Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Legal Issues Labor Law Whistle Blowing Dillema Labor Law Whistle Blowing Dillema Labor relations today, are quite different from those that existed in England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when employment relationships were considered of very little importance in the eyes of the law. Industrialization and commerce grew bringing with it the birth of modem day labor law. America was in no way exempt from the pain of progress. Employer and employee relationships were strained from the very beginning of labor, and it soon was evident that government intervention would be necessary to keep the labor movement on track. Several statues have been enacted since the early nineteenth century to deal with management and unions. Evidence can be seen from the Norris-La Guardia to the Wagner Acts, which protected unions from anti-trust laws, the Taft-Hartley Act, designed to protect employers from union abuses. The struggle of growth slowly gave away to one conflict after another. Even today, both employers and unions continue to fight for the most advantageous positions from which to bargain. In the last decade one of the most prominent issues to emerge on the horizon has been the whistle-blowing phenomenon (Efrim 52). The term whistle-blowing may apply to employees in a wide variety of circumstances from staff officers to line workers. The most common report is from an employee that discloses unauthorized information that they believe is evidence of a violation of law, rule or regulation, code or practice, or that involves mismanagement, corruption, abuse of authority, and danger to the public or worker's health and safety (Vinten 44). Although whistle-blowing is generally used in a broad sense, the person who actually comes forward may be categorized into three basic types: (1) The passive whistle-blower - includes employees who do nothing more than respond when asked for information by government authorities or those who refuse to carry out illegal instructions given by their employers, but do not publicly disclose such instructions (Westman 20). (2) The active whistle-blower - describes employees that voice their concerns over illegal activity conducted by their employer, and take steps either internally or externally to expose such activity. The active whistle-blower usually creates the most controversy because this person is under the employ of the people or organization who are the object of the complaint (Westman 21). (3) The embryonic whistle-blower - describes employees who have been terminated before they have the opportunity to expose their employers' practices. These employees are usually terminated because the employer suspects that they represent a potentially sensitive or unfavorable predicament (Westman 22). The various forms of retribution that whistle-blowers endure at the hands of employers both financially and psychologically for attempting to correct mismanagement, fraud, and dishonesty are often too much for the whistle-blower to bear. Careers are in jeopardy because individuals with strong ethics decide to pursue law suits against their employers. One example is where the US Forest Service employees found their careers ruined by either demotions or loss of jobs when caught speaking out in favor of the environment or sound science, or when simply obeying the law (Smith 24). In order to circumvent some of these abuses, congress has set up special agencies and law in an attempt to defend whistle-blowers and to protect the public against government corruption. Although, whistle-blowing has become a more recent problem, it is by no means something entirely new. The False Claim Act of 1863 was the beginning of the legislative journey down the long road to modem day legislation. Congress enacted the False Claims Act to address the problem of profiteers who were taking advantage of shortages caused by the Civil War to charge outlandish prices to the Federal Government. The Act authorized private citizens to sue any company that participated in these activities in the name of the government. To encourage law suits, the Act allowed those citizen to recover a percentage of the amount fraudulently obtained from the government (O'clock 33). An amended version of the False Claims Act was passed in 1986, as a result of public indignation over reports of massive fraud among military contracts. This amended version contained provisions for employees that report inside information on fraud against the government to receive monetary compensation. This 1986 version also protects whistle-blowers against retaliation by their employers (singer 16). One recent example of the success of the amended False Claims Act involves a Vietnam veteran who later went to work for a company that makes electronic relays for missiles, planes, and other military hardware. The Vietnam veteran discovered that the company had falsified tests on some of the relays it sold to the United States military and felt that it was his duty to report it. When the report came out, he was promptly fired. The state brought a lawsuit against the company under the Federal False Claims Act. Numerous other Federal statues protect employee conduct against retaliatory discharge. One example is the Occupational Safety Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), which prohibits employers from firing employees who file OSHA complaints against them. There is also an anti-retaliation provisions in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, it was amended in 1947 and 1959, defining as unfair labor practice on the part of an employer "the act of retaliation against employees who file charges under the act, or who give testimony in a National Labor Relations Board hearing" (O Clock 34). Federal employees were not the only workers forced to face retaliation for whistle-blowing. In New York City (Garber V. Ward), a police officer was passed over for promotion several times because he had a history of being a whistle-blower. On numerous occasions, he had written letters reporting wrong doing, waste, and inefficiency within the department. Although the court recognized that the police department has discretion in promotion matters, it decided that the officer in question had the right to prove that the exercise of his First Amendment rights was the major factor in the police department's decision not to promote him (singer 19). Another agency was enacted in 1978, when congress set up a Federal organization called the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) for the purpose of defending the First Amendment rights of federal whistle-blowers, and to offer the public a safeguard against government corruption (Vinten 42). Today, whistle-blowers have some resources at their disposal to assist them in their pursuit. Despite support by the Justice Department under the False Claims Act and various other groups on the side of the whistle-blower, the psychological impact upon their lives can be overwhelming. The perils that whistle-blowers face