of 14

Chapter 07 - Blowing the Whistle

Published on July 2016 | Categories: Types, School Work | Downloads: 5 | Comments: 0

Frontline Focus Case Studies



“Good Money”
Ben is a sales team leader at a large chain of tire stores. The company is aggressive and is
opening new stores every month. Ben is very ambitious and sees plenty of opportunities
to move up in the organization – especially if he is able to make a name for himself as a
star salesman.
As with any retail organization, Ben’s company is driven by sales, and they are constantly
eperimenting with new sales campaigns and incentive programs for their salespeople.
Ben didn’t epect this morning’s sales meeting to be any different – a new incentive tied
to a new campaign, supported by a big media campaign in the local area.
Ben’s boss, !ohn, didn’t waste any time in getting to the point of the meeting"
#$% guys, & have some big news. 'ather than simply negotiating short(term incentives
on specific brands to generate sales, the company has signed an eclusive contract with
Benfield Tires to take every tire they can produce in their new )*oyager’ line. That
eclusive contract comes with a huge discount based on serious volume. &n other words,
the more tires we sell, the more money we’ll make – and &’m talking about good money
for the company and very good bonus money for you – so put everybody into these tires.
&f we do well in this first contract with Benfield, there could be other eclusives down the
road. This could be the beginning of something big for us.+
!ohn then laid out the details on the sales incentive and showed Ben and his fellow team
leaders how they could earn thousands of dollars in bonuses over the net couple of
months if they pushed the new Benfield *oyagers.
Ben could certainly use the money, but he was concerned about pushing a new tire model
so aggressively when it was an unknown in the marketplace. ,e decided to talk to their
most eperienced tire mechanic, 'ick. 'ick had worked for the company for over -.
years – so long that many of the younger guys /oked that he either had tire rubber in his
veins or that he had apprenticed on ,enry 0ord’s 1odel T.
#2o, 'ick, what do you think about these new Benfield *oyagers3 asked Ben. #Are they
really such a good deal for our customers or are they /ust a moneymaker for us3+
'ick was very direct in his response" #& took a look at some of the specs on them and they
don’t look good. & think Benfield is sacrificing 4uality to cut costs. By the standards of
some of our other suppliers, these tires would 4ualify as )seconds’ – and pretty bad ones
too. 5ou couldn’t pay me to put them on my car – they’re good for .,666 miles at the
most. 7e’re taking a big risk promoting these tires as our top model.+
1. If Ben decides t !"ise cnce!ns "#$t t%e &!d$ct '$"(it) f t%e Benfie(d
*)"+e!s, %e -i(( #ec.e " /-%ist(e0#(-e!1. P"+e 22 e3&("ins t%e diffe!ence
#et-een /inte!n"(1 "nd /e3te!n"(1 -%ist(e0#(-in+. W%ic% "&&!"c% s%$(d
Ben f((- if %e des decide t !"ise %is cnce!ns4
Ben should start by following the internal process if there is one. &f not, he should
approach the appropriate regulatory authorities to raise his concerns. &f that doesn’t work,
he should contact the media as a last resort.

5. P"+e 22 $t(ines t%e 6 cnditins t%"t .$st e3ist f! -%ist(e0#(-in+ t #e
et%ic"(. H"s Ric7 +i8en Ben en$+% inf!."tin t #e cnce!ned "#$t t%e
Benfie(d *)"+e!s4
:o. 'ick has concerns about the design specifications and 4uality of the )*oyager’ tires,
but even with his etensive work eperience, 'ick’s concerns wouldn’t count as
definitive evidence of problems with the tires.
9. W%"t s%$(d Ben d n-4
Ben has a tough decision to make. !ohn is obviously epecting everyone in the store to
push this deal, and with the lucrative bonus potential, Ben stands to make a lot of money.
,owever, can he live with the knowledge that he is making all that etra money by
putting people on tires that his most eperienced tire mechanic thinks are dangerous3
P!+!ess C%ec7 :$estins:
9. 7hat is a 7histle(blower3
An employee who discovers corporate misconduct and chooses to bring it to the attention
of others.
-. 7hat is &nternal 7histle(blowing3
7hen an employee discovers corporate misconduct and brings it to the attention of his
supervisor, who then follows established procedures to address the misconduct within the
;. 7hat is <ternal 7histle(blowing3
7hen an employee discovers corporate misconduct and chooses to bring it to the
attention of law enforcement agencies and=or the media.
