A whistleblower (also written as whistle blower or whistle blower ) is a person who discloses any kind of information or activity deemed illegal, unethical, or incorrect in a private or public organization. Information on false allegations can be classified in many ways: violations of corporate policies/rules, laws, regulations, or threats to the public interest/national security, as well as fraud, and corruption. Those who become whistleblowers may choose to bring information or allegations to the surface both internally and externally. Internally, a whistleblower can bring his accusations to the attention of others in the organization of defendants such as direct superior. Externally, whistleblowers may bring charges against the light by contacting a third party outside the defendant's organization such as media, government, law enforcement, or those concerned. The rapporteur, however, takes the risk of facing violent retaliation and retaliation from those accused or accused of wrongdoing.
Because of this, a number of laws exist to protect the complainant. Some third-party groups even offer protection against whistleblowers, but the protection can only go so far. The Rapporteur faces legal action, criminal prosecution, social stigma, and termination from any office, office or occupation. Two other classifications of whistleblowing are private and public. Classification relates to the type of organization one chooses to whistle: the private sector, or the public sector. Depending on many factors, both can have varying results. However, whistleblowing in public sector organizations is more likely to result in criminal allegations and possible imprisonment. A fact-finding person who chooses to accuse private sector organizations or institutions is more likely to face layoffs and lawsuits and civil cases.
The deeper questions and theories about whistleblowing and why people choose to do so can be learned through an ethical approach. Whistleblowing is a topic of ongoing ethical debate. Leading the argument in the ideological camp that whistleblowing is ethically maintaining that whistleblowing is a form of civil disobedience, and aims to protect the public from the mistakes of government. In opposite camps, some people see secret disclosure as unethical for violating confidentiality, especially in industries that handle sensitive clients or patient information. Legal protection may also be provided to protect the complainant, but the protection is subject to many conditions. Hundreds of laws provide protection to complainants, but provisions can easily obscure those protections and allow vulnerable parties to retaliation and legal issues. However, its decisions and actions have become much more complicated with recent advances in technology and communications. The Rapporteur often faces retaliation, sometimes at the hands of the organizations or groups they accuse, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under the law. Questions about whistleblowing legitimacy, whistleblowing moral responsibility, and whistleblowing institutional assessment are part of the field of political ethics.
Video Whistleblower
Ikhtisar
Asal istilah
US society activist Ralph Nader is said to have invented the phrase, but he in fact put a positive spin on the term in the early 1970s to avoid the negative connotations found in other words such as "informer" and "snitch". However, the origin of the word dates back to the 19th century.
The word is related to the use of a whistle to alert the public or the crowd about a bad situation, such as committing a crime or breaking rules during a game. The expression whistle blower was attached to law enforcement officers in the 19th century because they used whistles to warn the public or police colleagues. Sports referees, who use whistles to show illegal or cheating games, are also called whistle blowers.
An 1883 story in Janesville Gazette called a policeman who used his whistle to warn residents of the whistle blower riots, with no hyphens. In 1963, the phrase became a hyphenated word, whistle blower . The word began to be used by journalists in 1960 for people who expressed mistakes, such as Nader. This eventually evolved into a compound word whistleblower .
Internal
Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, reporting errors to their fellow employees or bosses in their companies through anonymous reporting mechanisms that are often called hotlines. One of the most interesting questions related to internal reporters is why and under what circumstances people take action in place to stop illegal behavior or otherwise be unacceptable or report it. There are several reasons to believe that people are more likely to take action in relation to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there is a complaint system that offers not only the choices determined by the planning and control organization, but the choice of i> option for absolute confidentiality.
Anonymous reporting mechanisms, as mentioned earlier, help foster a climate in which employees are more likely to report or seek guidance about their true potential or error without fear of retaliation. Future ISO 37001 - standard anti-bribery management system, including anonymous reporting as one of the criteria for the new standard.
External
External whistleblowers, however, report an error to a person or an outsider. In this case, depending on the severity and nature of the information, the complainant may report the violation to a lawyer, media, law enforcement, or regulatory body, or other local, state, or federal agency. In some cases, external whistleblowing is encouraged by offering prize money.
Third party
Third party services involve the use of external agents to inform individuals at the top of the organization's pyramid of errors, without revealing the identity of the whistleblower. This is a relatively new phenomenon and has been developed due to whistleblower discrimination. International Whistleblower is an example of an organization involved in providing third party services to reporters.
