Why are whistleblowers regarded as models of honor and integrity

BUSINESS ETHICS

Week 6 Assignment

1. Why are whistle-blowers regarded as models of honor and integrity?

The whistle-blowers refer to models of integrity and honor as they put their personal and career lives at risk towards doing the right thing. Lincoln’s law was enacted to protect the government from fraud. This law aimed at making it easier for the whistle-blowers to give information without being intimidated. This law was also strengthened in protecting the whistle-blowers from losing their job while doing the right thing. In addition, whistle-blowers provide vital service to their place of work and the general public at large. The illegal activities discovery before things get worse can help to save the company from losing revenue from potential damage and also fines from relevant authorities. Potential harm towards the consumers may lead to bad image reputation, but when the discovery is made it leads to immeasurable benefits for the company and the society at large (Devine & Reaves, 2016).

Whistle-blowers need a lot of recognition for the good work they do to save the organizations. Whistle-blowers as an honor and integrity model need media attention in encouraging them to continue with their work to unearth and illegal activity before negatively affects the organization. Nevertheless, while whistle-blowers are seen as brave, they put their lives and career at great risk. Other people argue that whistle-blowers are only motivated by personal gains and should not be considered brave. Also, they are seen as troublemakers used by opponents to challenge any progress in the organization. Also, despite for whistle-blowers doing praiseworthy acts to help the organization before beings too late, they are criticized and called names such as squealers as well as sneakers who breach loyalty and trust they owe the organization and their employers at large. Therefore, a whistle-blower can be seen on two sides, a person who helps to save the organization and on the other hand a person who causes trouble to the organization.

2. Which whistle-blowing option is better for an organization—internal or external? Why?

In internal, a whistle-blower discovers illegal activities and direct report to the supervisor who then follows the case and establishes some potential ways to address the illegal activities in the organization. Most whistle-blowers are seen as internal whistle-blowers as they report any illegal activity to their fellow employees or superior force within the organization. On the other hand, in external, an employee discovers any illegal activity but decides to report to law enforcers or to the media. In other cases, external whistle-blowers are motivated by monetary rewards they are offered. It is to the organization’s benefit to encourage internal whistleblowing. However, the substantial rewards available to external whistle-blowers can lure individuals to report any misconduct to external forces rather than to internal forces. It is clear that when whistle-blowers opt to go internally, they give the company an opportunity to remedy the issue before any inquiry by external authorities (Devine & Reaves, 2016). However, when the government opens an inquiry, the company is likely to suffer from fines. In case the law violation is remedied due to the internal whistle-blower, there are possible benefits to the involved organization. Certainly, it is the wish for every organization that there will never be any external investigation. Therefore, from the above discussion, internal whistle-blowing would be the best option for an organization. Internal whistleblowing is effective when done through proper channels such as informing the supervisor who then reports to the top management. Also, internal whistle-blowing is a better option for the organization towards avoiding media exposure. Also, being in a position to solve the problem in the house as well as finding a way to address the issue can help to protect image reputation. In case there is any need to involve external agencies such as courts in solving the issue, it can be done in house to avoid media from exposing the organization which can in turn damage the organization’s image to the public.

