Blue Mountain Case

In an ideal ethical world, whistleblowing would not be necessary. However, justifiable whistleblowing happens because management blinds itself to substandard products, environmental dangers and questionable practices in order to maximize profit. Whistleblowing is a sign that the organization is not performing well, has poor management or both. An ethical “ideal” policy should approach whistleblowing from both a moral and rational perspective:
- The purpose of the whistleblowing should have a moral base. Public interest should be the prime concern (in this case, Tuff’s primary interest should have been the general public’s safety).
- The essence of the issue should be most important, be carefully researched and be specifically expressed (in this case, Tuff failed to document his internal objections to Blue Mountains new policy).
- The primary reason to blow the whistle is to prevent a serious breach of ethics (in this case, Blue Mountain was not upholding the general public’s right to life).
- Prior to the blowing the whistle external to the company, all internal avenues for change within the organization should be exhausted. The employee should report their concern or complaint to his immediate superior to provide an opportunity for management to fix the situation. If no appropriate action is taken, the employee should take the matter up the organizational chain of command. Before he goes public, all reasonable avenues within the company should be exhausted (in this case, Tuff reported his concern and complaint to his immediate supervisor and to every company officer he could locate).
- The whistleblower should not directly benefit from revealing the information. In other words, the whistleblower should gain no more advantage than the rest of society. Whistleblowing should be an act of conscience and not be done principally from a selfish or vindictive perspective (in this case, Tuff seemed more interested in losing his license then watching out for the... [continues]

Read full essay