More and more companies and authorities are using third-party services where an anonymous reporter also goes to a third-party service provider. This is made possible through toll-free numbers that are configured not to record callers' home calls, as well as through web solutions that apply asymmetric encryption.
Whistleblowing private sector
Whistleblowing the private sector, though not as professionally as the whistleblowing of the public sector, is arguably more common and suppressed in today's society. Just because private companies usually have strict rules that suppress potential reporting. Examples of private sector whistleblowing are when an employee reports to someone in a higher position such as a manager, or a third party isolated from an individual chapter, such as their lawyer or police. In a group of private sector companies can easily hide mistakes by individual branches. It is not until this error goes to the top officials that the company's mistakes are seen by the public. The situation in which a person can blow a whistle is in cases of violation of law or company policy, such as sexual harassment or theft. However, these examples are small compared to money laundering or fraudulent allegations on the stock market. Whistleblowing in the private sector is usually not particularly prominent or openly discussed in major news outlets, although occasionally, third parties expose human rights abuses and workers exploitation. Although there are organizations like the US Department of Labor (DOL), and laws in places such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the United States Federal Penalty Organization Guideline (FSGO) that protects whistleblowers in the private sector, many employees are still afraid of their jobs because of threats directly or indirectly from their superiors or other parties involved. In an effort to overcome the fear, in 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act were proposed to provide a large incentive to the complainants. For example, if a discloser provides information that can be used to recover more than one million dollars by law; then they can receive ten to thirty percent.
Despite the government's efforts to help organize the private sector, employees must keep their options in mind. They also expose the company and stand on moral and ethical ground; or expose the company, lose their jobs, their reputations and potentially the ability to be hired again. According to a study at the University of Pennsylvania, of the three hundred exposes of the problems studied, sixty-nine percent of them have disregarded the situation; and they are dismissed or forced to retire after taking a reasonable place. It is such a result that it makes it much more difficult to accurately track how whistleblowing is prevalent in the private sector.
Public whistleblowing
Recognizing the value of public whistleblowing has increased over the past 50 years. In the United States, state and federal laws have been applied to protect the complainant from retaliation. The United States Supreme Court ruled that public sector whistleblowers are protected under the First Amendment right of any job revenge as they raise the flag for alleged corruption. Uncovering violations or illegal or dishonest activities is a big fear for public employees because they feel that they are against their government and country. Private sector whistleblowing protection laws exist long before those for the public sector. After many federal whistleblowers were researched in high profile media cases, the law was finally introduced to protect the government whistleblower. This law is enacted to help prevent corruption and encourage people to expose indecent, illegal, or dishonest behavior for the benefit of society. People who choose to act as reporters often suffer retaliation from their employers. They are most likely fired because they are an at-will employee, which means they can be fired for no reason. There are exceptions to whistleblowers who are employees of at-will. Even without legislation, many decisions encourage and protect whistleblowing on the basis of public policy. The Statute provides that the employer shall not take any adverse action against the employee of any employee in retaliation for a good faith report of whistleblowing action or cooperate in any way in the investigation, proceeding or claim arising under such action. The federal whistleblower law includes laws that protect all government employees. In federal civil service, the government is prohibited from taking, or threatening to take, personnel action against the employee because the employee discloses information that he/she reasonably believes indicates a violation of law, mismanagement and waste of funds, misuse of authority, or substantial and specific hazards to safety or health public. To win over claims, federal employees must demonstrate that a protected disclosure is made, that the accused official knows about the disclosure, that retaliation takes place, and that there is a genuine relationship between retaliation and employee action.
Harm
Individual damage, damage to public trust, and national security threats are the three categories of hazards that may come to the complainant. Revealing the identity of whistleblowers automatically puts their lives in danger. Especially with media that use words like "traitor" and "betrayal" to associate with whistleblower. There are many countries around the world who associate treason with the death penalty, even though anyone suspected of treason may or may not have caused any physical harm. The main reason for the death penalty is that they are potentially harmful to all people, therefore are responsible for the harm that arises as a result. US State Law,
"... anyone who knowingly or deliberately communicate, furnish, transmit or otherwise make available to unauthorized persons, or publish, or use in any way that harms the safety or interests of the United States or for the benefit of a foreign government to the detriment of the United States any confidential information. "
Public trust began in the days of the Vietnam War. Henry Kissinger once said that the purpose of "people who stole" the Pentagon Papers was to "undermine trust in their government" and "raise doubts about our reliability in the minds of other governments, friends and enemies, and indeed about our stability, the political system."
