What's your opinion about Whistleblowers?

[webmarta]

After many revelations in the last couple of years concerning secret services, military strategies and especially tax fraud like big multinational companies who don't pay taxes we are now facing probably the biggest of all revelations. The "Panama Papers" revealed loads of tax frauds and especially many important politicans involved in it. What do you think about these whistleblowers who are helping to uncover those cases but still pass secret documents to the authorities?

[Greg H.]

I was once asked by an employer (I'll decline to say which one), "Will you keep company information secret?" My response was a sincere "Yes. Unless you do something illegal." Fortunately, I have never had to make that decision, but the fact of the matter is, corporations are not in the business of doing what's right, or even doing what's legal. Most companies do the right thing - but some do not. And as far as I am concerned, once my employer knowingly breaks the law, all bets are off. I will throw them under the proverbial bus before I sacrifice my own principles.

[Endy0816]

Depends on how it is done.

[dimreepr]

Whistle-blowing in the NHS can lead to bullying, threats and sometimes unemployment; I applaud them but it does require a lot of thought before one blows that whistle.

[michel123456]

As far as I know nothing illegal has been committed.

 

A few years ago a Minister of my country had been caught in a similar kind of business and answered a remarkable "whatever is legal is ethical". The statement raised of course a lot negative comments.

[superdivisor]

Concerning such important things like tax fraud, human rights abuse or data protection it's absolutely necessary for the public to learn about them, so a so called whistleblower absolutely does an important thing!

[Ten oz]

Humans have evolved to where we are by sharing information. In the long run the more that is known the better. In the short term individuals, companies, and etc can be hurt. So to answer the question I would say it is a neccessary evil. Secrets propagate more secrets. We (humans) are generally always better off big picture wise once secrets are known.

[marieltrokan]

I have the same opinion of whistleblowers as I do of anyone else: they should be asked if they want to be known as the Universe.

[Strange]

I have the same opinion of whistleblowers as I do of anyone else: they should be asked if they want to be known as the Universe.

 

 

That is useful because if they answer "yes" then they can use insanity as a defense.

[marieltrokan]

The real insanity is the need of whistleblowers in the first place.

Edited June 18, 2016 by marieltrokan

[disarray]

I think a rather pernicious form of anti-whistle blowing on the part of corporations, etc., is the stipulation, typically built into contracts that employees sign, that they will not speak negatively about the company. This is typically meant to apply to comments that one might make outside of work, and is meant, in particular, to discourage employees from making comments about the company publicly, e.g., in a newspaper interview or letter to the editor, in a public speech, and the like. However, in theory, and perhaps occasionally in practice, I gather, people have been fired because they made negative comments in a small gathering of people, e.g., at a small dinner gathering in their home.

 

Typically, it doesn't matter whether what you say it true or not...one is just supposed to be loyal and supportive of the company and so keep it positive. What is amazing is that the people who make these contracts apparently don't realize that forcing people to promise not to say things negative is an invasion of privacy, slapdash justice (as they decide what is negative or not), suppressing potentially dangerous information (e.g., a car defect), and a breach of ones freedom of speech. This stipulation is, in 99.9% of the cases, I would suggest, not a matter of protecting company secrets such as the latest technological advancement. Indeed, I don't understand at all why companies can legally make their employees sign such a contract.

Edited June 20, 2016 by disarray

[Endy0816]

They cannot make you, but you can freely choose.

[disarray]

Endy0816. You say, "They cannot make you, but you can freely choose."

 

If you are referring to my post in which I say that some employers make their employees sign a contract saying that they will not criticize the company, I would suggest that you are being a little pedantic. Of course, they are not going to grab hold of your hand and force you to sign the contract. By "make you," I obviously meant that you will most likely not get a job or loose the job you already have. Perhaps I should have said that they "coerce" employees to sign the contract, but I think that you are splitting hairs here.

 

It is all a matter of what companies can legally ask and tell employees. Indeed, there are related issues, such as the following in this regard, e.g., employers who may

 

• Refuse to hire or continue to employ someone who smokes in his/her own home, even though they do not smoke in or near the workplace.
• Refuse to hire or continue to employ or to cover the health insurance of someone who does not provide evidence for looking after their own health, e.g., via gym attendance.
• Refuse to hire or continue to employ someone who does not reveal their racial, marital, sexual, or religious status (even though some individuals might object on the basis that the company has no need to know such personal things).

