The justification of whistle-blowing therefore requires an understanding of the duty of loyalty that an employee owes an employer. The Loyal Agent Argument against Whistle-Blowing An employee is an agent of his or her employer. An agent is a person engaged to act in the interest of another person, who is known as the principal. Employees are legally agents of their employers. As agents, they are obligated to work as directed, to protect confidential information, and, in general, to act in the principal’s best interest Although the whistle-blower might appear to be a disloyal agent, the obligations of an agent’s loyalty has limits. Whistle-blowing, therefore, is not incompatible with being a loyal agent. Two limits on the obligation of agents are especially important: 1. An agent has an obligation to obey only reasonable directives of the principal, and so an agent cannot be required to do anything illegal or immoral. 2. The obligations of an agent are confined to the needs of the relationship. Thus, an employee is not obligated to do anything that falls outside the scope of his or her employment. The Justification of Whistle-Blowing The meaning of loyalty: The law of agency aside, whistle-blowing is not always an act of disloyalty in the ordinary meaning of the word.
If loyalty is viewed as a commitment to the true interests or goals of an organization, rather than merely the following of orders, then many whistle-blowers are loyal employees. Sociological studies have shown that whistle-blowers are often loyal employees who choose to expose wrongdoing in the belief that they are doing their job and acting in the best interest of the company. Whistle-Blowing In the book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Albert O. Hirschman holds that speaking out (voice) and leaving (exit) are the main options for dissatisfied organization members and that those who exercise the voice option are generally more loyal than those who decide to exit. Conditions for Justified Whistle-Blowing The following questions should be considered when deciding whether or not to blow the whistle. 1. Is the situation of sufficient moral importance to justify whistle-blowing? How serious is the potential harm compared to the possible benefits? To what extent is the harm a predictable and direct result of the protested activity? How imminent is the harm? 2. Do you have all the facts and have you properly understood their significance? Whistle-blowers must support allegations with adequate evidence and not draw conclusions about matters beyond their expertise.
The Review on Employee Engagement Sheme
Chapter 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 Concept of employee engagement 1.1.1 Defining Engagement One of the challenges of defining engagement is the lack of a universal definition of employee engagement, as a research focus on employees’ work engagement is relatively new. More often than not, definitions of engagement include cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components. The cognitive aspect of engagement ...
3. Have all internal channels and steps short of whistle-blowing been exhausted? Most organizations require employees to address concerns with an immediate superior or through internal channels of communication. 4. What is the best way to blow the whistle? To whom should the information be revealed? How much information should be revealed? Blowing the whistle in a responsible manner avoids charges of being merely a disgruntled employee. 5. What is my responsibility in view of my role within the organization? An employee’s position in the organization may increase or decrease an obligation to blow the whistle. 6. What are the chances for success? An employee should only blow the whistle when there is a reasonable chance to achieve some public good. Is There a Right to Blow the Whistle? Few laws exist to protect whistle-blowers from the retaliation of others, but there is increasing pressure for greater legal protection. Existing legal protection The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits retaliation against federal employees who report waste and corruption in government. The Merit System Protection Board was set up by this act to receive and act on complaints of retaliation.
The Essay on Whistle Blowing 3
The challenger disaster that took place in January 28 has led to the explosion of the shuttle itself and the death of all the crew members including the chosen teacher. A real disaster that occurred due to some wrong decisions and overriding some important information from professional employees within the company is considered a real catastrophe. Applying pressure on senior management team of the ...
The Whistle-Blower Protection Act of 1989 further strengthens this protection with the creation of the Office of Special Counsel for processing whistle-blower reports. Anti-retaliation provisions in various pieces of federal legislation protect whistle-blowers in both the private and public sectors, and some statutes even encourage whistle-blowing in fraud cases by awarding a percentage of the funds recovered. More than 35 states have laws that protect whistle-blowers (although most of these apply only to government employees), and many state courts are limiting the grounds on which employees may be fired. Arguments for whistle-blower protection The main argument in favor of whistle-blower protection is that whistle-blowing benefits society through the exposure of illegal activity, waste, and mismanagement, and this benefit can be achieved only if whistle-blowers are able to come forward without fear of retaliation. Government employees and private employers who do extensive work for the federal government have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech and so should be protected from retaliation for blowing the whistle. Although whistle-blowers in the private sector do not have a legal right to free speech in employment, this might be considered a moral right that requires legal protection.
Finally, some argue that employees ought to have a right to act in accordance with one’s own conscience. Arguments against whistle-blower protection Is There a Right to Blow the Whistle? One argument against legal protection for whistle-blowers is that a law that recognizes whistle-blowing as a right is open to abuse. Disgruntled employees might use whistle-blowing to protest company decisions, get back at employers, cover up their own incompetence or even protect themselves against dismissal. Legislation to protect whistle-blowers infringes on the traditional right of employers to conduct business as they see fit, and it creates more regulation to impede the efficient operation of business. An increase in litigation increases a company’s costs and hurts the cooperative spirit needed for working relationships. Finally, it is difficult to devise an adequate legal remedy for whistle-blowers who are dismissed. Developing a Company Whistle-Blowing Policy An effective whistle-blowing policy enables a company to address misconduct internally and avoid embarrassing public disclosure. An effective policy ensures that reports are properly investigated, appropriate action is taken, and retaliation will not occur Companies can benefit from a whistle-blowing policy by learning about problems early and taking corrective action. An effective whistle-blowing policy affirms a company’s commitment to maintaining an ethical corporate climate. One danger connected with a whistle-blowing policy is that it can create an environment of mistrust and uncertainty. Components of a whistle-blowing policy A well-designed whistle-blowing policy should include the following: 1. An effectively communicated statement of responsibility. 2. A clearly-defined procedure for reporting. 3. Trained personnel to receive and investigate reports. 4. A commitment to take appropriate action. 5. A guarantee against retaliation.
The Essay on Whistle Blowers Company One Case
Because of certain events and media scandals that have surrounded the business community a former forgotten kind of employees has regained importance they are called the whistle blowers. Their importance has reached such tremendous heights that they were named in Time magazine's 2002 Persons of the year because of their crucial involvement in the Enron case and many others that followed after ...