The emotional stress on the defendant from the whistle blower is also not restricted. When a leader challenges a whistle blower, there is an automatic indictment of the leader character. Questioning whistleblower makes the defendant guilty until proven innocent.
General reaction
The Rapporteur is sometimes seen as an unconditional martyr for the public interest and accountability of the organization; others see it as "traitor" or "defector." Some even accuse them of simply pursuing personal glory and fame, or seeing their behavior as motivated by greed in qui-tam cases. Some academics (such as Thomas Alured Faunce) feel that whistleblowers should at least be entitled to an arguable assumption that they are trying to apply ethical principles in the face of obstacles and that whistleblowing will be more respected in a governmental system if it has stronger academics. basic in virtue ethics.
It is possible that many people do not even consider blowing a whistle, not only out of fear of retaliation, but also for fear of losing their relationship at work and outside of work.
Persecution of the complainant has become a serious problem in many parts of the world:
Employees in academia, business or government may become aware of serious health and environmental risks, but internal policy may pose a threat to retaliation for those who report this early warning. Employees of private companies may be particularly at risk of being fired, demoted, denied raises and so forth because bringing environmental risks to the attention of the authorities. Government employees may have the same risk of bringing a threat to health or the environment to public attention, although this may be less likely.
There are examples of "early warning scientists" being harassed for bringing unpleasant truths about the impending dangers of public notice and the authorities. There are also cases of young scientists who are reluctant to enter controversial scientific fields for fear of harassment.
The complainant is often protected by law from employers' retaliation, but in many cases penalties have occurred, such as termination, suspension, demotion, salary deduction, and/or harsh treatment by other employees. A 2009 study found that up to 38% of whistleblowers suffered professional reprisals in some forms, including the wrong termination. For example, in the United States, most whistleblower protection legislation provides for an "overall makeover" or damage to job loss if revenge is proven. However, many whistleblower reports have a widespread "shoot emissary" mentality by companies or government agencies that are accused of offenses and in some cases, the complainant has been subject to criminal prosecution in retaliation for reporting errors.
In reaction to this many private organizations have established a leaky legal defense fund or support group to assist the complainant; the three examples are the National Whistleblowers Center in the United States, and Whistleblowers UK and Public Concern at Work (PCaW) in the UK. Depending on the circumstances, it is not uncommon for whistleblowers to be ostracized by their co-workers, discriminated against by potential employers, or even fired from their organizations. The campaign is aimed at problem-solvers with the aim of removing it from an organization called mobbing. This is an extreme form of bullying in the workplace where the group is organized against the targeted individual.
Psychological impact
There is limited research about the psychological impact of whistle blowing. However, a bad whistleblowing experience can lead to prolonged and striking attacks on staff welfare. When workers try to solve problems, they often meet with walls of silence and hostility by management. Some whistleblowers talk about extraordinary and persistent problems, drug and alcohol problems, paranoid behavior in the workplace, acute anxiety, nightmares, flashbacks and disturbing thoughts. Depression is often reported by whistleblowers, and thoughts of suicide can occur up to about 10%. Common damage in health and self-care has been described. The range of symptomatology shares many features of post-traumatic stress disorder, although there is debate as to whether the trauma experienced by the whistleblower meets the diagnostic threshold. Increased stress associated with physical illness has also been described in whistleblowers. The pressure involved in whistleblowing can be overwhelming. Thus, the workers remain afraid to blow the whistle, in fear that they will not be trusted or they have lost faith to believe that anything will happen if they speak. This fear is indeed justifiable, because an individual who feels threatened by whistleblowing can plot a 'reporter' career meltdown by reporting a fictitious error or rumor. This technique, labeled as 'gaslighting' is a common and unconventional approach used by organizations to manage employees that cause difficulties by raising concerns. In extreme cases, this technique involves an organization or manager who proposes that the reporter's mental health is unstable. Organizations also often seek to isolate and isolate whistleblowers by undermining their concerns by suggesting that this is unfounded, conducting inadequate investigations or ignoring it all. The complainant may also be disciplined, suspended, and reported to the professional body after being made excuses. Where the problem-solvers continue to exaggerate their concerns, they are increasingly at risk for risks such as dismissal. After dismissal, the complainant may find it difficult to find further work