The Darkside of Whistleblowing

Duska argues that whistleblowing is always justified. He claims that employees do “not have an obligation of loyalty to a company, even a prima facie one, because companies are not the kind of things that are properly objects of loyalty” (Duska, pg. 424). Duska denies one of Bok’s key conditions to blow the whistle, loyalty. This is because Duska sees the purpose of business is to produce goods and services and to make a profit. Duska’s view of a business’s purpose prevents the company, or in Case C the university, from becoming an object deserving of loyalty.

In addition, whistleblowers should be portrayed as being good in order for society to begin seeing them in a positive way. Furthermore, the government should make this type of crimes a public matter. Allowing the public to be able to see all charges and outcome regarding these cases could bring out other wrongdoings in other organizations. The government should also impose greater punishment such as jail time for these types of crimes rather than imposing fines that they are able to

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

For many whistleblowers, fear of persecution and retaliation has prevented them from speaking out against improper behaviors at their institutions. Because of the dangers that whistleblowers are exposed to, many companies have become proactive in promoting and protecting whistleblowing. As a case and point, we need to look no further than the banking giant, Barclays.

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

Jackson and Raftos (1997) referred to whistle blowing as an avenue of last resort. Employees find themselves in these situations when the authorities at their organisations have failed to take actions on reported issues affecting that organisation. Wimot (2000) likened whistleblowing to a spectrum. At one end of this spectrum whistleblowing would only cause minimal pain and scars on the stakeholders and organisation while on the other end is the worst scenario where the whistleblowing effects are turbulent and often experienced to be negative to all those involved (ibid).

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.

While reporting fraud on the government can be personally rewarding from a moral, ethical and financial standpoint, it can also be very difficult in terms of the stress and anxiety associated with standing up to powerful corporate interests. The decision to become a whistleblower can be a life-altering experience that was about to overtake General Motors. This could potentially have an adverse effect on the whistleblower’s employment, social activities, and other aspects of his or her life (McEldrew Young, 2016).

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 is the act of an employee exposing a company’s misconduct, illegal activity, or threats to the public. Whistle blowing is protected under Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) act of 2002 section 806. There are two different types of whistleblowing, internal and external. Internal is when an employee discovers misconduct and reports it to a supervisor or executive to handle the issue. External whistleblowing is when an employee reports a company’s misconduct to external parties such as law enforcement or media. O’Brien had to complete both types of whistleblowing. When he reported it to Amgen’s upper management and no action was taken, he then sought out legal representation to discuss the issue and his wrongful termination.

Whitleblowing is when a person speaks out about information that may be illegal or unethical with an institution or an organization that is either private or public. However, It can be considered either good or bad depending on the organization or institution. In the government it is sometimes seeing as treason and the whistleblower is almost never rewarded for speaking out about acts that might put a lot of people in danger or even violate peoples human rights. the reason that in the government specifically whisleblowing is pretty much looked as a bad thing is because it might put the citizens of the country against the individuals who are supposed to be running the government in a legal and ethical way without harming anybody. A good example

In bureaucracy there is a separation of powers, checks, and balances, these internal checks are required because it brings accountability within the bureaucracy. There are four main types of mechanisms that can be put in place, whistleblowing, law judges, senior executive services and the representatives from the demographic. However, these different mechanisms have limited effect on the bureaucracy. Whistleblowing is one of the most effective mechanisms of accountability because superiors are reported on when they partake in any unethical behavior that put the government in a detriment. However, whistleblowing is not easy to do, even though there is a protection act in place for whoever partake in it but the case must be thoroughly be investigated

Whistleblowers perform in many careers and are found at all levels of an organization: scientists and secretaries, lawyers and paralegals, managers and staff, security personnel and computer specialists, etc. They are as varied in age, ethnic background, education, profession, sex, and income as the population at large.

This editorial covers a challenging topic on whistleblowers. The article, “MassMutual whistle-blower finally identified,” written by Michelle Williams, discloses the information pertaining to a company by the name of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and their whistle-blower that saved their proverbial tails in the long run. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) delayed in identifying the Mutual Life Insurance Companies whistle-blower do the sensitivity of the information disclosed. This man, by the name of Bill Lloyd, was a loyal, straight laced individual who enjoyed his 22 year career as an agent. Lloyd knew of some compounding issues with their annuity programs, which guaranteed monetary benefits to their customers. This issue needed to be addressed, and it was on Lloyd’s conscience to bring this to the attention of the company and later to the SEC as a “final effort.” The SEC promptly addressed the matter to the Mutual Life Insurance Company and corrected the problem. Two years after reporting the issue to the SEC, the commission granted Lloyd monetary compensation for bringing the concern to their attention.

In an article written by Gerald Hanks titled, “Advantages & Disadvantages of Whistle-Blowing,” he states that these people who are labeled as whistleblowers are brave individuals who are willing to speak up when they recognized wrongdoing (2018). These people are willing to jeopardize their reputation and their careers to correct these unethical misconducts. Another positive benefit that comes with being a whistleblower is that if the claims are to be proven, they will receive a settlement/recovery. In the article, “Pros and Cons of becoming a Whistleblower,” it states that the whistleblowers are granted an annuity of the recoveries that come from their lawsuit (n.d). These settlements are a way to encourage people to come forward and report any misconduct they might witness or know about in their workplace. The fact that there are benefits involved with whistleblowing and an ethical piece of mind makes these “insiders” go through the motions of opening a can of worms and accuse the