It's all a matter of deciding how much power corporations should have. As I mentioned, companies don't put it into their contracts that one cannot report illegal activities that they find that the company is conducting. However, by putting in the clause that one cannot criticize the company, they are effectively doing just that, as people are afraid to lose their jobs and just turn a blind eye. To my mind, this all sounds a little Orwellian, and again, I find it hard to believe that companies are allowed to insist (if you like) that employees agree to just say nice things. No doubt, for example, employers who agree to such a contract will be more reluctant to answer questions about questionable company activities put to them by, say a district attorney, a police investigator, or a prosecuting lawyer. In short, it seems that this is a case where corporate rights trump individual rights (e.g. privacy, discrimination, and speech rights) in the eyes of the law.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by disarray

[Endy0816]

Coercion in legal terms, applies to a threat of an illegal action being visited on someone. Within limits, it is not illegal to fire or to refuse to hire.

 

• Refuse to hire or continue to employ someone who smokes in his/her own home, even though they do not smoke in or near the workplace.
• Refuse to hire or continue to employ or to cover the health insurance of someone who does not provide evidence for looking after their own health, e.g., via gym attendance.

 

Main issue is that companies(and to some degree their employees) have to pay for that insurance.

 

It might not seem like it impacts the company or fellow employees, but it does.

 

 

 

Refuse to hire or continue to employ someone who does not reveal their racial, marital, sexual, or religious status (even though some individuals might object on the basis that the company has no need to know such personal things).

 

Where are you seeing this at?

 

 

My main concern with support for some of the higher profile whistle blowers is that it undermines contract law. Our entire military is under contract and is sworn to a piece of paper.

 

We do need better and broader whistle blower protections, but likewise people need to utilize existing protections rather than leaking to the internet. If justified, contracts can be declared null and void, we just need a system in place to handle such cases.

 

People do own companies or shares of companies, so to some extent I can see the company having some rights as an extension. Though I still think it should have to meet other obligations; register for the draft, jury duty, etc. if it wants to exercise those rights.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Endy0816

[disarray]

Endy0816: You say that "Within limits, it is not illegal to fire or to refuse to hire."

 

Again, there are all sorts of reasons that one is not allowed to fire or refuse to hire people, e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. Nothing too wishy washy about that, there is no "within limits" for refusing to hire a person because you don't like the color of his/her skin. I just think that, as I mentioned, firing or refusing to hire people who have criticized the company or who don't sign a contract promising that they won't is also not really all that vague. So I fail to see why you would even mention the concept of "limits."

 

Of course, companies will pay more on average on health insurance for those who don't exercise on a regular basis, but how does that negate my claim that insisting that employees attend gym or not smoke (on their own time) is, in my opinion an invasion of people's private lives.

 

Also, you ask where am I seeing that people are not hired on the basis that they do not adequately give information about their racial, marital, sexual, or religious status. Here is an example of what I mean:

 

"Under federal law, it is not illegal per se to inquire about an applicant’s marital status. The EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] says that federal law does, however, prohibit covered employers from basing hiring decisions on the basis of sex. Accordingly, employers may not refuse [for example] to hire married women or women with children if it hires married men or men with children. In addition, many states have broader discrimination laws making that type of question flatly illegal." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ask-headhunter-really-illegal-employers-ask-youre-married/

 

I think that there is a fine line between "refusing to hire because of" and "basing hiring decisions on" such things as whether or not potential employees are married. If a person refuses to answer that the question on a form, and the information is important to the company that asks it (which it evidently is), then it is likely that the refusal to answer would affect the companies decision to hire them.

 

I guess it is obvious that I meant that companies sometimes terminate the employment of an employee when they find out that they have falsified something on their original job application form, or if some factor has changed, e.g., with regards to sex, marital status, or religious status. I am sure, for example, that employees have been fired when it was discovered that they were, for example, homosexual, despite their claim of being in a heterosexual marital relationship, either in on their application form/contract or in discussions with others on the work site.

