Whistleblowing Case Study Essay
Whistleblowing Case Study
Whistleblowing definitely is a risky business. Whistle-blower is an employee that trusts carefully to the work of the system. When an employee sees something wrong, their natural reaction is to report it. This is often a serious mistake. Some common methods of whistle-blowers is ostracism, harassment, spreading rumours, reprimand, removal of sanctions, threats, referrals to psychiatrists, demotion, dismissal, and blacklisting. Damage to the whistle-blower is extensive. Many people lost their jobs and have a bill that large economic impact is enormous. Health and public relations problems are common. Many were forced out of their field and are able to start a new career. Retaliation against whistle-blowers usually involves an attack on the reputation, working conditions and benefits – physical attacks are relatively rare. But in some areas, there is a greater risk of attack, frame-ups and prisons, including revelations about police corruption, organized crime, a violation of the military and national security issues. As bioweapons related to national security, to talk about problems and abuses may be particularly at risk.
After being a whistle-blower, many people lose their relationships at the workplace and also outside work. Therefore, careful and exceptional care is required. Below is an example of the thousands of similar cases: “On 22 July 2005, Charles de Menezes, having just entered a train, was shot in the head seven times by London police. The police claimed he was wearing a bulky coat and had jumped over the ticket barrier and had run to the train. But Lana Vandenberghe knew the police were lying. She worked for the Independent Police Complaints Commission and had access to evidence presented at the commission’s inquiry into the shooting.
She leaked information to a television journalist – and then was subject to reprisals by the police. In a dawn raid on 21 September 2005, ten police officers broke down her door and arrested her. She was kept in a cell without access to a lawyer for eight hours and threatened by police that she could go to prison. She said: ‘It never crossed my mind that I would be treated as if I was a criminal for telling the truth. Unlike the police, I hadn’t killed an innocent person’ (Sanderson, 2006).”
Importance of whistleblowing to counter corruption
Whistle-blowers are intrepid, brave, courageous people, confident in themselves, responsible, they’re willing to speak out, stick on values and responsibilities, they are highly idealistic, someone who has the courage to talk about and observe malpractice, idealist, and they have the courage to really stand up for what they believe in. Concerned about the wrongdoings in his or her organization, can’t stop what’s going on in the organization, people who are concerned do not put so much emphasis in his/her relationships but in the belief that he or she has done something good for the organization by putting a stop to the wrong practices. The aim is to determine which workplace strategies managers should make a priority when encouraging employees to report workplace corruption. Anyone who has blown the whistle of a company or government fraud, waste or abuse, or are thinking about blowing the whistle or any protesters or trade organizations that promote or encourage whistle-blowers need to know the laws governing the protection of information, and there are many laws illegal.
But there are also many disadvantages and difficulties to cancel prepared. In the midst of a culture of corporate integrity is the notion that doing the right thing is far more important than maximizing profits. There will never be a system impervious to prevent rogue from doing damage, or to stop the arrogant CEO of abusing officials. But strategies can be developed to promote a culture of corporate integrity which can go a long way to both prevent fraud and strengthen the organization. .Now however, there is no need to worry as the legislatures and courts have created exceptions for those whistle-blowers who are at-will employees. Whistle-blowers are now protected by statutes and can thus fight any discrimination that an employee might show him in the face of the accusations.
Ideal whistleblower protection policies
Federal law prohibits all corporations, including non-profits, from retaliating against employees who “blow the whistle” on their employer’s job practices. Additionally, 65 out of 190 countries have witness protection acts. But only 6 of them have whistle-blower protection acts including Iraq, Ghana, Kenya, Japan, Romani and United State. An ideal whistle-blower protection policy should have good internal process for addressing complaints including a whistle-blower protection or anti-retaliation policy to help the organization protect itself from the risk of violating state and federal laws. This policy should afford protections to whistle-blowers, and can help ensure that if there is a problem it will be investigated and fixed.
Whistle-blower protection policies should also include identity of the whistle-blower must be kept confidential and must not be revealed to ensure the safety of the person. This is to ensure the safety of the whistle-blower from any harm or danger from the alleged individual. Even organizations that do not have paid staff should also put a whistle-blower protection policy in place to encourage people to bring their concerns forward without fear of retaliation. Organizations that encourage complaints by having an “open door” policy create an atmosphere where concerns are considered more transparent.
If you saw corruption happening would you take the risk of being a whistleblower? If I saw a corruption happening in the organization I work for, yes, I would take the risk of being a whistle-blower. Why? Because corruption is wrong both in the federal and state law. It is also against the work etiquettes. If it is not reported, then everyone in the company might think that it is only way to keep their job performance at the top and could do even severe damage if found out later and affect those who are innocent. I would risk myself to be the whistle-blower because I am confident of the protection program will keep my identity as confidential as it can be.