>. &s 7histle(blowing a good thing3
Answers will vary. 'efer to )the ethics of whistleblowing’.
.. ?ist five conditions for whistle blowing to be considered ethical.
 7hen the company, through a product or decision, will cause serious and
considerable harm to the public @as consumers or bystandersA, or break eisting
laws, the employee should report the organization.
 7hen the employee identifies a serious threat of harm, he or she should report it
and state his or her moral concern.
 7hen the employee’s immediate supervisor does not act, the employee should
ehaust the internal procedures and chain of command to the board of directors.
 The employee must have documented evidence that is convincing to a reasonable,
impartial observer that his or her view of the situation is accurate, and evidence
that the firm’s practice, product or policy seriously threatens and puts in danger
the public or product user.
 The employee must have valid reasons to believe that revealing the wrongdoing to
the public will result in the changes necessary to remedy the situation. The chance
of succeeding must be e4ual to the risk and danger the employee takes to blow the
B. Cnder what condition could whistle blowing be considered unethical3
&f there is evidence that the employee is motivated by the opportunity for financial gain,
or media attention, or that the employee is carrying out an individual vendetta against the
company, then the legitimacy of the act of whistle(blowing must be 4uestioned.
8. &f you )blow(the(whistle’ on a company for a personal vendetta against another
employee but receive no financial reward, is that more or less ethical than doing it
/ust for the money3
Answers will vary.
D. 7ould the lack of any financial reward make you more or less willing to consider
being a whistleblower3 7hy3
Answers will vary.
E. &f an employee )blows(the(whistle’ on an organization on the basis of a rumor, is
that ethical3
:o ( The employee must have documented evidence that is convincing to a reasonable,
impartial observer that his or her view of the situation is accurate, and evidence that the
firm’s practice, product or policy seriously threatens and puts in danger the public or
product user.
96. &f that information turns out to be false, should the employee be liable for
damages3 <plain your answer.
Answers will vary. &n any event, it would be unlikely that an organization could recover
any large financial award from a single employee.
99. Fompensation to #1ake the employee whole+ under 2o isn’t as clear as a
percentage of the funds recovered for a government whistleblower. Goes that
make it less likely that we’ll see more whistle(blowing under 2o3
Answers will vary. &f you believe that whistleblowers are motivated more by principle
than money, then it shouldn’t make a difference. ,owever, continued media coverage of
large whistleblower awards could increase the fre4uency of government eposHs.
9-. Cnder 2o, complaining to the media isn’t recognized as whistle(blowing. &s that
Answers will vary. $ften complaining to the media only occurs after the employee has
ehausted all internal channels of communication. To be denied the legal status of a
whsitleblower because you were given no option but to go to the media seems unfair. The
purpose of the distinction is to make sure that regulatory agencies get involved before the
media attention is brought to bear.

9;. ,ow should managers or supervisors respond to an employee who brings
evidence of 4uestionable behavior to their attention3
All employers would be wise to put the following mechanisms in place"
aA A well(defined process to document how such complaints are handled – a
nominated contact personI clearly identified authority to respond to the
complaintsI firm assurances of confidentiality and non(retaliation to the
bA An employee hotline to file such complaints, again with firm assurances of
confidentiality and non(retaliation to the employee.
cA A prompt and thorough investigation of all complaints.
dA A detailed report of all investigations, documenting all corporate officers involved
and all action taken.
9>. 2hould that employee be given any reassurances of protection for making the
tough decision to come forward3
5es – anonymity, and no retaliation.
9.. Go you think a hotline that guarantees the anonymity of the caller will encourage
more employees to come forward3
5es but the strength of that anonymity would have to be proven before any other
employees would be willing to come forward.
9B. Goes your company have a whistleblower hotline3 ,ow did you find out that
there is @or isn’tA one3
Answers will vary.
C"se 7.1: T%e Inside!
9. Gr. 7igand was initially unwilling to go public with his information. 7hat
caused him to change his mind3
The etreme reaction of his employers, Brown J 7illiamson @BJ7A in enforcing the
terms of his employment contract and aggressively seeking to ruin his reputation. &n
addition, ?owell Kanz’s assertions that it was )the right thing to do’.
-. 7as FB2 pursuing this because it was )the right thing to do’, or because it
was a good story3
&nitially it was a very good story, but as the situation progressed and BJ7 began to
resort to etreme tactics in their attempts to stifle the story, the issue of principle came
into play and the notion of )the right thing to do’ became more important than the story –
so much so that Kanz ultimately left his position with FB2.