 

I don't think that you are being fair to conflate military contracts with corporate ones. Obviously, there are some military secrets that should be kept secret for the sake of national security. One can hardly equate that with, say, a company that objects to an employee stating at a dinner speech that he likes everything about his company except that it doesn't pay men and women equal wages for the same work, or that the cafeteria is unsanitary and a health hazard, or whatever. Again, I am not exaggerating...It may be true that the boss doesn't fire such an employee the next day, but it is common practice for both government and private companies to fire people (on whatever pretense) who are in the habit of openly saying what they really think about the company, whether they say it on or off the work site, or both.

 

I agree that there are certain bits of information that affect national security and should not appear on Twitter, for example. But again, that is not a black and white issue. The governments of many nations will be quick to say that a whistle blower is threatening national security when really, they are just embarrassed and afraid of criticism, or afraid they won't get voted back into office, or some administrator might lose his/her job.

 

Bottom line, when it comes to such controversial things as the Iran-Contra affair, the Panama papers, or Guantanamo Bay, one has to evaluate the overall impact that it had on a case by case basis, not make vague generalizations about the ubiquitous need for people to just shut up and stick to the contract. Nor is it a matter of just matter of either voiding a contract or sticking to it.

 

Corporations, in the final analysis, are not people...and certainly have no right to claim that they have privileges (when it comes to such things as controlling other people's private behavior, restricting their freedom of speech, torturing them, evading the payment of tax, bugging their offices in order to gain an advantage during an election, hiding the misappropriation of public funds, etc.) that an average citizen does not have.

 

Many corporations are out of hand in this country, as elsewhere, in terms of their power to skew laws in their favor by, among other things, lobbying legislators. Squashing whistle blowers, even if it is a matter of getting them to sign a contract that forbids them to criticize the company, is, in many cases, unconstitutional and gives them more power to behave in a corrupt manner, while reducing employee's freedoms at the same time.

Edited June 23, 2016 by disarray

[Endy0816]

Endy0816: You say that "Within limits, it is not illegal to fire or to refuse to hire."

 

Again, there are all sorts of reasons that one is not allowed to fire or refuse to hire people, e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. Nothing too wishy washy about that, there is no "within limits" for refusing to hire a person because you don't like the color of his/her skin. I just think that, as I mentioned, firing or refusing to hire people who have criticized the company or who don't sign a contract promising that they won't is also not really all that vague. So I fail to see why you would even mention the concept of "limits."

 

Of course, companies will pay more on average on health insurance for those who don't exercise on a regular basis, but how does that negate my claim that insisting that employees attend gym or not smoke (on their own time) is, in my opinion an invasion of people's private lives.

 

There are times when it can be illegal, but you can still quite legally fire someone if it isn't one of those times.

 

You are making it their business if you want them to pay part of your insurance. No longer a private decision(using this word very loosely here in respect to the difficulty involved with change).

 

 

I don't think that you are being fair to conflate military contracts with corporate ones. Obviously, there are some military secrets that should be kept secret for the sake of national security. One can hardly equate that with, say, a company that objects to an employee stating at a dinner speech that he likes everything about his company except that it doesn't pay men and women equal wages for the same work, or that the cafeteria is unsanitary and a health hazard, or whatever. Again, I am not exaggerating...It may be true that the boss doesn't fire such an employee the next day, but it is common practice for both government and private companies to fire people (on whatever pretense) who are in the habit of openly saying what they really think about the company, whether they say it on or off the work site, or both.

 

Was talking about standard enlistment contract. Far more restrictive than anything else out there.

 

 

Many corporations are out of hand in this country, as elsewhere, in terms of their power to skew laws in their favor by, among other things, lobbying legislators. Squashing whistle blowers, even if it is a matter of getting them to sign a contract that forbids them to criticize the company, is, in many cases, unconstitutional and gives them more power to behave in a corrupt manner, while reducing employee's freedoms at the same time.

 

 

Freedoms have limits:

 

http://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-free-speech-at-work/

[disarray]

Endy0816: You say that "You are making it their business if you want them to pay part of your insurance. No longer a private decision(using this word very loosely here in respect to the difficulty involved with change)."