3. Why would an organization decide to ignore the evidence presented by a whistle-blower?

An organization may decide to ignore evidence from the whistle-blower when they realize that such evidence will cause damage to the organization image. Also, another reason why an organization would opt to ignore evidence from a whistle-blower is by admitting the presence of a problem. In most of the organizations, the whistle-blowers cause inconvenience in the organization’s operations. While organizations might commend the idea of the whistle-blowers, the reality remains that the act causes disruption mainly to the status quo. Devine & Reaves (2016) whistle-blowers can be silenced, which make the company not to pay attention to the claims made by whistle-blowers. Most of the organizations ignore claims raised by whistle-blowers. Organizations’ leaders do everything possible to silence the whistle-blower, and also ignore their claims by opting not to address the problem raised by the whistle-blower about misconduct in the organization (Devine & Reaves, 2016). The organization that decides to ignore the whistleblower may opt to do so after weighing the benefit of silencing them in terms of cost and fines that may be subjected to the organization from law enforcement agencies. Therefore, if the consequences of evidence are likely to put the organization in fines as well as penalties, this might be the main cause of ignoring the evidence or even hire a legal expert to prevent law agencies from investigating the claims. Whistle-blowers are likely to be harassed, intimidated as well as blacklisted. In most cases, after being fired, a whistle-blower may file wrongful dismissal lawsuits that take years to resolve. This negatively affects the organization in terms of a bad image to the public at large. Such cases explain the reason behind organization opting to ignore evidence provided by whistle-blowers. Therefore, when the evidence presented by a whistle-blower seems to cause more harm than good to the organization, it is better for the organization to ignore any claim.

4. Is it reasonable for a whistle-blower to expect a guarantee of anonymity?

The whistle-blowers should be guaranteed anonymity, but this is not always the case in most cases. The whistle-blowers who present evidence that could get other people into trouble face great risks. Though the organization should try to protect the whistle-blower from any possible retaliation, there are still risks that accompany the whistle-blowers. For example, if the complaint is against a top leader in the organization, the whistle-blower faces a bigger risk that could even cost his or her career. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the whistle-blowers come forward on the anonymity condition. it is vital for the companies to provide mechanisms for their employees to report any claim anonymously as well show that they take any allegation seriously. All allegations should be investigated to determine whether the allegations are true. In this case, the whistle-blowers deserve to be updated on the complaint’s status towards reassuring the whistle-blower’s allegations are taken seriously. Communicating with whistle-blowers can be challenging as the identity of a whistle-blower should not be revealed for security purposes (Devine & Reaves, 2016). However, in most cases, the whistle-blower’s identity has to be revealed to the investigators to enable them to conduct a comprehensive investigation. Also, there are chances that other people in the organization may be able to guess the identity of the whistle-blower. In some situations, a written anonymity agreement is needed. For simple cases that are solved internally, the whistle-blower can be provided with anonymity. In most cases where the whistle-blower cannot be promised anonymity, they must be concerned about possible retaliation. The guarantee of anonymity is to protect the whistle-blower’s identity. Another reason that makes it unreasonable for a whistle-blower to expect a guarantee of anonymity is that some cases will be involved in testifying towards fixing the problem. Moreover, media coverage makes it challenging for whistle-blowers to expect total anonymity.

Essay

Familiarize yourself with the whistleblower protection laws in your state. Beyond a Google search, you may find the resources at the National Whistleblowers Center at www.whistleblowers.org useful in this task. After this initial research, briefly describe an example of a case in your state where these protections were used. Then describe what outcomes obtained in this case. Attempt to find out what happened to the whistleblower in this case as well as the parties who were impugned. In your opinion, did the laws work as they were intended?

Most states have adopted some public policy under which termination is considered unethical and wrongful. In the state of Texas, the Whistleblower Act protects employees from any form of retaliatory action taken due to their actions to report illegal conduct by officials or other public employees. According to Franze (2018), the Texas Whistleblower Act protects public workers who make good faith reports of law violations by their employers to an appropriate law enforcement agency. Also, the law provides that an employer may not terminate the employment or take any personnel action against a public employee who reports any misconduct activity under the Act. Also, for the employees to be protected under this act, they must have made the report of legal violation in good faith (Franze, 2018). Employees need to have subjective believe that officials to the public employee have violated the law. Moreover, the Texas Act on whistleblower protect employees who make well-established claims of misconduct that they legitimately believed had happened. It is vital to note that reports should be made to an appropriate law enforcement agency that is one that the employee has good faith to regulate under the law allegedly violated.

