Whistleblowing

Some definitions Bringing an activity to a sharp conclusion as if by the blast of a whistle (OED); Raising concerns about misconduct within an organisation or within an independent structure associated with it (Nolan Committee); Giving information (usually to the authorities) about illegal & underhand practices (Chambers); Exposing to the press a malpractice or cover-up in a business or government office (US, Brewsters); (To) disclose - to expose to view Disclosure - the act or an instance of disclosing

Protecting the Whistleblower In general, the only areas where Canadian workers have legal protection against discrimination are human rights, employment standards, environment and health and safety. In essence, reporting sexual harassment, toxic-waste dumping or using dangerous machinery may not cost you your future unless the firm wants to pay thousands in damages. On the other hand, squealing on a boss or colleague who walks off with a computer, bilks a customer or fiddles his expenses doesn't necessarily come with a job protection plan Supreme Court of Canada ruling has helped. It states that an employer firing a worker must truthfully state the reasons for the dismissal. As Ball says, an employer is hardly likely to say he fired someone because they revealed criminal company activities. As a result, he says, anyone showing court they were let go for whistle- blowing could collect considerable damages.

The real thing? Genuine The whistle-blower to the best of their knowledge is accurately attempting to portray the facts as they understand them Motivated by a moral desire to rectify a moral wrong “Principled dissent” Fraudulent Knowingly uses inaccurate info or hyperbole to portray the “facts” of alleged act Motivated by desire to hurt or get revenge on target; call attention to themselves to gain benefit; promote some ideals which are seen as worthy but require the sacrifice of selected target

Key Issues An individual or group within organization or recently involved with it “interprets” an even t or series of events undertaken by the organization or enacted by some of its members as a form of non-trivial wrong doing The whistle-blower is not sufficiently powerful to rectify the perceived wrong The wb attempts to make their interpretation of the wrong-doing a matter of public record Info has the power to rock the status quo, but determination of wrong-doing is not made easily. Often lingering questions remain

The players The Whistle-blower The whistle-blower’s targets The whistle-blower’s outlets Organizational and societal bystanders Society at large

The journey 1.Trigger 2.Decision to pull or not to pull the trigger 3.Action 1.Group vs individual 2.Anonymous vs self identified 3.Internal vs external 4.Formal vs informal documentation 5.Try to take control of process or let others deal out justice 4.Whistle-blower’s assessment of reactions of others 5.Results

The triggers Accidental –Happen upon event (often leads to attempts to o-opt or threaten wb) Investigative –Small indicators lead to discovery of larger problem Disputatious –Differing viewpoints re interpretation of event Escalating –Find out there is a team behind you

Going mute Genuine change of mind Too high or price to pay Followed chain of command and therefore did share Assumes that “others” know and accept it

Action! Choices Blow whistle as individual or group Select w-b outlets which are internal or external to organization Make disclosure anonymously or by self- identifying Use formal or informal documental to interest outlets and other org/societal bystanders Allow others to identify specific targets and mete out justice or attempt to control process

Reactions By-standers + WB targets = retaliation and high costs for WB Bystanders +silence = neutralization of WB Bystanders +WB=improved possibility of righting the wrong with decreased risk of retaliation