 

That's quite a glib generalization. If an employee wants to take advantage of some optional insurance health plan that the company has by agreeing to certain conditions such as going to a gym twice a week, he has the freedom to do so. Often times, employers automatically cover their employees health insurance. Suppose every company did this. Such a benefit does not give the right to tell employees what to do on their own time...seriously. That sounds a little like Big Brother....Will a neighbor that looks over the fence and sees him smoking report him to the company so that he looses his health insurance and possibly his job??

 

^{"How employers tracking your health can cross the line and become Big Brother:}

^{"In this era of wearable technology, employers conceivably could monitor everything from our blood pressure and pulse, to how many steps we take throughout the day. Your Jawbone could monitor how much you sweat, your body temperature and your activity level – and prod you to exercise more if you’re not doing a good enough job, via a remote coach. Even if programs remain optional, opting out is likely to be greeted with wariness, much like a suspect’s refusal to provide DNA or fingerprints might be after he has insisted he isn’t guilty of whatever crime has been committed."}

^{http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/us-money-blog/2015/may/01/employers-tracking-health-fitbit-apple-watch-big-brother}

 

Also, you say, "Was talking about standard enlistment contract. Far more restrictive than anything else out there."

But wasn't your point that such a contract be seen as the norm? Now you are acknowledging that it is far more restrictive than anything out there. And besides, just because something is practiced in the military hardly makes it right, or even a good idea. I see that the Enlistment/ReEnlistment form for the Armed Forces states that one must "Obey all lawful orders, and perform all assigned duties" but that sounds pretty general to me. What section of the form are you referring to?

 

As for the article that you link to in order to show that there are limits to freedom, I am not sure just what the entire article is supposed to tell me about some point you are apparently trying to make. In many states there is no protection for those who are fired....you can be fired just because the boss doesn't like the color of your ties or your mustache or whatever, he/she does not have to give a reason. So to say that such an employer can fire you because you said you didn't like his hairdo really says nothing at all.

 

Indeed, your article states that,

"What employers can’t do is issue broad policies that prohibit employees from saying bad things about the company or the people in it- because that violates the NLRA. It’s the broad policy that’s the problem, rather than the specific statement."

 

In any case, this is not a black and white issue. We know that one has free speech within limits, i.e., endangering others: Calling out fire in a crowded theatre" comes to mind. But there are not many.

 

Actually, we can pretty much say anything we want in public as long as it doesn't constitute, for example, "hate speech" depending upon the laws of the state or community, I suppose.

 

Thus, one can watch a late night host show in which the host does a stand up comedy introduction that contains direct jibes at the President on national television (e.g., recall Lewinski scandal).

 

Of course the military is an exception...heck, they can make you have your hair cut. So I think that the military is not a model on which to base civilian rights. We lose our basic rights in many ways when it comes to military situations, e.g., in times of a terrorist attack, national emergency, or what not. The concept is similar to forcing people to stop striking if it is an emergency situation that is adjudicated to be an endangering community health, e.g., New York garbage collection strike.

 

My main point is that corporations should not be an exception. Sure, if one walks around the office muttering complaints all the time, you may be seen as interfering with the morale and efficiency of workers in the workplace. But again, the gist of the constitution is that your home, for example, is your castle....hence the need for a warrant, and regulations against tapping phones, etc.

 

In general, your article seems to support my viewpoint as far as I can tell, wouldn't you say:

 

"Employers Generally Can’t Control What Employees Say Away From Work

With social media, employers are often concerned about employees posting something negative about the company, its clients or employees. So lots of social media policies try to discourage, or just outright forbid, saying bad things online. This is where the policies get in trouble with the NLRB.

Some states, like California, also have laws that protect employees from being disciplined for the things they do or say off the clock. There are narrow exceptions if the conduct directly affects the company; but it has to be a pretty big deal that causes actual damage to the company. So if someone tweets that the boss is a douche bag, they generally can’t be fired if it was on their personal account while off-duty."

That was my point exactly!

