2023
Search results
Services in Multiple Languages. Learn about our Whistleblower Protection Program. What is retaliation? How to file a retaliation complaint. Retaliation protection by subject. Create an effective anti-retaliation program. How to file a safety and health complaint. Find information on other workplace issues.
- About Us
OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program ...
- U & T Visa Certifications
U & T Visa Certifications
- What to Expect During an Investigation
What to Expect During a Whistleblower Investigation
- Retaliation
Retaliation | Whistleblower Protection Program
- Statutes
Statutes | Whistleblower Protection Program
- FAQs
A whistleblower complaint relates to alleged action taken...
- About Us
- Overview
- Justification
- Obligation
- Legal protections
- GeneratedCaptionsTabForHeroSec
whistleblower, an individual who, without authorization, reveals private or classified information about an organization, usually related to wrongdoing or misconduct. Whistleblowers generally state that such actions are motivated by a commitment to the public interest. The whistleblowing of Edward Snowden and Karen Silkwood are prime examples. Although the term was first used to refer to public servants who made known governmental mismanagement, waste, or corruption, it now covers the activity of any employee or officer of a public or private organization who alerts a wider group, often via the Internet and anonymous networks such as Tor, to setbacks to their health and interests as a result of waste, corruption, fraud, or profit seeking.
The typical background to whistleblowing is an understanding promulgated by organizations that those whom they employ are beneficiaries of an association to which they owe some measure of loyalty. Included in that measure is an expectation that employees will not jeopardize the interests of the organization by revealing certain kinds of information to people outside the organization. Furthermore, if members are unhappy about something the organization does, they will make it known only to the appropriate people within the organization. What has generated the need for a more neutral characterization of those who go outside the organization has been a recognition that internal mechanisms often fail to deal adequately with organization failures and that because the interests jeopardized by those failures are wider than those of the organization, the public has a right to know.
Whistleblowing often causes significant disruption within an organization. In one way or another, the organization is likely to lose control of its affairs as it is subjected to external inquiries and constraints. Indeed, it may find itself crippled, and many within it who are little more than innocent bystanders may also suffer. Whistleblowing, therefore, can be more easily condoned if several conditions are satisfied. First, the disruption likely to be caused by blowing the whistle can be justified only if other avenues of protest have proved ineffective. Sometimes, of course, the risks confronting whistleblowers may make less-extreme forms of reporting impracticable or dangerous. Although whistleblowers may be expected to demonstrate good faith, their martyrdom cannot be demanded. Second, whistleblowers must have good reasons for believing that their organizations are perpetrating the wrongs of which they are accused. Whistleblowers need evidence that will withstand public scrutiny. Third, the potential whistleblower needs to consider the seriousness of the detrimental behaviour. Finally, whistleblowing should accomplish some public good; otherwise, the damage it causes will likely outweigh any other value it may have.
Although it might be argued that any member of an organization who becomes aware of wrongdoing has an obligation to take some action, it is also true that the burden falls more heavily on some than on others. Certainly those in a supervisory capacity have a greater responsibility for the legitimacy of organizational behaviour than do their subordinates, especially those who are not privy to the context within which the organization’s acts may be understood. Although it is not necessary that whistleblowers be motivated by a concern for the public interest, whistleblowers are unlikely to be seen as having acted commendably unless they are so motivated. Whistleblowing—even when justified by circumstances—may nevertheless be motivated by revenge, the desire for promotion or ingratiation, self-protection, or penance, and it is common for those against whom the whistle is blown to attempt to undermine whistleblowers’ credibility. Although beside the point, such attacks may cast doubt on the credibility of whistleblowers without addressing the substance of their claims. The point, then, is not that the morally compromised are exempt from blowing the whistle but rather that they may not garner moral praise for doing so, and doubt may be cast on their credibility.
That whistleblowing can sometimes be justified does not imply either a moral or a legal obligation to act. For one thing, failure to go public is an act of omission rather than of commission, and there is considerable philosophical debate about the moral imperative to act in order to prevent harm. Even if it is thought morally obligatory to do so, it is only in rare instances that the law requires an individual to act to prevent harm. Finally, given that whistleblowers may be made to suffer dearly, it might be too burdensome to require potential whistleblowers to act against their own interests.
Exclusive academic rate for students! Save 67% on Britannica Premium.
Learn More
The potential costs of whistleblowing have sometimes generated a debate over the merits of anonymous whistleblowing. Although anonymous whistleblowers may be secure against retaliation, the door may thereby be opened to whistleblowing that is motivated by revenge, rivalry, or some other unworthy motive; furthermore, anonymous whistleblowers may be free to make frivolous or careless charges against what are interpreted as setbacks to the public interest—without accountability.
Because whistleblowers are possible victims of retaliatory behaviour, many jurisdictions have enacted whistleblower-protection acts. Such acts, however, have generally provided inadequate protection, because retaliatory behaviour may be successfully disguised as something else, and even justifiable criticism of the employee may be seen as retaliato...
Learn what a whistleblower is, why they reveal private or classified information, and how they are protected by law. Explore the examples of Edward Snowden and Karen Silkwood, and the challenges and controversies of whistleblowing.
- John Kleinig
Whistleblower Rights and Protections. Whistleblowers perform an important service for the public and the Department of Justice (DOJ) when they report evidence of wrongdoing. All DOJ employees, contractors, subcontractors, grantees, subgrantees, and personal services contractors are protected from retaliation for making a protected disclosure.
On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety.
Learn about the laws and agencies that protect you from retaliation for reporting violations or issues related to various topics, such as safety, health, discrimination, or fraud. Find out how to file a complaint and contact the relevant authorities.
Aug 25, 2024 · Learn what a whistleblower is, how they report illegal or fraudulent activities, and what laws protect them from retaliation. Find out the origin of the term, notable whistleblowers, and how they can earn rewards.
Whistleblowing (also whistle-blowing or whistle blowing) is the activity of a person, often an employee, revealing information about activity within a private or public organization that is deemed illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe or fraudulent.