;. 2ince FB2 played such a large part in bringing Gr. 7igand’s story to the
public, do you think they also had an obligation to support him once the
story broke3 <plain why or why not.
Answers will vary. 2ome students will argue that 7igand was an adult and was intelligent
enough to know what he was getting himself into. $thers will argue that since FB2
provided the opportunity for 7igand to speak(out, and since they benefited greatly from
it in terms of an increased viewing audience, it was wrong for them to simply abandon
him once the story broke.
>. 7as FB2’ decision not to run the interview driven by any ethical
FB2’ parent company had an obligation to their stakeholders, and the very real threat of
an epensive lawsuit under )tortious interference’ could have had a dramatic impact on
their financial performance. ,owever, to choose to back down from the story after giving
7igand assurances about eposing the information he had sacrificed his career to give
them was unethical. This ultimately led to the change(of(heart on FB2’ side and the
eventual broadcast of the story.
C"se 7.5: T%e C(d H"!d Re"(it)
9. 7ho took the greater risk here – Fhristine Fasey or Gavid 7elch3
They both sacrificed their careers to bring attention to what they saw as evidence of
corporate malfeasance. The result of their actions appears to be that both have been
)blacklisted’ in their respective fields with no apparent hope of every returning to paid
employment in their chosen careers.
-. 7as the alleged behavior at 1attel more or less unethical than the behavior at the
Bank of 0loyd3
?ess unethical. The decision of 1attel managers to ignore corporate mandates and to
keep two sets of books in order to )keep corporate happy’ reflects badly on the corporate
culture of 1attel, but there is no evidence from the case study that those actions directly
led to fraudulent behavior on the part of the 1attel Forporation. 0or the Bank of 0loyd,
however, Gavid 7elch’s claims alleged direct and intentional fraud in their financial
reporting activities.
;. Go you think Fhristine and Gavid regret their decision to go public with their
information3 7hy or why not3
Kiven what has happened to them both, probably yes. The satisfaction of )doing the right
thing’ can only carry you so far when you are now struggling to earn gainful

>. Go you think their behavior changed anything at either company3
Answers will vary. 2ome students will feel that the additional scrutiny as a result of the
whistleblowing cases will have prompted change. $thers will feel that the degree to
which each company aggressively pursued legal action against the whistleblowers is
evidence that no changes are likely to have taken place.
“Good Money” - Ben makes a decision
Ben lost a lot of sleep that night. ,e trusted 'ick as his most eperienced tire mechanic,
but he had never seen him be so negative about one particular tire model – and it wasn’t
as if he had anything to gain by trashing the reputation of a tire that the company wanted
to sell so aggressively.
The company had sold seconds before – heck they even sold )used’ tires for those
customers looking to save a few bucks. ,ow was this any different3 Llus, 'ick didn’t
have to deal with the sales pressure that !ohn placed on his team leaders – you had to hit
your 4uota every week or else – and if the company was pushing Benfield *oyagers, then
!ohn epected to see him sell Benfield *oyagers by the dozen.
But what if 'ick was right3 7hat if Benfield had cut corners to save on costs3 They
could end up with another 0irestone disaster on their hands. 7hat was Ben supposed to
do with this information3 &f 'ick was so concerned, why wasn’t he speaking up3 The
company advertised their employee hotline for everyone to use if they had concerns
about any business practices. 7hy was it Ben’s /ob to say something3 ,e needed this /ob.
,e had bills to pay /ust like the other guys in the store – in fact, the bills were getting
pretty high and that bonus money would really help right now.
Ben tossed and turned for a few more hours before reaching a decision. 'ick may be right
to be concerned but he was only one guy. The guys at corporate looked at the same specs
as 'ick did, and if they could live with them, then so could Ben. ,e wasn’t going to put
his neck on the block /ust on the basis of 'ick’s concerns. &f the company was putting
their faith in Benfield *oyagers, then Ben was going to sell more of them than anyone
else in the company.
Two weeks later there was a fatal crash involving a minivan with three passengers – a
husband and wife and their young son. The minivan had been fitted with Benfield
*oyagers at Ben’s tire store /ust one week earlierM
9. 7hat do you think will happen now3
There will be a formal investigation to determine the cause of the accident, and if the tires
are found to be at fault, the investigation will follow the chain of evidence and contact
Ben’s store and then the Benfield Fompany to determine whether the faulty tire was /ust
an unfortunate fluke or whether the problem is more serious than that. There will no
doubt be a lawsuit against all parties involved @Benfield and Ben’s storeA irrespective of
whether any fault is identified or not.