Edited June 25, 2016 by disarray

[Endy0816]

I'm not being glib. People can and will hold you to what you sign. That simple.

 

Often times, employmers automatically cover their employees health insurance. Suppose every company did this. Such a benefit does not give the right to tell employees what to do on their own time...seriously. That sounds a little like Big Brother....Will a neighbor that looks over the fence and sees him smoking report him to the company so that he looses his health insurance and possibly his job??

 

If it counts as insurance fraud, sure. You have to have signed to the effect that you won't and they would need proper evidence, but if they have all that.

 

 

 

Subject to the military justice system, which means, among

other things, that I may be tried by military courts-martial.

 

UCMJ

 

Whole huge stripping of rights you have to agree to in-order to get a job.

 

 

"Employers Generally Can’t Control What Employees Say Away From Work

 

Generally...

 

 

Note: Late here, I may not be 110% coherent.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Endy0816

[disarray]

Endy0816:

There are a lot of gray areas with regards to this issue, but I fail to understand why anyone would lean towards corporate rights to restrict private behavior. I think, in this regard, that using the military as if it provides, perhaps, some sort of standard for the rest of us, is such an obvious red herring that I can't help wondering why you brought it up in the first place.

 

My point about the neighbor is that the situation should never arise where one is placed in the position of not being able to smoke in ones home if one wants to get a job. Please read the section about Big Brother from my last post, if you haven't already, as I posted it a while after my I posted the rest of it.

 

I guess my main point is that institutions found in civilian life (be they schools, churches, companies, etc.) seem to be in the habit of restricting personal freedoms with such a degree of audacity and confidence, that few people question it, even though they would bulk if even a personal friend imposed on their freedoms in the same way. In general, people in the general public are often bamboozled and fleeced by white collar professionals who can rather easily create an aura of impeccable virtue and unquestionable authority, e.g., doctors, dentists, lawyers, and even professional blue collar workers such as plumbers, electricians, etc.

 

As I agree with those who point out that there is something of an erosion of personal freedoms, e.g., free speech as well as perhaps ever increasing corporate and governmental corruption and manipulation, I tend to lean towards restricting encroachments on individual rights.

 

In any case, I think that there are few generalizations here, and one has to judge things on a case by case basis, or even secret by secret basis, as even the issue of Edward Snowden is not a black or white issue when it comes to legal and moral assessments.

Edited June 25, 2016 by disarray

[Endy0816]

If you want something, you may well need to give something else up. Just the way the world works.

 

Drug test is more likely. Hard to accuse your pee of dishonesty.

[disarray]

If you want something, you may well need to give something else up. Just the way the world works.

 

Drug test is more likely. Hard to accuse your pee of dishonesty.

 

 

Again, these are gray areas. Police give random drug tests when they set up "booze buses" to test drivers at random, so it sees reasonable that such tests might be conducted in the workplace if there is a situation in which safety is involved, e.g., someone who is running a fork lift around other people, or someone whose behavior suggests that they are under the influence. As a rule of thumb, one might suggest that the rights one has in the workplace should be the same as one has in, say, a university. Are we to suggest that students can't criticize the university that he/she attends, or perhaps a professor?

 

When it comes to giving something up, we should draw the line at the Bill of Rights.

 

Private businesses have a right to hire whom they want (or if you like, to ask people to give things up), but, as things stand now, it seems that the federal government claims the right to draw the line at such things as race, religious belief or worship, sex, and color, as well as infringing on personal rights with any actions that detract on citizens being secure in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches, or that abridge their freedom of speech.

 

As an aside, I gather that, by a very narrow margin, the legislature recently voted against including 'sexual orientation' to the list...guess corporations want to have the right to not hire people on that basis (though one wonders just how they go about determining people's orientation?).

 

Again, one need not assume that corporations want to restrict people's freedoms for valid reasons, and, I would suggest, in most cases they are either worried about whether they will arouse the prejudices of their present employees (e.g., against colored people), that they are hiding something (corrupt or questionable), or that they are worried about their public image, and thus, about losing revenue...When it comes to unnecessarily restricting people's freedoms, the buck often ends on the boss's desk.

Edited June 26, 2016 by disarray