Example of a case in Texas state where Whistleblower Act protections were used

A case that involved two former city workers that alleged they were wrongfully fired after reporting illegal activities by officials in Killeen has been determined by use of the Texas Whistleblower Act. From the lawsuit that one of the former city employees, Gonzales filed is that he was fired by his employer simply because of reporting to the police that some city officials had misused funds. Also, the other former employee filed a separate lawsuit that he was fired after reporting that a police sergeant had been misusing different equipment from the city to do his personal work. Whereas the outcome from these lawsuits remains to be seen, they are good examples of claims that have been made so far under the Texas Whistleblower Act. This Act has been an important piece of law offering protection to public employees who make good faith reports on misconduct by both the officials and employees towards an appropriate law enforcement agency.

The Texas Whistleblower Act is the main law designed to protect workers who report wrongful activity in organizations. Whether an employee works for a public organization or a private firm, there may be laws in place protecting them when reporting illegal activities by the organization officials or other employees. Texas Whistleblower Act protects those who have reported illegal conducts as employees and fear retaliation. The Act also provides guidance to those considering reporting any illegal activity (Devine & Reaves, 2016). In this state, it is clear that the whistleblower Act is the main law that helps to protect the whistleblowers. The law has encouraged more employees to speak out as they are offered protection from any form of retaliation. Also, in Texas, this law prohibits public and private employers from taking any action in response to complaints regarding a legal violation.

In my opinion, the Texas Whistleblower laws worked as they were intended. In the case that involved two former city workers that alleged they were wrongfully fired after reporting illegal activities by officials in Killeen has been determined by used of Texas Whistleblower Act, the law worked as intended as there was compensation for wage loss during the period of termination. In Texas, the whistle-blowers are guaranteed anonymity, but this is not always the case in most cases. The whistle-blowers who present evidence that could get other people into trouble face great risks. Though the organization should try to protect the whistle-blower from any possible retaliation, there are still risks that accompany the whistle-blowers.

Case Study

Review issues 10 and 15 from Taking Sides. Choose one issue to respond to. Which viewpoint do you side with? Why? Explain. Reference at least two outside resources that further support the viewpoint you side with.

Numerous individuals have heard tales about how workers have risked their career and personal lives on account of what they posted and reported to the social media sites and law enforcement agencies. For instance, Snyder, a learner at Millersville college, was ejected from her career as an educator at a secondary school where they denied her teaching accreditation when Officials from the college were made mindful of a photo and a post on her social networking site, Myspace (Danowitz, 2007).

In addition, the post included claims that a certain website depicted as a shockingly harmless picture containing a headshot of Miss Snyder wearing a privateer cap while drinking from a plastic cup. In oneself titled inscription she called the photo drunken privateer. Also, Nicole relinking, who was Snyder's educator at Conestoga valley school, had been reproachful of Snyder's classroom professionalism as well as performance. Millersville college asserted that Miss Snyder's ejection was because of her competence as an educator, in any case, the court held that her expulsion was put together in any event to a limited extent with respect to the Myspace posting. Millersville college expressed that the photo was substandard and may advance underage drinking the school likewise guaranteed that Miss. Snyder was disregarding a segment of the instructor's handbook expecting educators to be very much prepped and suitably dressed. Snyder filed a lawsuit against Millersville college asserting that her first amendment ideal to free articulation protected the content and photo in her Myspace site.

The district court in the United States for the eastern locale of Pennsylvania ruled that Snyder was acting as a CV employee, not as a learner at Millersville when she was an instructor. In doing as such, the court denied her amendment evidence expressing that Snyder was a public worker when she made her Myspace posting, she would be committed to demonstrating that the posting related on issues of public concern to get amendment assurance.

References

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Judge-Sides-With-University/42066.

Danowitz, E. (2007). MySpace Invasion: Privacy Rights, Libel, and Liability. J. Juv. L., 28, 30.

Devine, T., & Reaves, A. (2016). Whistleblowing and research integrity: Making a difference through scientific freedom. Handbook of academic integrity, 957.

Franze, L. M. (2018). Texas Employment Law. LexisNexis.