-. 7hat will be the conse4uences for Ben, 'ick, their tire store, and Benfield3
&f it is determined that there was a design flaw in the tires that directly contributed to the
crash, then there might be a complete recall of the tires with disastrous conse4uences for
both Benfield and Ben’s store. 'ick might have the satisfaction of knowing that his
concerns about the design were completely accurate, but that would be little consolation
to him when they shut down the store. The legal case would most probably revolve
around whether or not the store #knowingly+ sold a defective product. Any lawyer worth
his license would argue that there was insufficient evidence at the time to make such a
;. 2hould Ben have spoken out against the *oyager tires3
&t would be unfair to place so much blame on Ben’s shoulders. ,e had his suspicions but
no evidence. 2hould he really have placed his future and that of his family on the line for
a suspicion3 All the whistleblowers featured in this chapter found evidence before they
acted – all Ben had were 'ick’s concerns. 7hen Ben was tossing and turning over the
decision, he raised a valid point – 'ick had the epertise and the eperience to have a
more accurate assessment of the situation – why didn’t he speak up3
Re8ie- :$estins:
9. 5ou work for a meatpacking company. 5ou have discovered credible evidence
that your company’s delivery drivers have been stealing cuts of meat and
replacing them with ice to ensure that the delivery meets the stated weight on the
delivery invoice. The company has 9- drivers and, as far as you can tell, they are
all in on this scheme. 5our company has a well(advertised whistleblower hotline.
7hat do you do3
Answers will vary. Those that choose to act on the apparent unethical behavior should use
the employee hotline before going to the media.
-. 7hat would you do if your company did not have a whistleblower policy3
Answers will vary. &t will depend on how secure )you’ would feel in the company’s
anticipated response – would your anonymity be secure3 7ould you be able to avoid
retaliation on the part of the company3
;. 5ou later discover that one of the drivers was not a part of the scheme but was
fired anyway when the information was made public. 7hat do you do3
Answers will vary. 2ome students will see the driver as an unfortunate casualty who
should have spoken out when he had the chance @and therefore )got what was coming to
him’A. $thers will feel an obligation to speak out on his behalf to resolve the situation. &n
reality, once the case has broken and the company has acted, it would be unlikely for
them to go back and amend the decisions made.
>. 2hould the driver get his /ob back3 7hy or why not3
&f he was innocent, it is wrong for him to be fired for actions he didn’t commit.
Re8ie- E3e!cises:
9. Amalgamated 0orest Lroducts"
Giscussion Nuestions"
9. 7hat should 0rank do now3
0rank is faced with a tough decision. The 2enior Team has made it very clear that they
intend to move forward with the )modified’ report data, so if 0rank chooses to go public
with his information, he will have to become an eternal whistleblower and contact the
appropriate regulatory authorities. ,owever, doing so will most likely have a negative
impact on the company, his co(workers, his community, and his family if he ends up
losing his /ob over this.
-. Fonsidering the stakeholder model, who will be impacted by ?etourneau’s bogus
&n the short(term, life would go on as usual since the bogus figures would make it look as
if Amalgamated had a convincing case for not being in compliance with the pollution
control standards. ,owever, over the longer term, the pollution would impact every
stakeholder – employees who could lose their /obsI the community would suffer from the
loss of /obs and perhaps even the entire plantI customers would see increased prices if
penalties are enacted to clean(up the pollutionI suppliers would suffer from the closure of
the plantI and the local city and state agencies would lose the ta revenue if Amalgamated
was forced to close.
;. &f 0rank goes public with the real figures, what do you think the likely
conse4uences will be for all the parties involved3
&t would depend directly on 0rank’s credibility as a whistleblower. &f Amalgamated were
to respond as aggressively towards 0rank as BJ7 did to !effrey 7igand by attempting to
discredit him, there may be no conse4uences other than 0rank’s loss of employment. &f
0rank is successful, however, it is likely that there would be financial penalties involved
for Amalgamated and the replacement of the 2enior Team.
>. The 2enior Team at Amalgamated obviously feels that their financial hardships
/ustify their actions – is that a valid argument3 7hy or why not3
The utilitarian argument of the end /ustifying the means is being used here. The 2enior
Team feels that they know their industry and their company better than the politicians.