due to damaged reputation, poor references and blacklisting. The social impact of whistleblowing through loss of livelihood (and sometimes retirement), and family tension can also have an impact on the psychological wellbeing of whistleblowers. The Rapporteur may also experience tremendous pressure from loss-related litigation such as unfair dismissal, which they often face with imperfect support or no support at all from the union. Rapporteurs who continue to pursue their concerns may also face a long battle with official bodies such as regulators and government departments. Such bodies can reproduce "institutional silence" by employers, adding to the pressure and difficulty of the reporters. Overall, some whistleblowers suffer injustice, which may never be recognized or corrected. Extreme experiences such as threats and loss must cause severe suffering and sometimes mental illness, sometimes lasting for many years afterwards. This persecution also prevents others from coming forward with concerns. Thus, bad practice remains hidden behind the walls of silence, and prevents any organization from experiencing the improvements that might be given by intelligent failure. Some whistleblowers who split up with their organizations have questioned their mental stability, such as Adrian Schoolcraft, a NYPD veteran who allegedly falsified crime statistics in his department and forcibly committed to mental institutions. Instead, the emotional tension of the whistleblower investigation destroyed the defendant's family.
Ethics
The definition of ethics is the moral principles that govern the behavior of a person or a group. The ethical implications of whistleblowing can be either negative or positive. However, sometimes employees can blow the whistle as an act of revenge. Rosemary O'Leary explains this in her short volume on a topic called the guerrilla government. "Instead of acting openly, the guerrillas often choose to remain" in the closet, "moving quietly behind the scenes, the salmon swim upstream against the electric currents.For years, I have learned that the motivations that drive the guerrillas vary from altruistic (doing the right thing) to seemingly small ones (I passed it for the promotion.) Overall, their actions are as awesome as saving human lives from humanity and trivial love like slowing the publishing of a report out of spite or anger. "For example, 1,000 complaint complaints filed each year with the Pentagon Inspector General, about 97 percent unproven. It is believed throughout the professional world that an individual is tied to secrecy in their employment sector. Discussions about whistleblowing and employee loyalty usually assume that the concept of loyalty is irrelevant to the problem or, more generally, that whistleblowing involves moral choices that pit fidelity that an employee owes the employer to the responsibility of the employee to serve the public interest. Robert A. Larmer describes the standard whistleblowing view in the Journal of Business Ethics by explaining that an employee has a prima facie (based on first impressions received correctly and proven otherwise) of loyalty and confidentiality to their superiors and that whistleblowing is not justified except on the basis of the task which is higher for the public interest. It is important to recognize that in any relationship that demands loyalty, the relationship works well and involves mutual enrichment.
Edward Snowden's ethical actions have been widely discussed and debated in news media and academia around the world. Edward Snowden released secret intelligence to the Americans in an effort to allow Americans to see how the government works. Someone is diligently tasked with puzzles choosing to be loyal to the company or to blow the whistle over the company's mistakes. Discussions about whistleblowing generally revolve around three topics: the effort to define whistleblowing more precisely, debates about whether and when whistleblowing is allowed, and debates about whether and when someone has an obligation to blow the whistle.
Motivation
Many whistleblowers have stated that they are motivated to take action to end unethical practices, having witnessed injustices in their business or organization. A 2009 study found that whistleblowers are often motivated to take action when they see a sharp decline in ethical practice, as opposed to gradually deteriorating. Generally there are two metrics in which the disclosers of the facts determine whether the practice is unethical. The first metric involves a violation of an organization's rules or written ethics policy. These violations allow individuals to concoct and rationalize whistle blowing. On the other hand, value-driven whistleblowers are influenced by their personal code of ethics. In this case, whistleblowers are criticized for being driven by personal bias.
In addition to ethics, social and organizational pressure is a motivating force. A 2012 study identifies that individuals are more likely to blow the whistle when some others know about the mistake, as they would otherwise fear the consequences of remaining silent. In cases where one person causes injustice, an individual who notices injustice can file an official report, rather than confront the perpetrator, because the confrontation becomes more emotional and psychological. Furthermore, individuals can be motivated to report unethical behavior when they believe their organization will support them. Professionals in management roles may feel responsible for blowing whistles to enforce their organizational values ​​and rules.
