Blowing a Whistle in the Public Sector - Essay Example

? Whistle Blowing By: Location Whistle Blowing Issues That a Potential Whistleblower Should Consider Before Blowing a Whistle in the Public Sector In a public sector whistle blowing against the government and the armed forces is a normal occurrence. A potential whistle blower should consider whether the issue is a criminal offense or not before blowing the whistle on the involved officials. Secondly, he should consider whether the issue involves are a breach of legal obligation like a contractual obligation awarded to the said officer. Thirdly, the case should involve an issue where justice was not effectively and fairly awarded to a victim or a party. Fourthly, the case should be one involving an issue concerning the endangerment of the public like a health or war issue. Lastly, the whistle blower should consider the issue of the state’s security by revealing such information to various parties as it might lead to chaos and unrest among the public. A case example of whistle blowing against the public sector involves where an individuals notices some abnormities in the armed service recruitment process. An example is when the concerned armed service officials are not selecting individuals based on their qualifications, but based on bribes, tribalism, nepotism or favors given to them. The second example is when a public servant tasked with ministerial office uses the office for selfish materialist gains like engaging with unscrupulous dealers to provide the public with poor quality products whose origins and sale have not been certified with the body concerned with monitoring of goods sold to the public (Arszulowicz & Gasparski, 2011, 97). . The Wikileaks Case as Whistle Blowing Case In my opinion, Wikileaks case is a whistle blowing cases as evidenced in many issues being raised about the company by various individuals. Most cases being brought up by the company against individuals or companies always involves circumstances where various issues are being perpetrated against the citizens or an individual. An example is the PFC or the Bradley Manning case where he believed that the issues Wikileaks was whistle blowing on has the capability of plunging the country into a state of unrest or would jeopardize the security of the nation. This was an issue concerning the armed services and the whistleblower has every intention to believe that their activities would lead to an overkill of various civilians involved. Manning provided a video that killed numerous citizens in Baghdad to the public which showed them of the government’s irresponsibility in taking care of the civilians. In my views, this information revealed the government’s role in failing to deliver its legal obligation to protect the citizens even in times of emergency (Arszulowicz & Gasparski, 2011, 45). . The Pros and Cons of the False Claim Act That Offers Payment to Whistle Blowers False claim Act cases are known to offer payment to whistle blowers because it considers the whistle blower as a significant person in aiding in the process of justice to the citizens and various parties concerned. However, false claims acts have both advantages and disadvantages to the whistle blowers in numerous instances. Advantages The false claim offers a pay-out to the whistle blower as way of showing gratitude in revealing various unethical issues happening in various state departments or aiding in the process of finding justice to various helpless victims who are not capable of protecting themselves. Secondly, false claim act offers payment to the whistle blower by ensuring public safety for various concerned individuals and stakeholders. A whistle blower will feel satisfied because the issue he or she has raised was disturbing to him and that is why he decided to blow the whistle on various concerned officials. When concerned officials take responsibility of a disturbing issue confessed by a whistle blower, then the whistle blower feels that he or she is compensated as his worries are addressed. Thirdly, many individuals feel that they are paid through various ways when the issues they have raised is solved amicably and at times they do not have to be given financial things to get satisfied. A whistle blower feels compensated in revealing an issue that is oppressing to him since he feels that he has performed his moral obligation to the country and to the society in general. Disadvantages However, there are various cons when a whistle blower is offered payment by the false claim act because it might lead to instances of retaliation to the party whom the whistle has been blown. An example is that the party involved might want to eliminate the whistle blower so as to bring an end to the evidence that is in possession of the whistle blower. Secondly, despite being paid by the act, the whistle blower might be fired from the company or organization in which he has whistled about its activities. This always leads to limitations of the whistleblower as he has to pass through some difficult time in trying to adapt to his new status of being jobless. In addition, the false claim act might fail to offer immediate payment for the whistle blower because of the long and tiresome legislative process. Whistleblowers also stand the disadvantage of being blacklisted in the organization they have whistle blown, and other companies who fear that the said individuals might also whistle blow on them. This in turn limits numerous opportunities to the whistle blower since many prospective