CASE STUDY #3: WHAT ELSE CAN I DO?

Whistleblowing is a disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or

private entity, to the public or to those in authority of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or

some other wrongdoing.

Some consider whistle blowers as noble characters willing to sacrifice themselves professionally

and personally to expose wasteful, fraudulent practices that can harm the welfare of the

republic. While others say that these whistleblowers are disgruntled employees who maliciously

and recklessly accuse individuals they feel have wronged them in order to attain their own

selfish goals.

In connection with Glenda’s solution to her accusation, I disagree. If Glenda pursues her

decision, she will be a subject of retaliation by her employee. Typically, her employer will

discharge her for being a whistle blower. To make it worst, let’s take Glenda to be a contractual

employee or an employee-at will, meaning she does not have a specific term of employment.

The employer can fire her anytime without having to cite a reason. Her action can disrupt a

workplace, and may cause serious harm to individuals wrongly accused.

Let’s take these into consideration, Glenda has no substantial evidence to confirm the

wrongdoing because; (1) she was just given some quickie consultant report showing that the

environmental impact will be minimal; and (2) the words from her Division Chief to do what she

has been told is not a strong proof of any falsified act.

First, consultant reports are provided by experts for organizations or groups that do not have

the time and the expertise on how to treat the subject or the problem. Consultant reports

present experimental work on the problem; these covers a series of findings or generalizations

based on expert insights. Simply, it is an examination for a class of problems from an expert’s

view addressed to the non-expert who stands to benefit from the information.
Second, the Division Chief asking her to do what she was being told and that the orders are

from the powers does not constitute any fraud and even if it is by any means an illegal order,

she does not hold any record of the event or documentation.

Any accuse that Glenda has for her Division Chief or the whole organization will not be

recognized because there is no clear statutory basis and the case will be dismissed if the

employer did not really violate any public policy. Glenda’s case will be refused and unrecognized

because there really is not mandated legal wrongful act identified. In addition, her blowing the

whistle can be used against her for reasons of seeking financial gain, fame or fortune.

Speaking directly to Senator Enriquez will do her harm; let’s say, Glenda doesn’t really want to

be a whistle blower but talking to the Senator without any intentions of sharing it to the public

made her one. Why? Because what she told to the Senator or any other national official could be

a primary reason of self-interest and can be used by the official for their own sake, perhaps, to

be more known to the public and to a gain loyalty from the people.

For me, Glenda should really raise the concern to the next higher position after her Division

Chief. The problem should be communicated first internally thus giving the management an

opportunity to investigate and take corrective measures if necessary.

Second, the management must let their employees believe that their concerns will be taken

seriously because being hostile to the concern can also cause unfortunate results to the

company. If employees feel an unresponsive management, they would take the information

externally or to another party.

Lastly, when employees raise their concerns, they must have confidence that they will not suffer

any personal reprisals foe reporting what he/she perceives to be a wrongdoing.

I believe that whistleblowing is a right to free speech. Individuals are just concerned about any

possible wrongdoing within the organization, who honestly expresses their concerns and they

should be treated fairly.

They do not have the right to disrupt the workplace because it seems fidelity to one’s agency, to

one’s superior, and to colleagues stressed in countless ways. But at the same time, they are not

expected to keep silent when they are aware of probable wrongdoing, or when they are asked

to do something they feel violates the law or the welfare of the people.

I believe that whistleblowing policies should be implemented in an organization to ensure that

the employee’s rights are respected. Whistleblowing policies should increase the chances both

whistleblowers and those who are targeted by their accusations will be treated with equality.