Critique of Whistle-blowing - Coursework Example

Whistle blowing Introduction Whistle blowing comes about when an employee reports suspected wrongdoing in an organization. This action is same as making a disclosure in the interest of the public. Certainly, this action is justifiable since it has assisted many organizations in eliminating the factors or employees that threaten to cause an organization’s decline (Arszułowicz and Wojciech, 152). This essay provides information about whistle blowing, some of the critiques concerning the issue and application of act-utilitarianism ethical theory in whistle blowing. Summary Generally, whistle blowing has two divisions; internal whistle blowing and external whistle blowing. Internal whistle blowing is whereby a whistleblower communicates any form of misconduct to their supervisor, who then applies the established procedures in the organization to address the misconduct. External whistle blowing is whereby a whistleblower communicates any form of misconduct to external parties like the media or law enforcement agencies (Lewis, 45). A whistleblower can report misconducts, illegal actions, or neglect of duties at work, including; Destruction to the environment, An individual’s safety and health endangered, Covering up for a misconduct, A criminal offence, and Company’s disobedience of the law The manner through which an employee can ‘blow the whistle’ on misconduct depends on whether the employee feels they can inform their employer. The employee must verify their employment contract or request human resources/personnel for the company’s whistle-blowing procedure. If the employee feels they can, they should consider contacting their employer concerning the issue they desire to report If the employee cannot inform their employer, they should inform a prescribe person or body (Arszułowicz and Wojciech, 152). An employee can also inform a prescribed body or person about a misconduct if they feel that their employer; Might treat them unfairly if they complain, Might cover up the misconduct, or Has already sorted out the misconduct and has informed them. In most cases, an employee cannot suffer a dismissal because of whistle blowing, since this is would amount to an unfair dismissal. In other words, the law will protect them if there was a fulfillment of certain standards. These standards are known as the qualifying disclosures. Normally, the individuals protected include agency workers, employees, individuals who are training with an employer and have not yet gotten employment, and supervised self-employed workers. An employee is only entitled to protection if they sincerely feel that whatever they are reporting is factual and they feel they are informing the right person. In addition, the whistleblower must also believe that their exposure is in the interest of the public. Employees are, however not protected from dismissal when they break the law while reporting misconduct. For instance, when an employee had earlier on signed the Official Secrets Act, or when the misconduct became discoverable in an event whereby another person was seeking legal advice. Moreover, those workers who are not employed have no right of claiming unfair dismissal, but they receive protection and can allege ‘detrimental treatment’ (Weiss,45). Critique of Whistle-blowing Generally, whistle blowing ensures public safety (Arszułowicz and Wojciech, 153). One major reason why whistleblowers reveal misconduct is to protect the public, their colleagues, and the company from risks. They are instant and the more important the risk is, the more essential it is to take action competently. When an organization engages itself in activities that can cause mental or physical harm to the public or environmental destruction, it is always important that someone take responsibility in ensuring such activities come to the spotlight. Moreover, whistle blowing also ensures moral responsibility. Whistle blowing out of a sense of moral responsibility is itself an important path to take. In this case, an employee should consider whatever motivates them before blowing the whistle. Therefore, one is justified if they attempt to accomplish a sense of moral responsibility or protect the interest of the public. Good motivation for action is therefore justifiable in the case of whistle blowing. In addition, every company or business normally desires honesty from its employees. The presence of sincerity allows for absolute dedication to the mission and success of an organization. By encouraging the culture of whistle blowing, an organization ensures the promotion of a transparent structure and efficient, clear communication. More notably, whistle blowing can help protect the clients of an organization. For instance, if a healthcare unit employs many negligent staff members, staff members would need to present such issues to the health care unit’s attention, thereby protecting the unit from severe mishaps resulting in client’s demise or possible lawsuits. Whistle blowing however can challenge trust; can lead to trust breakdown (Lewis, 46). Organizations normally have a preference that employees use systems of internal communication when they are uncomfortable with actions taking place in their departments or the organization. This offers an organization an opportunity