employers might ignore his job applications for fearing that the whistle blower might let their secret to the public or other unwanted hands. Reasons Why Corporate Whistle Blowers Exhaust Internal Remedies before Going to the Media or Regulatory Agencies Corporate whistleblowers need to exhaust all the available internal remedies before going to the media or regulatory agency in order to receive protection from various concerned persons. Improper conduct might lead to the whistle blower to be unprotected by various parties and acts drawn. This might be as a result of misusing the employer’s property by stealing. Therefore, when the whistle blower blows a whistle of a scandalous activity taking place within the organization, he may also end up falling a victim of these scam because the judicial process might apply the ‘doctrine of unclean hands’ , and as result the whistleblower might fail to have protection from the employers of various parties sued (Arszulowicz & Gasparski, 2011, 125). . When a whistleblower reports to the media or regulatory agencies directly, where there does not exist anonymous hotlines where these issues could be addressed. Failing to go through these hotlines might make the relevant officials to have a feeling that the whistle blower has a bad attitude about the corporate to which he is blowing a whistle. This might not augur positively with the whistleblower as he might at the end lack protection from the relevant concerned agencies. A whistle blower might have exceptions of reporting to the media or other regulatory agencies concerned if the corporate or countries he works or lives in do not have the hotlines or offices where the issue could be addressed. An example is that in most developing countries, these lines or hotline might not be available for whistle blowers to reports issues they feel are scandalous. The only option they might have is the media and other regulatory agencies present; therefore, this case scenario might appeal in such an incidence. The Pros and Cons of Whistle blowing In the Government/ Armed Forces Situations The Pros Of Whistle Blowing In The Government/ Armed Forces Situations Are: Whistle blowing in the government/ armed forces situations helps in ending wrongdoing The armed forces or the government might be involved in various activities that causes harm to the citizens of the country and whistle blowing might just be the solution to putting an end to all these problems. An example of case scenario is in America where the government was using human beings as test subjects for various vaccines that they were trying to discover. Whistle blowing in the government, armed forces situations helps in putting an end to discrimination. Most government, armed forces officials are known for their various discriminatory tendencies and by blowing a whistle on their illegal activities, a whistleblower might save innocent civilians and citizens from the discrimination promoted by this officials. An example is case where an army official is discriminating against his juniors because of number of prejudices like race and gender. Blowing a whistle against them will help in putting an end to the discrimination. The Cons of Whistle blowing In the Government/ Armed Forces Situations Are: Whistle blowing in the government/ armed forces situations appear traitorous. This is because whistle blowing might reveal significant information of a country to enemies or various terrorist groups. This negatively affects the armed forces and places the country in danger of attacks from various parties. Most individuals are made to swear to an oath of secrecy to keep official government and armed forces secrets for the outsiders. This is a condition of employment and whistleblowers are bound by the oath to keep whatever information they might have for fear of facing the consequences of breaching the oath. The Pros and Cons of Whistle blowing in Corporate Settings The Pros of Whistle Blowing In a Corporate Setting Whistle blowing is significant in putting an end to crime, fraud and abuse in corporate settings Corporate with a whistle blowing policy will not be experiencing issues of crime, abuse and fraud because it will allow a section of employees to raise concern about various malpractices going on around the company. The Cons of Whistle blowing in a Corporate Setting Whistle blowing in a corporate setting might undermine the credibility of the corporate. When employees point out various malpractices going on within the corporate, customers and stakeholders start to question the credibility of the corporate in handling the various issues involved. An example is that when a corporate offers substandard quality products to the public, and by chance an employee blows the whistle on this to the public or other concerned officials, then the corporate stands to loose its image since their credibility will be questioned by various parties involved. Whistle blowing in corporate might also work to the benefit of employers. This happens in scenarios where the employers are allowed to draft the code of conduct. They might use this as an excuse of barring their employees from reporting their malpractices by external whistle blowing, and in turn conceal important information to the public (Arszulowicz & Gasparski, 2011, 33). Reference Arszulowicz, M., & Gasparski, W. (2011). Whistleblowing in defense of proper action. [online] New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction. Available at: http://site.ebrary.com/id/10524834. Read More