taken to keep whistle-blowers anonymous because the after effects are far too great to just accept monetary value in exchange for all of the problems associated with it.

Brandon Siegenfeld posted on September 29, 2012 at 11:02 am

WhistleBlowing seems to have a few categories
-Disincentives: Anonymity issues, Emotional/Financial Damages
-Incentives: Monetary Compensation, Moral Preservation
-Benefit to the Government/Society

Overall people are like a set of scales, so the goal is:
Whistleblower’s perspective: disincentives<incentives
Government's perspective: incentives paid out+trial fees<benefit to government and society

Disincentives: It seems from this article that this category cannot be easily controlled through government regulations. If there is a case, then anonymity will most likely be lost (except for IRS cases). And in most cases people face extreme emotional stresses from loss of all work friends, loss of their current job and possible future jobs, and probably other life changing effects.

Incentives: While the moral benefits to the whistleblower are a good incentive to go through the process for some people, most need some additional compensation. Most people can be bought for the right price, it should not matter if the whistleblower is a moral person, a greedy person, or a risk averse person. Either way, the government can easily increase the number of whistle blowers by increasing monetary awards and punishments to the offenders. Which oddly enough was not mentioned in the article, possibly because the offenders are not punished personally, the business is. And then it is up to the business to take actions to fire the person.

The more interesting aspect is the government's side on whistleblowing. It seems to me the government would want to greatly increase whistle-blowers incentives, however from the article the compensation seemed quite pitiful compared to the benefit the government received. I am not sure if the government is trying to keep costs down (be cheap) or if the rich have too much sway over that area of law which is a possibility but doesn't seem to be a major cause. If I had to guess it would be that the government wants to let businesses run freely, and not cripple these huge businesses that are essential to our economy. If that is the case, I think they are making a mistake.
The benefits to society, the government, and even other businesses definitely outweigh the short term costs. To list a few:
-penalty's received seem to outweigh fees incurred during trial, so the government earns money
-businesses would be unable to trust any employee to carry out illegal activities
-discourages businesses from engaging in illegal activities
-long term-decreases businesses lawyer fees, because of the above effect
-Increase of overall economic and social efficiency (if the law is efficient)

Overall, I am not fully aware of all the numbers involved in whistleblowing to give a fully accurate answer but it seems that it would be an excellent idea to increase whistleblower's compensation for both financial and moral reasons.

Eula Kennet posted on November 26, 2014 at 4:13 am

The Latest best link related website aircon repair singapore just link it to boost up thank you.

Thomas posted on November 23, 2021 at 1:41 pm

I have also recently been looking into whistleblower protections and was shocked by how often it can be career-destroying to attempt it. I recently made a video regarding this topic at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyuEB4iGKB4.
Please check it out if you have the time.

Upton Aircon posted on July 4, 2023 at 4:51 am

Thanks for sharing an informative blog that gave us information on Aircon Services. Upton Aircon provides the best services for aircon replacement. We also ensure all aircon services and safe at the best possible method for more informatization related to aircon services call us – at +65 90258375

Post a Comment

Your email address is never shared. Required fields are marked *