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

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