to monitor itself within before the worker decides to go somewhere else. If trust breaks between employees and managers, tension and efficient operational relationships amid employees become difficult. Additionally, whistleblowers may face resentment and hostility from superiors and peers. Despite the fact that the government provides protection to whistleblowers, they may still face resentment from their colleagues. This culture of revenge creates an unfavorable working condition for the whistle-blower and distracts them from their tasks. Despite these arguments, the reality is that whistle blowing is far much important to an organization’s growth and development. Act-Utilitarianism Act-utilitarianism is an ethics and philosophy concept concerning the morality of how an individual spends their time. Under the proposals of act-utilitarianism, it is ethically right to do an action that can create the most happiness for people, and therefore it is unethical to do something less capable of causing happiness or more selfish (Fumerton and Diane, 314). The ethical theory can, therefore apply to the context of whistle blowing. Application of Act-Utilitarianism in Whistle-blowing The effects of act-utilitarianism come about when it comes to corporate or organizational whistle blowing. Since, whistle blowing involves an action of revealing a wrongdoing for the benefit of the public or an organization, this action amount to an aspect of morality. For one, the well-being of an organization’s image, employees, and stakeholders is mandatory. In contrast, the general consumers or clients’ welfare need also upholding. Act-utilitarianism simplifies whistle blowing into a pain versus pleasure issue (Fumerton and Diane, 314). If the whistle-blowing action generates less pain than pleasure to several people, then it is a good action. However, if the opposite is true, then the action becomes all wrong. In the 1970s, for instance, the Ford Motor Company produced the Ford Pinto in a hastily manner. History states that this car had so many faults that would most probably cause injuries to people, and Ford Company knew it. Despite that, the company went ahead and introduced the vehicle into the market since it priced very high; the main notion that the Company had was that the amount that they would use in case legal action was much less than the amount they would use in redesigning the Ford Pinto for safety. However, what happened afterwards was the exact opposite of what they expected; they had to spend a lot on legal action against them since they caused so many deaths and injuries (Weiss, 146). In this case, the position of act-utilitarianism concerning whistle blowing is perfectly illustrated. Prior to the production of Ford Pinto, the engineers were very much aware of the potential catastrophe of the Pinto. However, none of them cared to ‘blow the whistle’ and this faulty car ended up flooding the market. In this situation, one of the employees could have considered performing an act-utilitarianism calculation that signified the need not to whistle blow. Through using a cost-benefit analysis, the act-utilitarian weighed the harm imposed on the public against the pain imposed on Ford Company and its associates. If the controversy had received the public’s attention, most of the employees in ford would have lost their jobs, and afterward they would have devastated lives, this would weighed against the injuries and deaths the Pinto would cause. Actually in this case, the act-utilitarianism would have considered whistle blowing a moral action, since life is far much important than anything. Therefore, this situation clearly depicts how whistle blowing relates well with act-utilitarianism. In other words, it would be important for an employee to consider the act-utilitarianism theory before ‘blowing the whistle.’ This is because it can assist an employee in weighing out the options; which option has the interest of the public and organization at heart and, which one does not. From this application, employees can easily whistle-blow thus ensuring and upholding their moral responsibility. Certainly, act-utilitarianism offers a powerful justification for whistle blowing; capitalizes on the human benefit and lessens harm. Conclusion Generally, regarding to act-utilitarianism, whistle blowing is a justified action. In addition, whistle blowing is an action that most organization should consider including in their policies to ensure faster growth and development with minimum declining threats from employees. Moreover, the government should formulate stricter laws that can help protect whistleblowers. Works Cited Arszułowicz, Marek, and Wojciech Gasparski. Whistleblowing: In Defense of Proper Action. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011. Print. Fumerton, Richard A, and Diane Jeske. Introducing Philosophy Through Film: Key Texts, Discussion, and Film Selections. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print. Lewis, David B. A Global Approach to Public Interest Disclosure: What Can We Learn from Existing Whistleblowing Legislation and Research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub, 2010. Print. Weiss, Joseph W. Business Ethics: A Stakeholders and Issues Management Approach. Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Read More