Maps Whistleblower
Legality of whistleblowing
Legal protection for whistleblowing varies from country to country and may depend on the country of origin of the activity, where and how the secrets are disclosed, and how they are finally published or published. More than a dozen countries have now adopted comprehensive whistleblower protection laws that create mechanisms for reporting errors and providing legal protection to complainants. More than 50 countries have adopted more limited protection as part of their anti-corruption, freedom of information or employment laws. For the purposes of English Wikipedia, this section emphasizes the English-speaking world and includes other regimes only to the extent that they represent a greater or lesser protection.
Being a whistleblower takes courage. Barry Adams explains options such as, "The list of negative consequences to the secret disclosure seems endless: broken promises to fix problems, disappointments, isolation, humiliation, the formation of your 'anti-' group, job loss, mental questioning the problem solver health, revenge tactics to make individual work more difficult and/or insignificant, character assassinations, formal reprimands, and difficult trials. "It all depends on what level of information a person discloses and to whom. The consequences vary from whistleblower companies to federal whistleblowers. Amendments 1 and 14 protect to the extent and ensure protection against the practical notion of retaliation. Lachman, V. D. (2008). Retrieved 30 March 2016, from medscape.com & lt;/ref & gt;
Australia
There are laws in some states. Former NSW Police Commissioner Tony Lauer summed up the official stance of the government and police as: "No one in Australia is very fond of whistleblowers, especially in organizations such as the police or the government."
Whistleblower Australia is an association for those who have exposed corruption or other forms of malpractice, especially if they are subsequently blocked or abused.
Canada
The Office of the Canadian Public Integrity Sector Commissioner (PSIC) provides a secure and confidential mechanism that allows public servants and the public to disclose mistakes made in the public sector. It also protects from public reprisals officials who have revealed the mistakes and those who have cooperated in the investigation. The purpose of the Office is to increase public confidence in Canada's federal public institutions and in the integrity of public servants.
Mandated by the Public Service Delivery Protection Act (UU), PSIC is a permanent and independent Parliamentary Agent. The law, which came into effect on 15 April 2007, applies to most of the federal public sector, about 400,000 civil servants. These include government departments and agencies, Crown parent companies, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other federal public sector bodies.
Not all disclosures lead to an investigation because the law establishes the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and provides an option not to investigate under certain circumstances. On the other hand, if the PSIC conducts an investigation and finds no wrongdoing, the Commissioner should report his findings to the discloser and to the organization's chief executive. Also, an established error report is presented before the House of Commons and the Senate in accordance with The Act. As of June 2014, a total of 9 reports have been filed in Parliament.
The law also establishes a Public Service Disclosure Protection Assembly (PSDPT) to protect public servants by hearing retaliatory complaints referred by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. The Tribunal may provide solutions that support the complainant and order disciplinary action against those receiving retaliation.
The current commissioner of the PSIC is Mr. Mario Dion. Previously, he served in various senior roles in public service, including as Deputy Minister of Justice, Executive Director and Deputy Head of Office Residential Residential India in Canada, and as Chairman of the National Liberation Council.
Jamaica
In Jamaica, the Protected Disclosures Act, 2011 received approval in March 2011. It created a comprehensive system for reporting protection in the public and private sectors. It is based on the Public Interest Interest Act 1998.
India
The Indian government has considered adopting a whistleblower protection law for several years. In 2003, the Indian Law Commission recommended the adoption of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (Protection of Informants), 2002. In August 2010, Public Disclosure and the Protection of Persons Making Bill Disclosure 2010 was introduced to Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament. The bill was approved by the Cabinet in June 2011. Disclosure of Public Interest and Protection of People Creating Disclosure Bill, 2010 has been renamed The Whistleblower 'Protection Bill, 2011 by Standing Committee for Personnel, Public Complaints, Law and Justice. The Reporting Protection Bill, 2011 was adopted by Lok Sabha on December 28, 2011. and by Rajyasabha on February 21, 2014. Whistle Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011 has received Presidential approval on May 9, 2014 and the same has been subsequently published in the official Indian Government on May 9, 2014 by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
ireland
The Irish government is committed to adopting comprehensive whistleblower protection legislation in January 2012. The bill is reported to cover both the public and private sectors.
