Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Whistleblowing Osmosis
Although, there are numerous organizations, federal acts, and state laws designed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, most of them provide only superficial protection. Naturally, because the government is often the victim of leaks, they are a biased party in the judicial process. The existing laws provide only very limited protection; many of the federal laws are far outdated, and more recent acts have been rejected by Congress. Most whistleblowers are primarily protected by an extensive patchwork of state laws that vary greatly in strength. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act only protects the right of enlisted members to report dishonorable or dangerous activities, but does nothing to protect the whistleblower after the fact. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act provides some incentives to report malpractice on Wall Street, but is often insufficient due to the vastly larger rewards that can be earned by keeping quiet about such activities. As these graphs demonstrate, much change is needed before whistleblowing can be both safe and effective.
(graphs here)
(graphs here)
Whistleblowing Diagnosis
History
First Protection: Lloyd-La Follete Act
First Whistleblower-Specific Protection: False Claims Act
On Wall Street: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
In The Military: Military Whistleblower Protection Act (talk about limits)
Early Whistleblowers: Muckrackers
Big Leak: Pentagon Papers
Case Involving Whistleblowers: Challenger Mission
Recent: Wikileaks
Sociological Perspectives
Opinions on the acceptance of “whistleblowing” vary widely. The motives of whistleblowers is always under close scrutiny, and naturally, many individuals judge whistleblowers on what they (the individual) stands to gain, or lose, in the matter. In some situations, those who take it upon themselves to raise hidden issue are seen as champions or even martyrs for the public’s well-being. At their worst, whistleblowers use their information to garner public attention and earn notoriety.
However, as there are often significant risks attached to whistleblowing, most cases involve concerned individuals shedding light on issues he or she opposes in order to inform the public. (Politicians are a noteworthy exception to the “ethical objector” rule.) The two most common entities that whistleblowers act against are governments/political organizations (public sector) and businesses/corporations (private sector), although there are secondary types such as organized religion and non-profit organizations.
Under the law, some protection is afforded to whistle-blowers to guard against the organizations they challenge. But, public reaction to the release of information depends on the source of the information, type of organization where the information originated, and nature of the information itself. How much impact will this information have on the lives (and consciences) of the Average Joe? Is the source reliable? What is the current popular opinion about the organization in question? For example, information regarding the mistreatment of people and the environment are sensitive issues that draw the public’s support. The more popular support an issue has, the less “risk” the whistleblower is in.
But in some cases, the public is simply not ready to fight on behalf of a just cause. On top of this, in some cases there is question to whether the information should have been released at all. In particular, many government programs are kept hidden from the public eye for a reason. In order for the CIA, FBI, military, etc. to do their jobs effectively, much information needs to be kept confidential. They operate to protect and serve the people, but in order to do so some level of secrecy must be maintained. Naturally, issues such as these are controversial; there is no complete public consensus. By and large, putting information in the hands of the people is a noble thing. But there are lines not to be crossed in our society. Whistle-blowers always risk the wrath of the organization the circumvent; they cannot fight the public as well.
In most countries, the law provides some protection to whistleblowers. However, the level of protection varies greatly, and is complicated greatly by international relations. In any case, because the government made the laws, some governments are able to circumvent them to attack whistleblowers.
First Protection: Lloyd-La Follete Act
First Whistleblower-Specific Protection: False Claims Act
On Wall Street: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
In The Military: Military Whistleblower Protection Act (talk about limits)
Early Whistleblowers: Muckrackers
Big Leak: Pentagon Papers
Case Involving Whistleblowers: Challenger Mission
Recent: Wikileaks
Sociological Perspectives
Functionalist Theory: Whistleblowers can help keep organizations and governments in check.
Conflict Theory: Organizations are focused on profits, so they cut corners on safety and regulation. However, employees concerned with the resulting ill effects inform higher authorities of these actions.
Interactionist Theory: People interact and determine certain regulations that they expect of organization. They use whistleblowing to influence and mold the organization into a different form.
-
Opinions on the acceptance of “whistleblowing” vary widely. The motives of whistleblowers is always under close scrutiny, and naturally, many individuals judge whistleblowers on what they (the individual) stands to gain, or lose, in the matter. In some situations, those who take it upon themselves to raise hidden issue are seen as champions or even martyrs for the public’s well-being. At their worst, whistleblowers use their information to garner public attention and earn notoriety.
However, as there are often significant risks attached to whistleblowing, most cases involve concerned individuals shedding light on issues he or she opposes in order to inform the public. (Politicians are a noteworthy exception to the “ethical objector” rule.) The two most common entities that whistleblowers act against are governments/political organizations (public sector) and businesses/corporations (private sector), although there are secondary types such as organized religion and non-profit organizations.
Under the law, some protection is afforded to whistle-blowers to guard against the organizations they challenge. But, public reaction to the release of information depends on the source of the information, type of organization where the information originated, and nature of the information itself. How much impact will this information have on the lives (and consciences) of the Average Joe? Is the source reliable? What is the current popular opinion about the organization in question? For example, information regarding the mistreatment of people and the environment are sensitive issues that draw the public’s support. The more popular support an issue has, the less “risk” the whistleblower is in.
But in some cases, the public is simply not ready to fight on behalf of a just cause. On top of this, in some cases there is question to whether the information should have been released at all. In particular, many government programs are kept hidden from the public eye for a reason. In order for the CIA, FBI, military, etc. to do their jobs effectively, much information needs to be kept confidential. They operate to protect and serve the people, but in order to do so some level of secrecy must be maintained. Naturally, issues such as these are controversial; there is no complete public consensus. By and large, putting information in the hands of the people is a noble thing. But there are lines not to be crossed in our society. Whistle-blowers always risk the wrath of the organization the circumvent; they cannot fight the public as well.
In most countries, the law provides some protection to whistleblowers. However, the level of protection varies greatly, and is complicated greatly by international relations. In any case, because the government made the laws, some governments are able to circumvent them to attack whistleblowers.
Statistics
- United States 2002
- 27% faced lawsuits
- 90% of whistleblowers lost their jobs or were demoted
- United States 2000
- Negative Effects:
- 51% of government employees lost their job
- 82% harassed by superiors
- 69% watched closely after blowing the whistle
- 63% lost job responsibilities
- 60% fired
- 10% attempted suicide
- 20% felt their actions resulted in positive changes
- More than 50% (of responders) would do it again
The Social Phenomenon of Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing is NOT a classic, one-dimensional social issue. It’s power is indisputable; however, its positive and negative influences on society are in question. It traditionally grants power to the individual over the collective organization. Paradoxically, the whistleblowers’ only defense against retribution is the shield of another such organization. The federal government is periodically wracked by whistleblowing incidents - most notably in recent times Wikileaks. Yet as a democratic representation of the people, they are tasked with protecting the whistleblower. This conflict of interest has understandably left whistleblowers with only minimal protection against retaliation. In order for the healthy release of information to continue, the safeguards must be greatly strengthened, both by the government and other organizations. As the people democratically represented in the United States federal government, it is our duty to pressure for these changes ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)