Chapter
4
Whistleblowing
By Lizabeth England
When an employee discovers unethical, immoral or illegal actions at work, the employee makes a decision about what to do with this information. Whistleblowing is the term used to define an employee’s decision to disclose this information to an authority figure (boss, media or government official).
The topic of this chapter is whistleblowing. The purpose of this chapter is to help teachers and students to learn more about how employees make their decisions to come forward with potentially damaging information and about how employees identify strong ethical employment environments and, in turn, avoid potentially unethical employers.
Whistleblowing leads to good and bad results. In this chapter, we will explore both. First, the benefits of carefully considered whistleblowing can lead to the end of unethical business practices. The lives of individuals and whole communities have been saved by whistleblowers. Severe damage to the environment has been stopped by the actions of one individual who blew the whistle on an unethical employer. Here are some examples of serious ethical violations that have resulted in whistleblowing. These examples represent significant consequences to businesses:
- Dumping of toxic waste
- Padding an expense report
- Violating laws about hiring and firing
- Violating laws about workplace safety
- Violating health laws which lead to documented illness and even death
The actions of whistleblowers are potentially beneficial to society. Businesses that engaged in unethical practices have been shut down because of the actions of whistleblowers. Lives have been saved, and severe damage to the environment has been averted because of the courage and persistence of whistleblowers.
At the same time, an employee who witnesses unethical business practices at work may want to think carefully before making the decision to inform an authority of the practice. The consequences of whistleblowing are often extreme and include possible firing, civil action, or even imprisonment. Furthermore, an employee may want to follow the rule of "chain of command" – that is, begin to discuss issues of whistleblowing with his or her immediate supervisor first, before discussing the matter with anyone else. A great deal of information about whistleblowing, whistleblower’s rights and protection, whistleblowers in many countries and in many professions (sports, the tobacco industry, chemical industry, and even the government) is available on the World Wide Web. A list of some of those sites, with links to others, appears later in this chapter (see Internet Resources).
Company loyalty is an internationally held value. Employees want positive work environments. Most workers do not like to have disagreements with their bosses. At the same time, bosses and managers do not want employees to complain to others in the workplace about a problem that the manager might be able to solve. Complaining to one’s colleagues can be harmful to morale and should not be confused with careful thinking and action on behalf of unethical business practices. One company’s unethical practices were uncovered by an employee who was later fired for "blowing the whistle." No employee wants to be branded as having bad judgment.
When should an employee blow the whistle? When should he or she "keep quiet"? Experts have set guidelines for whistleblowing. Some of those are listed below.
Guidelines for Whistleblowing
This list is a guideline that will help an employee to determine if a situation merits whistleblowing.
An employee considering whistleblowing must ask himself or herself these questions: How much harm has been done or might be done to victims? Will the victims really be "beneficiaries"? If one person is or will be harmed, it is unlikely to be a situation that warrants whistleblowing.
The probability that the action will actually take place and will cause harm to many people must be considered. An employee should be very sure that the action in question will actually happen. If the employee does not know if the action will happen and if the action will harm people (or the environment), the employee should reconsider his or her plan to blow the whistle. In addition, the employee must have absolute proof that the event will occur and that people (or the environment) will be harmed.
An employee must consider the length of time between the present and the possibly harmful event. An employee must also consider the urgency of the problem in question. The more immediate the consequences of the potentially unethical practice, the stronger the case for whistleblowing. For example, the effects of toxic waste dumping that are likely to occur in a week are more pressing than the firing of 100 employees next year.
The physical closeness of the potential victims must be considered. For example, a company that is depriving workers of medical benefits in a nearby town has a higher proximity than one 1,000 miles away. The question arises about matters of emotional proximity or situations in which the ethical question relates to a victim with some emotional attachment to the whistleblower.
A person must determine the intensity of the unethical practice or behavior. The question is how much intensity does the specific infraction carry. For example, according to this principle, stealing $1,000 from one person is more unethical than stealing $1 from 1,000 people.
.
.