Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary on whistle blowing
Case study on whistleblowing
Moral dilemma involved in whistleblowing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Summary on whistle blowing
Whistle-blowing can be defined many different ways. For example, from page 384 in the book, 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. For a simpler explanation of the term whistle-blowing, Merriam-Webster defines the term as, an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation. …show more content…
The act of whistle-blowing is an ethical issue that all employees have the right to. Whether they decide to make the corrupt information known publicly or anonymously, the information they provide can protect everyone involved. The ethical and moral sides of whistle-blowing can go both ways. In order to protect the customers, patients, or consumers of the harmful products the companies are offering, employees that have morals and feel the need to make the truth be known have an ethical responsibility to do so. Issues of being a whistle-blower are more controversial than the responsibilities of the employees doing so. When a whistle-blower takes action, they expose information from their company that it not meant to be public. They basically turn their backs away from their company and colleagues by revealing the truth. When surveying these issues, an employee who is torn by exposing information or keeping silent must decide whether it is more ethical to stay loyal to their organization or to the organization's …show more content…
When looking at that, there are some questions to be asked, did Roger Boisjoly act ethically as a whistle-blower? Was Boisjoly treated fairly by Morton Thiokol? Could the managers of Morton Thiokol have done anything differently? To start, did Boisjoly act ethically? In my opinion, Boisjoly did all that he could to prevent the launch of the Challenger. He informed his managers of the defect and the probability of an explosion. He consulted all internal channels and had evidence. Sadly, his managers ultimately ignored him and went ahead with the launch. As we know, that resulted in an explosion as predicted. When outside sources questioned Boisjoly about the incident, he was truthful and told them all of his predictions and gave evidence. Next, was Boisjoly treated fairly by Morton Thiokol? To me, Boisjoly's employers did not give him the respect he deserved. He found a problem and informed them of it. The managers of Thiokol did not listen and it resulted in a loss. Later, after Boisjoly blew the whistle, his work environment changed and he was treated differently. Lastly, could the managers of Thiokol have made different decisions? Yes, the Morton Thiokol managers should have researched the problem and found an answer before going ahead with the launch. The had been informed that there was a malfunction and if NASA decided to go ahead with the launch it could potentially
However, it may not be the best solution to be used first when dealing with unethical corporate practices. From more of a Utilitarian approach one should seek to do the greatest good. An approach that gives the company a chance to change its unethical behavior internally would follow this idea. Having the ability to change practices internally before outside intervention can have many positive effects. The company is able to make the changes, reestablish its integrity, maintain business, and retain employees. The whistleblowing option brings in outside forces that could lead to repercussions for the company which may include restitution or even being closed down. If the business is closed it effects more than just the corporate entity, all of the employees are also negatively impacted by this as well when they would lose their jobs. Sometimes however, when the company is unwilling to change its practices and do business in a more ethical manner people are left with little choice but to report to outside sources what is occurring within the business. Many see whistleblowing as law-breaking when employees are contractually obligated to
First I will be telling you about the pressure of being a “whistleblower”. In Fahrenheit 451 the pressure of being a “whistleblower” is so real, everyone is told to rat out everyone who has a book in their household, if they find out they have a book in the home it is burned to the ground. This is related to our society because we are pressured to do what is right, and part of my belief system is to do what is right and to point out what is wrong. For example if someone were to gossip behind their back I would try to stand up and tell them it is wrong and tell the person what the others said
Imagine living in a state where one is providing service to a client and the client divulged that he admits to wanting to end his ex-girlfriends life but one lives in a state where there is no duty to warn. What does one do in a situation like this? This question comes about due to the Tarasoff v. The University of California Board of Regents case as well as the fact that there is no uniformity in the United States over duty to warn or protect. Some states have permissive statutes while some have an established mandatory duty to warn while very few have no statute at all. According to Doverspike (2007), the APA standard is permissive ("may disclose") rather than mandatory ("shall disclose"). The APA Code of Ethics 4.05 part 3 states that disclosures without consent are is only allowed when mandated by law to protect the client, psychologist, or others from harm (Fisher, 2013, p. 346). How does one protect the confidentiality of a client but also protect others from potential harm? The Tarasoff v. The
The article’s purpose is to clarify the thin line between patriotism and treason in a whistleblowing action. Depending on the information available for the public to digest, many people could have different opinions on the whistleblower (s) and their intentions. The author discusses a case of Tim Priest, who disagreed with his management’s new policies and the way they were applied in practice, thus publicly announcing the hidden truths about the department. Priest worked for the police department as a detective sergeant. Questions of his intentions about disclosing the authority’s dishonest actions were raised amidst the investigation.
