Without giving many specifics, I got to chatting away merrily in the pub today with some old aquaintacnes about ethics, and this little gem came up.
A disgruntled ex-employ sets up a website being less than charitable about certain 'illegal' practices the company may or may not have undertaken. Eliminating all emotion from the subject if this person is highlighting said illegal practices within an organisation, is he/she neccesarily doing a good thing?
On first pass I decided that yes, all power to him, he's going to highlight the inadequacies in the company and the shortcomings and hopefully make them sit up and take notice...BUT someone pointed out that the clear downside is that all the people involved in the company will be affected by the minority should there be any substance. Think Enron.
Sooo......by highlighting the practices is he killing the chickens to catch the fox? (Just for you TL)
Yes and no.
In some cases definitely re: the EC and teh accounts frauds, it was definitely worth signposting. Other cases however may not be so beneficial, so I remain firmly on the fence on this one.
What's crucial is whether he was correct. Assuming he wasn't then he's liabeled the company and should suffer the legal consequences.
Assuming he's right about their illegial activity then he's right to do what he did. If a company needs to break the law to conduct business then it's no business at all and has no legitimate right to carry on like that. Freedom of expression is a rare priviledge in this world that far too few people are allowed to excercise. Whistleblowers should be appauded for having the guts to do whats right.
If people loose jobs as a result of someone basically being honest, and assuming they were not part of or privy to the illegal activity, then that's unfortunate. But take a look at BP. Here's a company that's building a pipeline through some of the most earthquake prone and least politically stable parts of the world. Employees and sub contractors have blown the whistle on lots of corner cutting and safety breaches. Plus it's becoming clear that BP are turning a blind eye to all this in order to get their pipeline built as soon a nd as cheaply as possible.
If the pipeline is scrapped then many many people could lose their jobs who were building it. On the other hand if it isn't scapped or re-routed then there could be an ecological distaster and thousands could suffer from the resulting polution.
It's basically a question of whether it's OK for a company to break the law if, as an incidental consequence, some people don't loose their jobs? I'd say it isn't.
Which makes perfect sense, but if it's the case of a few individuals creaming accounts etc, is it worth the livelyhoods of hundreds of people to illuminate the issues and shortcuts of the few. Especially in non-life threatening business (non-military etc).
I agree with you Smilo, I'd just never thought the other way.
Personally I think that irrespective of the ramifications, it should be all open, but in the real worl is that feasible? That and I've never been on the recieving end of my job leaving me with no future.
tbh i think its really hard to make a call either way without knowing the specifics of the illegal actions.
If its someone creaming accounts then its 1 person comminting fraud. If its the company with illegal working policies. What are they, how do they affect the employees. Do these practices put employees at risk? Do they give the company an unfair advantage, it might be that this advantage is going to cause other companies to fold and jobs be lost there.
But what is creaming accounts? It's theft. It's theft from the company, the customer, the shareholders, fellow employees and even the whistleblower themselves.
That theft comes off the bottom line and hits the company profits. That in turn will probably hit the whistleblowers bonus or pay review, and likewise all the other innocent employees. And shareholders are often pension schemes and insurance companies. The reduced profit will equal reduced share dividends and will equal reduced pensions or increased insurance premiums for people totally unconnected to the complany.
While one person scamming one company probably won't have a huge effect, if it's OK for one why not ten, why not a hundred? If it's OK to do this and we all do this then we're in trouble.
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Jul 1 2004, 08:57 AM
But what is creaming accounts? It's theft. It's theft from the company, the customer, the shareholders, fellow employees and even the whistleblower themselves.
That theft comes off the bottom line and hits the company profits. That in turn will probably hit the whistleblowers bonus or pay review, and likewise all the other innocent employees. And shareholders are often pension schemes and insurance companies. The reduced profit will equal reduced share dividends and will equal reduced pensions or increased insurance premiums for people totally unconnected to the complany.
While one person scamming one company probably won't have a huge effect, if it's OK for one why not ten, why not a hundred? If it's OK to do this and we all do this then we're in trouble.
surely the theft will be afftecting the bottom line whether its noticed or not.
Eventualy it will be discovered, the longer it goes on, the worse the effect will be.
The only point i was trying to make was that its very hard to make a judgement unless you know all the details, and have the knowledge to know how the situation will efffect all parties.
Smilo, is there no combination of events that would lead you to agree that leaving some practices un-exposed would be beneficial for all?
/devils advocate.
If exposing the problem would cause a death but keeping quiet would not then I would have to think very carefully (especially if it is my life we are talking about) :D
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Jul 1 2004, 12:10 PM
Smilo, is there no combination of events that would lead you to agree that leaving some practices un-exposed would be beneficial for all?
/devils advocate.
Not in a free open society where we don't shoot whistleblowers.
The exception would be people who work in Government or the Security or Defense fields MI5 or MI6 etc. They sign the official secrets act and should abide by it. That being sad now that Governments feel it's OK to lie and cheat the public through manipulating the Civil Service (Asylum Debacle) there should be an independent body that Whistleblowers could approach with sensitive information. If it was valid it could be acted on and if it wasn't it could be ignored. In that way nothing secret or sensitive would get splashed all over the press before it could be validated (Asylum Debacle again)
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Jun 30 2004, 07:46 PM
A disgruntled ex-employ sets up a website being less than charitable about certain 'illegal' practices the company may or may not have undertaken. Eliminating all emotion from the subject if this person is highlighting said illegal practices within an organisation, is he/she neccesarily doing a good thing?
I for my part was very interested in the "disgruntled ex-employee" comment. Like Jamoe I believe that unless you have all the facts it is very difficult to call, notwithstanding the fine comments made earlier in the thread. Why was the ex-employee disgruntled?.......did he not get given the opportunity to join in?, was his work not up to standard?, and if he knew of the wrongdoing why did he not approach someone within the Company or was the creaming accounts sanctioned by the company.
If the hierarchy of the Company knew and condoned the practices than why has he not gone to a governing body of that trade\profession or even the police instead of putting his gripes\concerns on a website??.
If it is only a few employees then no-one else in the Company should be affected by reporting their actions whereas if it is Company sponsored and they are all at it would we give a damn about their future livelihood as per Smilo's comments about the rest of the Community suffering because of these supposed illegal practices (higher taxes, insurance etc.
At the end of the day if he has "proof" that the practices are "illegal" he should have no hesitation in reporting them to the relevant authorities........if he does not have the proof he should not put up the website.............unless of course he is looking for a job as a journalist for a daily tabloid in which case he probably has already secured himself another career anyway!! :whistle: :devil: