Describe Whistle-Blowing in an organisation stating the cases for it and those against it

Whistle-blowing is a controversial practice which, whilst not entirely new, has become the subject of much debate since the 1990s.
Whistle-blowing may be defined as intervention by an employee to bring the wrongs (or perceived wrongs) of the employer to the attention of the owners of the company, the government, or the public at large.
Although most people agree on what is right or what is wrong, there are many different attitudes to whistle-blowing, as to how far employees should speak out and be protected from the consequences of so doing. The issue is clouded by the conflicting obligations imposed on most workers by a duty of confidentiality imposed by the contract of employment (as well as common law) and the wider ethical responsibility to the company and the public at large.
So, should an employee keep quiet about a situation which he or she believes to be wrong, or should his or her conscience take over and 'blow the whistle'? Let's take a look at the case for each.
(a) The Case for Whistle-blowing:
Employees have a moral duty not just to their work and their immediate boss, but to the
company and society as a whole.
-If a wrong is seen by a person, there may be other things happening which are unacceptable: it might be the 'tip of the iceberg'.
-If unacceptable behaviour is allowed to persist without redress, others will believe they
can get away with the same thing.
-Many whistle-blowers act in the belief that the wrongdoer's colleagues will be pleased to
hear the information and will act on it.
-Some consider that conscience is more important than job security: they will blow the
whistle irrespective of personal consequences.
-Sometimes whistle-blowing is required by law, e.g. where health and safety at work rules are being breached.

(b) The Case against Whistle-Blowing:
-Some believe that the employee should concentrate on doing his job and that the actions
of others are nothing to do with him.
-The situation may be misinterpreted: what may be seen as a breach of company rules or
policy may turn out to be perfectly legitimate.
-The employee can over-rate the importance of the perceived misdemeanours of others
and cast himself in a bad light or even lose his job.
-Some are reluctant to 'blow the whistle' due to a 'snitching' mentality: it is considered
bad to tell tales on others.
-Sometimes the employee can be on dangerous legal ground by 'blowing the whistle'. If
information is given to someone outside the organisation, this can be a breach of
contract or even render the whistle-blower liable to criminal action. It is common
practice in many organisations for the terms and conditions of employment to bind the
employee to secrecy even after he leaves.

Whether to 'blow the whistle' or not is usually a matter for individual judgment or
conscience. As all employees are different, they will react in different ways as well as
interpreting situations differently.
Sometimes the whistle-blowing can be done through a third party. For example, it is
sometimes found that a trade union representative can handle a difficult situation
without exposing the individual to recriminations. If anything, however, unions are
becoming more aware of the need to act as moral policemen. In late 1997, one such
organisation stated that it was going to compile a 'rogues' gallery' of employers and
publicise their actions. Aimed primarily at identifying bad employment practices, this
initiative would appear to be an open door through which potential whistle-blowers
can move if they believe a case has to be answered.
(c) Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is designed to give protection to individuals
who disclose information which is perceived to be in the public interest. McCartney
stated that the Act 'is intended to end the 'cover-up culture' that prevails in some
organisations, where workers fear victimisation if they tell their bosses of a major
problem.'
The Act lists a number of protected disclosures which qualify the individual making
the disclosure for protection under the Act. The disclosures can be summarised as:
-That a criminal act has been, is being, or is likely to be committed.
-That a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation.
-That a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur.
-That the health and safety of any individual has been, is being, or is likely to be
endangered.
-That the environment has been, is being, or is likely to be damaged.
-That information tending to show that any matter falling within the items above has
been, is being, or is likely to be deliberately concealed.
Under the Act an individual who makes a protected disclosure has a right not to suffer
detriment by the employer's resulting action. An employee dismissed as a result of
making a protected disclosure then the employee can take a case to an employment
tribunal.
-It is not only employees that the Act is designed to protect. Companies in the past
have paid the price of ignoring employees who tried to point out wrongdoings. The
-Act has a deeper aim in encouraging businesses to behave ethically. In several
previous public enquiries into rail and maritime disasters causing loss of life it was
shown that staff had tried to warn of dangers but had not felt able to raise the matter
internally.
-Had they had the protection of the Act they might well have felt able to discuss the
safety matters with their organisations, and hence the disasters might not have
happened.

---

Titany answered the question on November 9, 2021 at 06:21