The Challenger disaster was not only a disaster in terms of the destruction of the spacecraft and the death of its crew but also in terms of the decision-making process that led to the launch and in terms of the subsequent investigation into the "causes" of the disaster. The decision to recommend for launch was made by lower-level management officials over the objections of technical experts who opposed the launch under the environmental conditions that existed on the launch pad at the time. Furthermore, the lower-level managers who made this decision--both NASA and contractor personnel--chose not to report the objections of the technical experts in their recommendations to higher levels in the management chain- of-command to proceed with the launch. Finally, it seems that the lower-level managers had also received out-of-the-ordinary pressure from higher levels of management (some allusions suggested this pressure may have come all the way from the White House) to proceed with the launch on time. The subsequent investigation began with efforts to determine the technical causes of the explosion of the Challenger. Initially, the decision-making process leading to the launch was not considered by investigators. This suggests that the initial purpose of the investigation was not concerned with ethical issues or issues of responsibility. As the investigation proceeded, information emerged through leaks to the press, which suggested that NASA had been aware of the risk of explosion under the environmental conditions that existed for the Challenger launch for several months prior to the launch. Also, the opposition of the technical experts to the launch just prior to the decision to launch became known to the investigators as well. These two pieces of information changed the nature of the investigation mid-stream from an effort to determine the technical cause of the explosion of the spacecraft to an investigation of the
Bouville (2008) describes whistleblowing as an act for an employee of revealing what he believes to be unethical or described as an illegal behaviour to a higher management (internal whistleblowing) or to an external authority or the public (external whistleblowing). Whistle-blowers are often seen as traitors to an organisation as they are considered to have violated the loyalty terms of that organisation while some are described as heroes that defend the values and ethics of humanity rather than loyalty to their company. In the medical community, it is the duty of a practitioner aware of patient care being threatened to make it known to those in charge and for those in charge to address the issues and act on it. The General Medical Council (GMC) stipulated this act of raising concern as a doctor’s duty in its Good medical practice guide. This paper will be based on the analysis of the experience of whistle blowers, reasons why they chose or chose not to take such actions and personal opinions on whistleblowing in the medical community.
Whistle blowing is a controversial topic in the professional industry. Whistle blowing is the act of speaking out against a fellow colleague or even a friend that has done something non-ethical or illegal in the workplace. A whistleblower raises concerns about the wrongdoing inside of the workplace. Employees hesitate to become a whistleblower because of the idea of becoming a snitch on fellow employees and having a bad rep around the office. This concern was lowered in 1989 with a law called the Whistleblower Protection Act that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring at a government organization (whistleblowers.gov).
The term Whistleblower means “An employee who discloses information that s/he reasonably believes is evidence of illegality, gross waste or fraud, mismanagement, abuse of power, general wrongdoing, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. When information is classified or otherwise restricted by Congress or Executive Order, disclosures only are protected as whistleblowing if made through designated, secure channels. (What is a Whistleblower?)” The idea behind whistleblowers is that they believe trying to inform the public of illegal acts within their businesses has the potential to protect the public from wrongdoing. The following studies analyze scholar’s findings on different factors related to whistle blowing as
“Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage” (Confucius Quotes, 2012). The person who does her duty, at great risk to her own interest, when most others would defy from fear is considered a hero (Schafer, 2004). Dr. Nancy Olivieri is a hero who blew the whistle on Apotex, University of Toronto (U of T) and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC); and fought for her academic rights till the end. Whistle-blowing refers to actions of an employee that breach her loyalty to the organization but serves the public interest. When other constraints proved to be ineffective, whistle-blowing acts as a check on authority of the organization. Whistle-blowers expose severe forms of corruption, waste, and abuse of power within their organization and put the organization in a position where it is answerable to the public, thus enhancing its accountability (Cooper, 2006, pg. 198-205).
