WHISTLE BLOWERS : SAINTS OR SINNER?
1) Do you believe that whistle-blowing is good for organizations and its members, or is it, as David Stetler believes, often a means to extort large financial gains from companies?
Is having a strong ethics whether they are ethical or unethical practices make it easier for a person to take action than for that person to process the making of decisions and choices for today ‘s ethically working environment? I feel that in this case of Douglas Durand former up of sales for tap, it was has good ethics and intuition to correct the wrongdoing of the organization while using the precise process of decision making and chose to go through court system to punish the company for what they may have been doing towards the insurance company. My reasoning is that Durand is innocent from unethical practices from extorting financial gains from TAP. According to Senator Charles Grassley, "having informants report on company wrongdoings is the best way to prevent illegal activity. There can never be enough bureaucrats to discourage fraudulent use of taxpayer's money but knowing colleagues might squeal can be deterrent". The reason was for his innocence is there were 500 boxes of evidence and the case settled. In addition, it cost TAP over 1 billion dollars of legal fees to clear them of all wrongdoing. David Stetler's job as a defense attorney is to defend whether the defendant is right or wrong. In this case, it clearly shows bi tis lesson that “whistle blowing” is good for organization and those who are unethical to “whistle blow” to extort money are most likely behaving with the same attitude as organizations who commit unethical practices or crime.
2) When frivolous lawsuits occur, how might these cases affect future whistle blowers who have a valid legal claim against their company? Would they be more or less likely to come forward? How might their claims be evaluated? What should companies and the government do to prevent frivolous lawsuits?
When frivolous lawsuits occur, it affects future "whistle blowers" by having them perceive the process of reporting their grievances by being discouraged in investing the time and effort to follow through with their claims because they may feel it might be a waste of time and they may not be took seriously. Because of this dilemma, if a person had a legal claim and lack the three components model of creativity as well as have biases, errors, and preconceived notions in their own mind while lacking the process of decision-making and problem solving, they would less likely to come forward to make a claim against an organization. In this case, if employees provided strong evidence, have an open and shut case against a company and they had good ethics, authorities would evaluate their claim. On the other hand, if they were an unethical person by providing a weak case, authorities may not evaluate their claim. For companies to prevent frivolous law suits there is only one solution, don't do any wrong doing and create stricter guidelines toward making claims against a company. The government on the other hand should make stricter laws by taking away the reward of paying a "whistle blower" 30 percent of legal fees and by not providing them protection of reporting a wrongdoing unless a person can prove a company guilty. I guess what I am trying to say is a company and the government must really screen a person to find out if they are making a frivolous lawsuit.
3) Do you believes that employees of a company have an ethical obligation to first attempt to report wrongdoing to members of the company itself, or should they go straight to the authorities when they suspect illegal activity? What are some advantages and disadvantages of both actions?
This is a very tender and touchy question to answer because companies and most organizations are set up upon ranks of hierocracy and an organizational tree system. Therefore, reporting...