,owever, the fact that they are deliberately presenting data that they know to be false in
order to manipulate those politicians rather than challenging them head(on suggests that
they are rationalizing their decision.
.. ,ow could ?etourneau and his team have handled this in a more ethical manner3
By deliberately challenging the validity of the pollution studies that have produced the
criteria that they seem to feel are punitive to the companies in the region. &n this way,
they could offer a true picture of Amalgamated’s situation rather than manipulate the data
in order to take advantage of an assessment system that they feel is invalid.
B. ?etourneau and 1c&ntosh feel that 0rank is the troublemaker here – is that a fair
0rank is certainly making life difficult for them, but his role as )troublemaker’ has come
about because he is raising valid concerns about the data that the company is presenting.
The term )troublemaker’ suggests that a person goes out of his or her way to deliberately
make trouble. &n this case, 0rank is responding emotionally to the discovery that the data
he compiled is being deliberately altered to achieve an alternative goal.
5. Inte!net E3e!cise:
*isit the Kovernment Accountability Lro/ect @KALA at www.whistleblower.org
aA 7hat is the 1ission of KAL3
#The Kovernment Accountability Lro/ect @KALA is a -E(year(old nonprofit public interest
group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational
free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. @TheyA pursue
this mission through @theirA :uclear 2afety, &nternational 'eform, Forporate
Accountability, 0ood J Grug 2afety, and 0ederal <mployee=:ational 2ecurity programs.
KAL is the nationOs leading whistleblower protection organization+.
bA ,ow is KAL funded3
#KAL is a nonprofit [email protected]@;A organization with an operating budget of slightly over P-
million. 0orty(si percent of @theirA funds come from grantmaking foundations such as
the 0ord 0oundation, 0und for Fonstitutional Kovernment, the F2 0und, the :athan
Fummings 0oundation and the 'ockefeller 0amily 0und. Another >9Q comes from as
many as D,666 generous individuals. The rest of KAL’s budget comes from legal fees,
settlement awards, and services provided.+
cA 2elect one case listed on the site and document the key events.
Answers will vary.
Te". E3e!cises:
1. ;$i(t #) O.issin
Givide into two groups and prepare arguments for and against the following behavior"
You work for a large retail clothing company that spends a large amount of their
advertising budget announcing that their clothes are ‘Made in America’. You discover
that only 15 of their garments are actually ‘made’ in America. !he other "5 are
actually either cut from patterns overseas and assembled here in the #$A% or cut and
assembled overseas and imported as completed garments. Your hometown depends on
this clothing company as the largest local employer. $everal of your friends and family
work at the local garment assembly factory. $hould you go public with this information&
 &t’s false advertising to state that the clothing is )made in America’.
 The company is misleading their customers.
 &f they can lie about this, what else are they lying about3
 &t’s wrong to support overseas /obs while claiming to be a patriotic organization.
 The public would believe one of the employees sooner than an investigative
 &t’s the )right thing to do’
 5our friends and family would support you in this.
 The town would not want its reputation associated with such deceptive business
 Goes this deceptive advertising really constitute #serious and considerable harm+
to the public3
 There’s no real danger to the end user – the customer – in this case.
 This isn’t a federal case, so there wouldn’t be a reward from any financial
 Go you have evidence that" #revealing the wrongdoing to the public will result in
the changes necessary to remedy the situation+3
 &f you go public with this information, the potential danger to your family, friends
and the community in lost employment far outweighs the benefits of a modified
ad campaign.
5. /T!ti$s Inte!fe!ence1
Givide into two groups and prepare arguments for and against the following behavior"
'n the case of (r. )effrey *igand and the +rown , *illiamson !obacco -ompany% the
-+$ +roadcasting -ompany chose not to air (r. *igand’s ’./ minutes’ interview with
Mike *allace under threat of legal action for ‘tortious interference’ between +,* and
(r. *igand. !here were suspicions that -+$ was more concerned about avoiding any
potential legal action that could derail their pending sale to the *estinghouse
-orporation. *as -+$ behaving ethically in putting the welfare of their stakeholders in
the *estinghouse deal% ahead of their obligation to support (r. *igand&
 FB2 had a responsibility to their stakeholders.
 There was evidence that a legal action by BJ7 could cost FB2 millions of
 There was a valid contract between BJ7 and Gr. 7igand that both parties had
signed in good faith.
 The pending sale had nothing to do with it – that was /ust a coincidence in timing.
 FB2 had aggressively pursued Gr. 7igand in order to break a story that they
believed would dramatically increase the ratings for ’B6 1inutes’.
