Whistlelowing Case Study

1. The motive must be appropriate. The employee must want justice because the organization committed a significant immoral or illegal act. The motive must not be to get revenge or to attain fame. However, this criteria is controversial. An inappropriate motive might still help cause appropriate forms of whistle blowing. As long as the company has done something significantly wrong or illegal, it’s morally preferable for the public to find out about it one way or the other.
2. The employee should usually seek less harmful ways to resolve the issue first. Employees should usually alert management and executives of wrongdoing before making the wrongdoing known to the public. Management or executives should usually be given a chance to rectify

The whistle blower needs compelling evidence of wrongdoing. Its reckless to accuse a company of wrongdoing when there’s a good possibility that the company is innocent. Additionally, accusations against a company are likely to harm the whistle blower rather than the company when the public doesn’t have good reason to agree that the company did something wrong. An employee could be dismissed or sued for defamation.

4. The organization’s wrongdoing must be specific and significantly wrong. To accuse a corporation of wrongdoing involving rude behavior can be a violation of employee privacy, and the whistle blower must have specific examples of wrongdoing by the company.
5. The whistle blowing has a chance of being successful. If whistle blowing has no chance of success, then the whistle blower is going to be likely harmed by the act without a worthwhile payoff. However, Shaw objects that whistle blowing can occasionally bring attention to a practice that will eventually lead to reforms sometime in the future even if it won’t be a solution to the specific wrongdoing done.

What Makes Someone An

In a word, "No".
If the president of a company tells that the company's best hope for a breakthrough product isn't going to get regulatory approval, you are now every bit as much an insider as he is, given that information. It is illegal for him to trade based on that knowledge before it becomes public knowledge. It is equally illegal for anyone to do so because they are now a "temporary insider". This remains true regardless of how many times the information is passed.

If the president tells his barber, who tells his baby sitter, who tells her doctor, who tells you, the barber, baby sitter, doctor and you are all "temporary insiders". Anyone who has material information is prohibited from trading, based on that knowledge, until the information is available to the general public. In addition to the financial penalties, there are criminal penalties. Many now feel those penalties are not strong enough and are working to increase them