Whistle-Blowing in the Work Place free essay sample

Do we stand by and allow business corruption as usual or prepare to take a fall for something? It sometimes requires uncommon courage, as whistle-blowing in the workplace is not so easy to do. What motivates you? Is it revenge, ethics or a combination? To take a closer look, let’s consider what is whistle blowing and explore a few conditions used to justify whistle-blowing, and concluded with how companies can benefit from a whistle-blowing policy. What is a whistle-blower or whistle-blowing? Let’s make it clear that informers and snitches are individuals, who reveal information for personal enrichment or a means to get at others. However, whistle-blowers like Bobby Boutris a Federal Aviation Administration employee are generally conscientious people who expose some wrong doing, often at great personal risk such as death threats. Whistle-blowing is the voluntary release of nonpublic information, as a moral protest, by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels of communication to an appropriate audience about illegal and/or immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in the organization that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest. Given the high price that whistle-blowers sometimes pay, should people really be encouraged to blow the whistle? Yes, Boutris testified that there was too cozy of a relationship between an FAA supervisor and the airline that allowed Southwest to fly damaged planes. He mentions six of the planes had a crack in their fuselage and multiple cracks, ranging from one inch to three-and-a-half inches long. In this statement, it became clear the airline flew unsafe planes. The reality is as a loyal passenger thinking nothing of a routine flight from Washington DC to Los Angeles, a once relied route of transportation, is the end result that could have been fatal. Even though whistle-blowing can be justified in some situations, it sadly remains that courageous employees who perform a valuable public service are often subjected to harsh retaliation. Ironically for this particular case, Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman, told CNN that the administration has taken action and that a supervisor who was in charge of overseeing Southwest is no longer in a supervisory position. Is whistle-blowing of corruption and mismanagement in government and industry the best way to correct these faults? To explore this question, we would have to consider a few conditions for justification of whistle-blowing. Thousand of employees lost their employment, retirement benefits and saving plans while corporate officers ran off with the company wealth, making an ugly dent in the history of the Corporate Sector in USA. A coverup of corporate greed is an appropriate situation for disclosure because people’s lives are at stake. First, we need to ask how serious is the situation of sufficient moral importance to justify whistle-blowing? When employees discover unethical, immoral, illegal transactions or potentially damaging information for the well being of the workplace in which they are employed, they are expected to disclose this sensitive information to an authority in the hierarchy through a formal/informal mechanism. Even with the moral importance of the situation, there should be consideration for the extent of harm directed in result of the activity, in which the whistle-blowers protests. An accountant at the now defunct Enron resigned after inaction by its CEO, as a consequence of exposure related to large scale of accounting irregularities. It is safe to say that an alarm was sounded having a huge domino effect on corruption displayed in companies such as WorldCom and Tyco. Secondly, whistle-blowers must have all the facts and they must properly understand their significance. For example, a pharmacist claimed he was wrongfully terminated because he threatened to report the pharmacys illegal adulteration of drugs to the FDA. Whistle-blowing usually involves very serious charges and should have as much documentation and other corroboration as possible. The pharmacy denied that the whistle blowing threat had anything to do with its motivation to fire the pharmacist. Instead, it claimed that the pharmacist was fired after the pharmacy determined that the pharmacist was practicing without a valid license. Evidence consisting of verifiable facts and not merely hunches or rumors should stand up under scrutiny, in court for the whistle-blower. The pharmacist argued that this was just a pretext because the pharmacy, in fact, has had other pharmacists who were not terminated after the pharmacy determined that their licenses had lapsed. Employees often have access to the facts of a case to form false or misleading impressions. As a result of the pharmacist not giving up, the jury returned a verdict in his favor; awarding for lost wages and emotional distress. Third, whistle-blowing is justified only when there no morally preferable alternatives that all internal channels and steps short of whistle-blowing have been exhausted. Mr. Mark Whitacre, a top executive at Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recently blew the whistle on his employer for price fixing. After secretly cooperating with the FBI to make video and audio tapes over a three-year period of meetings in which the alleged misdeed occurred Mr. Whitacre was supposedly shocked and dismayed when he was fired and accused of embezzlement. Some progressive corporations have recognized the value of dissent in bringing problems to light, but in this case Mr. Whitacre was let down. Unfortunately, some state statutes protect whistle-blowers from retaliation only when they use internal channels; others do so only when they use external channels. Steps of this kind reduce the need for whistle-blowing and the risks that external whistle-blowers take. It is possible to justify not using internal channels, however, when the whole organization is so ired in the wrongdoing that there is little chance that using them would succeed. Fourth, we examine the whistle-blower responsibility in viewing their role within the organization; as another reason for justification of whistle-blowing. When a high ranking accountant believes in hard work, personal integrity, loyalty and family, what happens, if he inadvertently encounters material accounting transactions that have been reported incorrectly in financial statements? What should he do if the information released is misleading? The accountant should first express his concerns to the appropriate higher level of management. This communication might resolve the matter, but if management is involved; then he might not sleep well at night. It is possible that the accountant will not be likely portrayed as a â€Å"team player†, lose friend and suffer personal stress. Some would think that the situation for the account is a lose-lose position, but it necessary to follow high ethical standards within the profession, no matter what position or role you attain within the organization. In identifying with the professional responsibility, there is a greater obligation to blow the whistle under some circumstance and are restricted or prohibited from whistle-blowing under others. A poorly designed or implemented policy runs the risk of doing more harm than good. Let’s look at points of a well-designed whistle-blowing policy: ? Having an effective way of communicating statement of responsibility. Employees should understand that they have a responsibility to report all concerns about serious unethical or illegal conduct through the appropriate internal channels. Clearly define procedures for reporting whistle-blowing. Procedures should be established that allow employees opportunity to report their concerns in a confidential manner. ?Have well trained personnel to receive and investigate reports. The success policy depends heavily on the skilled personnel receiving and investigating reports. ?Be commitment to appropriate actions taken. Employees must be assured that their reports of suspected wrongdoing will not be ignored or misused. There should be a guarantee against retaliation. For making reports in good faith, employees should be assured that they not suffer retaliation. It is safe to say by itself a policy will neither protect an organization from wrongdoing nor eliminate whistle-blowing outside of prescribed channels. A policy with regard to whistle-blowing is worth considering by any company that is committed to ethical conduct. In conclusion, it is evident that employees who are justified in blowing the whistle should not suffer retaliation. What ought to be done to protect whistle-blowers from this fate is less clear. A plausible case can be made for the legislation in this area, but the difficulty is in drafting laws that achieve a desired result without interfering unduly in the legitimate conduct of business.