can be very draining both financially as well as psychologically. Some companies go to any length in their pursuit of trying to discredit the whistle-blowers, which includes the hiring of private agencies which often times implement illegal methods to discredit the whistle-blowers, creating an extremely stressful environment for the whistle-blower (Smith 26). Another illegal tactics that employers used is "fitness for duty" where the employer orders psychiatric exams on the whistle-blower to discredit their testimony and make them appear crazy. The employer would build a file against the whistle-blower and then send him for evaluation whereupon he would be determined unfit for duty, whereby the charges brought by the whistle-blower would die upon his discharge on disability (Soeken 42). The duty of loyalty to the employer's interest is also implicit in the employment relationship. When an employee accepts a job, there are certain obligations incurred as a result of the employment contract. One of those obligations is the primary duty to obey reasonable instructions given by the employer. This is not all encompassing in that employees are not required to obey illegal or unreasonable instructions which are contrary to business ethics. This obligation of loyalty requires an employee to act in his employer's best interest and to take advantage of his employment (Westman 25). These duties of obedience, loyalty, and confidentially come in part from the trust placed in employees by their employers as a matter of necessity. For this reason, many potential whistle-blowers are apprehensive about violating this trust, but on the other hand, still face the ethical dilemma of "doing the right thing". The duties of obedience, loyalty, and confidentiality also pertain to the individual’s relationship with society in general. Under the old doctrine of misprision of felony, it was a crime for a citizen not to report a felony that they had witnessed. If this same doctrine were applied to business, not only would employees be expected to report illegal activities undertaken by their employers, but would be required to do so under penalty of law. Hence, many employees feel compelled to report what they see for the good of themselves and society (Westman28). Employees are faced with not only what they see or know, but with the ethical dilemma of conscience. Many become frustrated after witnessing a wrong, but feel unable to do anything about it even through it is morally right to do so. They may also feel that they are in a position to take some kind of action when their company acts improperly, but in many instances, they fear retaliation from their employer. While the employee wrestles with the decision to report alleged illegal activity, the employer faces a dilemma of his own, just how to deal with the whistle-blowing situation. Whatever the governing concept within the company, every employer must confront certain concrete realities about the problem. It is very easy for managers, supervisors, and coworkers to regard whistle-blowers as disloyal troublemakers. Care should be taken to avoid this stereotyping, the perspective that seems to protect them should also regard them as important instruments of public interest who take significant risk to perform a civil duty. Employers are forced to deal with them, like it or not (Soeken 43). The amount of stress a whistle-blower must face is purely an individual experience, the degree of therapy required by a whistle-blower has a lot to do with the stress endured. One reason for this tremendous stress and fear, is the perception that existing laws and agencies are not fully on their side. One such agency is the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC), which have been known to turn against the whistle-blowers. In 1985, when the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) became fully operational, the agency turned away 99% of the whistle-blowers who sought its assistance, they did not attempt to restore one single whistle-blower's job. Even though its primary goal is assisting whistle-blowers (Effim 54). Recently, whistle-blowers have united to share their experiences and strategy to support each other emotionally, and to assist new whistle-blowers. This is a good start, but it is not enough, more is needed including a good solid job network, economic assistance, and therapist that knows how to work with the emotional issues of whistle-blowers. The whistle-blowing protection has been given much lip service and has often been ineffective. Public demand is the only force that will successfully challenge the bureaucratic tendencies, and their mistakes and problems (Soeken 44). The number of suits filed each day suggests that something is drastically wrong with corporate America's internal ethics system. Internal procedures do not seem to generate enough confidence. "Whistle-blowers are often blackballed for not being team players". Despite in-house systems, employees are often not sure where to turn and fear that word of their charges will leak out (Effim 56). In today's business environment, employees have special statues as overseer of business behavior. As whistle-blowers, employees can call their employer to account for a wide range of conduct perceived to be improper such as fraud, waste, misconduct, and other ethical dilemmas that are affecting individuals. It seems that only those individuals with strong ethical commitment come forth despite the fact that they will endure great hardships in their attempt to remove and correct great injustices. The hardships that whistle-blowers endure sometimes results in financial and psychological rewards, the fact remains that most cases are not financially or emotionally justifiable considering the amount of pain and suffering. The increasing number of suits by whistle-blowers is in itself, evidence that something is severely wrong with America's internal ethics system. Bibliography: 1. Department of Defense Directive, Military Whistle Blower Protection, September, 1992. 2. Inspector General’s, Department of Defense Directive, IGDG 7050-6, Guide to Military Reprisal Investigations, September, 1992. 3. Westman, Daniel, Whistle-blower, The Law of Retaliatory Discharge, BNA Books, Washington, DC, August, 1991. 4. Singer, Andrew, The Whistle-blower, Patriot or Bounty Hunter, Across the Board, November, 1993. 5. Soeken, D. and Soeken, K., A Survey of Whistle-blowers, Their Stressors and Coping Strategies. Laurel Maryland, March, 1987. 6. O Clock Priscilla and Okleshen, Marilyn. A Comparison of Ethical Perceptions of Business and Engineering Majors, Journal of Business Ethics, Chicago, September, 1993. 7. Vinten, Gerald. Whistle-blowing, Corporate Help or Hindrance, Management Decision, New York, June 1992. 8. Smith, Kevin and Oseeth, John, The Whistle-blower Era, A Management Perspective, Employee Relations Law Journal, Autumn, 1993. 9. Effim, Boritz, Whistle Blowing Positive or Negative, CPA Journal, Canada, March, 1993. Word Count: 2012
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.