Dutch
The Netherlands has measures to reduce the risk of whistleblowing: the whistleblower advice center (Adviespunt Klokkenluiders) offers advice to the complainant, and Parliament has recently passed a proposal to establish a house called whistleblower, to protect them from severe negative. the consequences they may bear (Kamerstuk, 2013). The Dutch media organizations also provide whistleblower support; on September 9, 2013 a number of Dutch mainstream media support the launch of Publeaks, which provides a secure website for people to leak documents to the media. Publeaks are designed to protect whistleblowers. It operates on GlobaLeaks software developed by the Hermes Center for Transparency and Human Rights Digital, which supports internationally oriented whistleblower technology.
Switzerland
The Swiss Council of States agreed to amend the draft of the Swiss License Code in September 2014. This draft introduced the 321a bis passage to 321a septy , 328 (3), 336 (2) (d). The amendment of article 362 (1) adds 321a bis articles to 321a septies to a list of provisions that may not be rejected by employment agreements and bargains.
Article 321a ter introduces an obligation on employees to report irregularities to their employers before reporting to the authorities. However, an employee will not violate his obligations in good faith if he reports irregularities to the authorities and
- the period specified by the employer and not more than 60 days has expired since the employee reported the incident to her employer, and
- the employer has not resolved irregularities or it is clear that the employer is not paying enough attention to irregularities.
Article 321a quarter states that employees may report it remarkably to the appropriate authorities. Exceptions apply in case
- where employees are in a position to objectively point out that reports to their superiors will prove to be ineffective,
- where employees should anticipate dismissal,
- where employees should assume that competent authorities will be hampered in investigating irregularities, or
- where there is a direct and serious danger to life, health, safety, or the environment.
The draft does not increase protection against dismissal for employees reporting irregularities to their employers. The amendment does not give the employees anonymous archiving of their observations of irregularities.
United Kingdom
Whistleblowing in the United Kingdom is subject to the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) 1998.
Freedom to Speak The review sets out 20 principles to bring about improvements to assist reporters on the NHS, including:
- Culture raises concerns - to make matters as part of the normal routine business of a well-led NHS organization.
- Culture free from bullying - staff freedom to talk depends on staff able to work in a culture free of bullying.
- Training - every staff member should receive training in their trust approach to raise concerns and accept and follow through.
- Support - all NHS trusts should ensure there are dedicated people to whom problems can be easily reported and without formality, "guardians of speech".
- Support for alternative jobs in the NHSÃ, - where a worker who has raised concerns can not, consequently, continue their role, the NHS should help them find alternative employment.
Monitor generates a whistleblowing policy in November 2015 to be followed by all NHS organizations in the UK. Explicitly say that anyone who oppresses or acts against a disclosure of a fact can potentially be subject to disciplinary action.
United States
The Whistleblowing tradition in the United States begins with Benjamin Franklin divulging several letters written by Hutchinson to Thomas Whately, who produced the American Revolution.
To be considered a whistleblower in the United States, most federal whistleblower legislation requires federal employees to have reason to believe that their employers violate some laws, rules, or regulations; testify or initiate legal proceedings on material protected by law; or refuse to violate the law.
In cases where disclosure of information about a particular topic is protected by law, US courts generally state that the whistleblower is protected against retaliation. However, the decision of the divided US Supreme Court, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) states that the First Amendment's freedom of expression guarantee for government employees does not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employee's duties.
In the United States, legal protection varies according to the subject of whistleblowing, and sometimes the circumstances in which it occurs. In passing through the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee found that whistleblower protection depends on "patchwork and twists" of various state laws. However, various federal and state laws protect employees who call attention to violations, assist with law enforcement processes, or refuse to comply with unlawful directives.
The first US law specifically adopted to protect the complainants was the United States Fake Claim Act of 1863 (revised in 1986), which attempted to combat fraud by US government suppliers during the American Civil War. The law encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money earned by the government and by protecting them from job retaliation.
