Ethics

Ethics Final

1. Definition: Whistle blowing is the release of information by a member or former member of an organization that is evidence of illegal and/or immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in that is not in the public interest. It is something that can only be done by a member of the organization. The difference is due to the fact that an employee is expected to work only as directed, to go through channels, and especially, to act in all matters for the well-being of the organization. The information involved is typically obtained by the employee during his or her employment as part of the job, such information is usually regarded as confidential so that an employee has an obligation not to reveal it. To go public with information that is damaging to the organization is generally viewed as violating a number of obligations that an employee has as a member of the organization. The information is generally evidence of some significant kind of misconduct on the part of an organization or some of its members. This could involve issues about practices that are legal but contrary to the public interest. Information of this kind could alert the public and aid consumers in counteracting the lobbying effort. The information must be released outside normal channels of communication. In both internal and external whistle-blowing, the information must be revealed in ways that can reasonably be expected to bring about a desired change. The release of information must be something that is done voluntarily. Whistle-blowing must be undertaken as a moral protest, the motive must be to correct some wrong and not to seek revenge or personal advancement.

**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.

How morally justified: An agent has an obligation to obey all reasonable directives of the principal. That is interpreted to exclude illegal or immoral acts. An agent is privileged to reveal information confidentially acquired in the protection of a superior inters of himself or a third person. Protecting oneself from legal liability can reasonably be held to be a superior interest as can preventing some serious harm to others. It is justified only when there are no morally preferable alternatives. An employee is more justified in blowing the whistle when the wrongdoing concerns matters over which the employee has direct responsibility. The particular role that a whistler-blower occupies in an organization is important. A whistle-blower is justified because of some good to the public, it is important to blow the whistle only when there is a reasonable chance of achieving that good. Utilitarianism-rests on the contribution whistle-blowers make to society. There is a moral right to the freedom of speech and a right to follow ones own conscience.

Why ethically problematic: Since he blows the whistle on his own team, his act is seen as a violation of loyalty. In holding his position, he has assumed certain obligations to his colleagues and clients. He may even have subscribed to a loyalty oath or promise of confidentiality. The public service that the whistle-blowers provide has to be weighted against the disruptive effect that the disclosure of information has on bonds of loyalty. An employee is a principal agent of an employer-a person who is engaged to act in the interests of another person and is authorized to act on the person's behalf; they are hired to work for the benefit of the employer. Specifically, an employee, as an agent, has an obligation to work as directed, to protect confidential information, and above all, to be loyal. All of these are violated when an employee blows the whistle. Whistle-blowing is clearly a violation of the legal profession's code of ethics.

2. Is there a right to blow the whistle? Utilitarian right that rests on the contribution whistle-blowers make to society. There is a direct benefit in having instances of illegal corporate conduct, gross waste and mismanagement, and dangers to the public brought to light. These benefits must be balanced against the undeniable harm that a greater incidence of whistle-blowing would have on business firms. The right to freedom of speech

Existing legal protection as described by Boatright:

For: Anti-retaliation provisions of various pieces of federal legislation. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 forbids employers to retaliate against an employee who files a charge with the National Labor Relations Board. The VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees who file a charge of discrimination, participate in an investigation or proceeding connected with a charge of discrimination, participate in an investigation or proceeding connected with a charge or oppose an activity of a company that the employee believes is discriminatory. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 also prohibits retaliation against any employee who files a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or testifies in a proceeding. The Federal False Claims Act of 1863 was originally passed by Congress to curb fraud during the post-civil war reconstruction period allowing private citizens who blow the whistle on government contractors to share in the financial recovery. It has been updated to encourage employees of defense industry contractors to report any fraud that they observe by entitling whistle-blowers to receive between 15% and 30% of the funds recovered in any suit. More than two-thirds of states have passed laws to protect whistle-blowers. Most of these state statutes specify the procedures that a whistle-blower must follow to receive protection and place requirements on the persons to whom the information is disclosed and on the kind of information that the whistle-blower discloses. Another source of protection is state court decisions limiting the traditional right of employers to fire at will.

Against: Whistle-blowing might be used by disgruntled employees to protest company decisions or to back at their employers. Employees might also find an excuse to blow the whistle in order to cover up their own incompetence or inadequate performance. Forbidding an employer to dismiss or discipline an employee who protects against illegal or improper conduct by management invites employees to take out anti-dismissal insurance by lodging a whistle-blowing complaint. Legislation to protect whistle-blowers would encroach on the traditional right of employers