Whistleblowers: try everything else first, for your own protection

I am currently studying business ethics and as part of the course I am required to do an assignment on a blog posting. This is most likely a more in depth comment than what you would normally receive because it is for an assignment and contains course work. Firstly, I will respond to your first comment that whistle blowers should exhaust all other routes before deciding to whistle blow. Most employees believe in staying loyal to the company that employs them. They have a natural sense of loyalty to their families and their employment helps them support their families. These employees would probably choose to report the incident internally instead of whistle blowing to outside sources. In his book “The corporate whistle blowers survival guide” Devine (1951) explained that the advantages of internal reporting are that the company could solve the problem internally before it becomes public and tarnishes the reputation of the company. It can avoid the high cost of a larger investigation therefore the company and the employee won’t suffer financially. Furthermore, Devine (1951) explained that the disadvantages of internal reporting outweigh the advantages. These disadvantages are; a cover up may occur such as influencing a witness, tampering with proof documents prior to a formal investigation, the claims may be ignored, other employees may find out through rumors and information leaking and the employee will be viewed negatively as a “snitch”. I feel that if the employee has exhausted all other routes and the issue is still not solved they may decide to go ahead to blow the whistle. A few things to think about are whether the case is substantial, and how they will suffer personally and financially. I believe that for some people the consequences do not matter more than the issue of staying quiet and hiding information they know. They feel it is their honest obligation to report such issues. If a person holds information about a company that will harm their fellow employees should they still only think of their own protection? A virtue ethicist would disagree to only take care of you. A virtue ethicist would argue that you should stay honest and courageous to be a virtuous person. Furthermore, Davis (1996) explains in the journal “Some paradoxes of whistle blowing” that all people have a moral obligation to whistle blow when it can save others from harm. Davis (1996) formulated a theory that makes whistle blowing morally permissible. One of the theories is that whistle blowing is permissible when the employee has exhausted all other internal procedures within the organization. That is the employee has complained to all levels within the organizations employee level “ladder”. I disagree with your second comment that whistle blowers should take their own protection into their own hands. That a whistle blower should seek out their own personal protection because the law will not help them. Whistle blowers need not worry about their personal and financial protection in New Zealand. Taken from a report by the Occupational Safety and Health of New Zealand (n.d) are laws that protect whistleblowers in New Zealand. Under the OSH act of 1970 employers may not discriminate against or terminate the contract of an employee if they have filed a complaint or testified against the company. If the issue is a workplace hazard, under the OSH act the employee has legal protection to refuse to work as long as the following applies; the employee faces serious danger or death from the hazard, the hazard is not able to be eliminated in a short period of time and the employee has made claims about the hazard but there has been no response to correct the hazard. Furthermore, the report claims that the Federal False Claims Act provides legal framework for claims against the government. The act provides protection for the whistle blower from termination, demotion and discrimination from the employer. It provides protection of filed documents from the whistle blower so that alleged parties cannot view the documents until the government has seen them. Lastly, you have ended your blog commenting a few steps whistle blowers should follow before blowing the whistle. Whistle blowers can protect themselves if they have a strong case against the company. It will give them a strong foundation and backbone to rely on. Devine (1951) formulated steps that a whistle blower should think about to identify if they have a strong case. The following are; is the wrong doing substantial enough to put at risk financial and human investment, are the allegations wholly true and do they have enough proof and could the exposure of the issue make a substantial difference. I conclude that it depends on the countries laws whether a whistle blower should need to take care of their own personal protection. As discussed above New Zealand does offer laws and regulations to protect whistle blowers, so therefore employees do not need to take alternative routes by reporting internally.