 Assurances were given to Gr. 7igand that his story would be broadcast and that
he would be able to make his concerns about the manipulation of nicotine levels
in cigarettes known to as wide a population as possible.
 The )tortious interference’ lawsuit was nothing more than a scare tactic by BJ7
after their attempt to discredit Gr. 7igand in the media had been unsuccessful.
 FB2 was more concerned about the pending sale of the organization to the
7estinghouse Forporation @and the lucrative share option bonuses for those
involved in the transactionA.
<isc$ssin E3e!cise 7.1
W%ist(e B(-in+ "nd t%e P!fessin"(
Giscussion Nuestions"
9. Go you think that Barbara 'eznik has a right to epect the state to pay the full
P-6.> million3 ,ow does the )public interest’ enter into your assessment of the
appropriateness of the state’s offer3 &f you were in 'eznik’s position, would you
accept the offer3 Be sure to incorporate ethical reasoning into your responses.
Answers will vary. 2ome students will feel that 'eznik is right to stand her ground on the
principles involved and that the state should not be allowed to get away with their
obvious tactic of trying to simply wait her out. $thers will feel that the only people hurt
in this stalemate are the tapayers, since it is their money that is being used to pay this
financial settlement. Kiven the etensive investigation into 'eznik’s behavior at the GoT
and the eventual dismissal of the cases against her, there is no evidence of any attempted
profiteering on her part. ,owever, the situation has now become so entrenched on both
sides that she is refusing employment as a /ustification of her entitlement to the funds.
-. :otwithstanding the eistence of the 7histleblower Act, assume that 'eznik is an
accountant FLA working in the accounting office at the Gepartment of
Transportation, and the fraud that she identifies concerns financial statement
items. 7ould you advise 'eznik to blow the whistle on the financial wrongdoing3
7hat if she were a Fertified 1anagement Accountant @F1AA or a Fertified
&nternal Auditor @F&AA3 7hat ethical and professional considerations are relevant
in making such a decision, and what action would you advise3
As a designated professional in her field @FLA, F1A, or F&AA, she would hopefully
abide by the ethical code of conduct to epose such unethical behavior and act
<isc$ssin E3e!cise 7.5
=".es A(de!sn
Giscussion Nuestions"
9. Go you think Alderson and his family would have made as many sacrifices if the
federal 0alse Flaims Act did not allow whistleblowers to receive the 9.(-.Q
)compensation’ on any settlement3
Fonnie Anderson provides her own answer to this 4uestion"
#%nowing what & know now and knowing how long it’s been, &’m not sure & would have
agreed to pursuing the case. & don’t think any amount of money is going to take care of
what we’ve been through+.
-. &f you were faced with the same situation, would the money make a difference to
you3 <plain your answer.
Answers will vary.
;. Go you think the compensation provides an unethical incentive for prospective
whistleblowers to )go public’ with proprietary information3
&t’s likely that there are whistleblowers who are motivated solely by the prospect of
financial gain, but removing such compensation to thwart the unethical minority would
do more harm by preventing the ethical ma/ority from coming forward and )doing the
right thing’.

>. The prospect of a long, drawn(out legal battle is probably a ma/or obstacle to
many prospective whistleblowers. &f legislation eisted to epedite such cases, do
you think there would be more corporate scandals revealed by insiders3 7hy or
why not3
The prospect of surviving with no income and the likelihood of being unable to find
employment in the field for which you are most 4ualified is a significant de(motivator for
any employee who is contemplating becoming a )whistleblower’. <pediting such cases
would definitely help.
.. &n many cases, whistleblowers face the loss of their careers as a result of their
actions. 7hat could be done to prevent this3
Answers will vary. Attempts to preserve anonymity and protect the whistleblower against
retaliation from his or her employer are a good start. ,owever, the prospect of losing
your career is a significant de(motivator for any employee who is contemplating bringing
evidence of unethical corporate behavior to the attention of the appropriate regulatory
authorities. 0inancial protection in the form of a reward could be seen as suitable
compensation, but the legal delays involved in awarding these settlements can also be
prohibitive. Lerhaps the government could use some of those penalties to establish a
)whistleblower fund’ where designated whistleblowers could be paid a subsistence wage
until the case is settled3
B. Fould you go back to work for the same company after you had revealed
unethical corporate behavior3 7hat about a similar /ob with a different company3
Answers will vary.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips


Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips


Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in