Many other businesses may not want to do business as the company was involved with immoral behavior. The unethical business practices of the company will also gain exposure in the media and to the public (Nicol, 2015, n.p). Employees no longer keep unethical activities of the company to themselves. As a whistleblower, they may be perceived as a traitor, but in this case the senior executives are being traitors. They are taking money from immoral behavior and tarnishing the name of the company (Nicol, 2015, n.p).
On November 29th, Mary Inman gave us a talk on the topic whistleblowing, which let me know more about the whistleblower activities and the whistleblower protection. According to the definition given by the website whistleblowers international, whistleblowing is someone who reveal the unethical or illegal activities within the company. The person can be current or past employee, or an outside individual who is familiar with the unethical activity. This whistleblower does not need to be U.S. citizen.
In the 1970’s, Ralph Nard coined the term whistleblower referring to when a referee blows a whistle to indicate an illegal or foul play. Oxford dictionaries define whistleblower as “a person who informs on a person or organization regarded as engaging in an unlawful or immoral activity.” This can be in either the government or corporations. The debate on whistleblowers continues to be pertinent in light of recent scandals. Many believe in the value of transparency, but disagree about the correct way to achieve it. This is why we created laws, such as the Whistleblower Act and the Espionage Act. The Whistleblower Act was put in place in order to protect “[A]ny disclosure of information” that a covered employee “reasonably believes” evidences “a violation of any law, rule, or ...
In Module 1, Kindred Todd faced quite a few ethical dilemmas that included her values and technical ineptness. The first predicament was tested her personal morals and ethics. According to, Cumming and Worley, OD practitioners are dealing more and more with value conflicts with powerful outside groups (Cummings & Worley, 2008). Kindred was immediately faced with the issue of knowing what was ethically correct but being told the unethical approach was the best in order to benefit the client and her job security. Although compromising is one of the many skills of organization developers there are still morals that should be followed on each assignment. Kindred, know that deceiving the clients was unethical, took the first step to working on behalf of the client and immediately involved her superior, Larry, to resolve a potential conflict In the project. While her actions went in vain when she told her boss to remove her from the project and provide the client with a more qualified resource, Kindred did what she thought to be the best approach.
I believe that Roger Boisjoly act accordingly to his ethical obligations. First, he acted accordingly to the ACM code of ethics by recognizing and informing their superiors of the problems that he had encounter with the O-rings which. Although his findings did not stop NASA from launching the Challenger, Boisjoly try until the very last minute to stop the flight because he knew that at very low temperatures, the O-rings were going to be seriously compromise. Furthermore, he was transparent and honest with the presidential commission. He gave accounts of everything he did that could have prevented the disaster, unfortunately, this cause the end of his career in NASA.
Morality is the biggest and best reason for this act because people generally want to do the good moral thing. If a person should have to blow the whistle on a company they should know that for every action there is a reaction, and the reaction of whistle blowing might lead to getting fired. One of the most controversial types of whistle blowing is that of impersonal. If a company is making products that are unsafe because they are trying to save a few dollars, an employee could see this as immoral and tell the public about it. The whistle blower would do this based on Kant's theory. It would be following the moral law to do so. If a company is cutting corners and hurting others, it would be morally unacceptable not to blow the whistle on this company. To knowingly let innocent people get hurt because of something that you could have stopped is morally wrong. A lot of people would blow the whistle on a company that is making unsafe products, but not all. A number of people would not inform the public of the company's wrongdoings. They would not do it out of fear that they might loose there job or even be blacklisted from the industry altogether. If they are not fired they will most likely be outcasts at their job and looked over at promotion time.