Another US law that specifically protects the complainant is the Lloyd-La Follette Act of 1912. This guarantees the right of federal employees to provide information to the United States Congress. The first US environmental law to include employee protection was the 1972 Clean Water Act. Similar protections were included in subsequent federal environmental legislation, including the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1974) 1976), Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, Reorganization of Energy Act of 1974 (through amendment of 1978 to protect nuclear whistleblower), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund Law) (1980), and Clean Air Act 1990). The protection of similar employees enforced through OSHA is included in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1982) to protect truck drivers, the 2002 Pipeline Improvement Safety Act (PSIA), the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the Century -21 ("AIR 21"), and Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted on 30 July 2002 (for a cheating whistleblower company).
Investigation of retaliation against complainants under 20 federal laws is under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Fact-Finding Protection Program of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor (OSHA). New whistleblower legislation passed by Congress, to be enforced by the Secretary of Labor, is generally delegated by the Orders Secretary to the OSHA Office of the Fact-Finding Protection Program (OWPP).
Legal patchwork means that the victims of retaliation need to be aware of the law in question to determine the deadlines and means to make the right complaint. Some deadlines are as short as 10 days (Arizona State Employees has 10 days to apply for "Prohibition of Prohibited Personnel" Complaints before Arizona State Council Officer), while others are up to 300 days.
Those who report false claims against the federal government, and suffer the consequences of adverse action as a result, may have up to six years (depending on state law) to file a civil lawsuit for recovery under the US Fraudulent Claims Act (FCA). Under the terms qui tam , the "original source" for the report may be entitled to a percentage of what the government refunds from the offenders. However, "original source" should also be the first to file a federal civil complaint for recovering federal funds obtained fraudulently, and should avoid publication of fraudulent claims until the US Justice Department decides whether to sue the claim itself. Such a lawsuit should be filed under the seal, using special procedures to keep the claim from being public until the federal government makes a decision on direct prosecution.
The Espionage Act of 1917 has been used to adjudicate whistleblowers in the United States including Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. In 2013, Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage Act and sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking sensitive military documents to WikiLeaks. In the same year, Snowden was accused of violating the espionage law for releasing NSA's secret documents.
Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in the United States provides incentives and protects the complainants. By Dodd-Frank, the US Securities and Commerce Commission (SEC) rewards financially to the complainant for providing genuine information on federal securities law breaches that result in at least $ 1 million in sanctions. General violations of federal securities laws that may lead to SEC awards include: accounting fraud in public companies, investment and securities fraud, insider trading, foreign bribery and other violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, EB-5 investment fraud, Ponzi, unlisted securities offerings, and deceptive non-GAAP financial actions in the SEC archive of a public company. On May 31, 2017, the SEC has spent more than $ 154 million for the complainant.
In addition, Dodd-Frank offers job security to the complainant by illegally terminating or discriminating against the complaint. Whistleblower provisions have proven successful; after the introduction of Dodd-Frank, the SEC charged KBR (the company) and BlueLinx Holdings Inc. (company) by violating the protection of whistleblower Rule 21F-17 by having employees sign a confidentiality agreement that threatens the impact to discuss internal issues with outsiders. In a recent election, President Donald Trump has announced plans to dismantle Dodd-Frank, which may have a negative impact on whistleblower protection in the United States.
National Appreciation Day Reminders A nationally recognized day is observed every year on July 30, on the anniversary of 1778 whistleblower protection legislation.
Other countries
There is a comprehensive law in New Zealand and South Africa. A number of other countries have recently adopted comprehensive whistleblower legislation including Ghana, South Korea and Uganda. They are also being considered in Kenya and Rwanda. The European Court of Human Rights decided in 2008 that whistleblowing is protected as a freedom of expression. And in February 2017, Nigeria also set up a policy of persecution against corruption and other diseases in the country.
Advocacy for whistleblower rights and protection
Many NGOs advocate stronger and broader legal rights and protection for the reporters. Among them are Government Accountability Project (GAP), Blueprint for Free Speech, Public Care at Work (PCaW) and Open Democracy Award Center
The modern method used for whistleblower protection
Reporters who may be at risk for those who expose now use encryption methods and anonymous content sharing software to protect their identities. Tor, an extremely accessible anonymity network, is one that is often used by whistleblowers worldwide. Tor has undergone a number of major security updates to protect the identity of prospective reporters who may wish to leak information anonymously.
Specifically whistleblowing software such as SecureDrop and GlobaLeaks have been built on Tor technology to provide incentives and simplify their adoption to secure disclosure.
In popular culture
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments