HOW TO BE A WHISTLEBLOWER

How do you know when to take action and come forward to disclose such information? There seems little doubt that it is a particularly scary prospect with ramifications that may be beyond even what the potential whistleblower is able to imagine. But knowing that you should do it is really one of those matters of personal conscience. If you know harm is being done and you have the power to stop it, the ethical course of action seems clear. Actually doing it, however, is not so simple.

Your first step involves only you. At this stage you may not have actual proof that what you think is going on is truly the case. However, if you have any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the organization you work for, you have a dilemma on your hands. First, you need to consider the extent of the harm or potential harm that is being caused. These are steps that you alone generally take. If you determine that harm is being done, your next step would be to try to deal with the situation internally. Go to your superiors. Determine their reactions . See if they will take the action that needs to be taken to mitigate any harm. Once you have exhausted all internal channels and nothing has changed, then, before going public (which actually makes you a whistleblower by definition ”up until now you're just a concerned employee), you need to ensure that you have concrete evidence to back up your allegations. Finally, you need to consider whether going public is actually likely to have any impact on the situation. But make no mistake, going public to blow the whistle on unethical behaviour you observe in your workplace can and does have consequences ”largely for you.

Weighing the consequences

One newspaper columnist writing about whistle-blowing suggests, not so subtly, that more people would report things ˜if they felt protected from retaliation. ^[1] This issue of retaliation is one of the most serious considerations for those who otherwise consider it critical to blow the whistle.

In the United Kingdom, whistleblowers are protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998. It defines ˜protected disclosures as ones where (a) criminal activity is being or is likely to be carried out, (b) there is a real or likely miscarriage of justice , (c) health or safety is being or likely to be endangered, or (d) the environment is currently being damaged or is likely to be. ^[2]

In the United States there is also legislation to protect people who come forward (making a distinction between bona fide whistle-blowing and personal complaints), but that is not the case in all countries . For example, Canadians are not so lucky. At the time of writing, according to Melanson, ^[3] there is only one Canadian province with such laws.

But even if there is legislation to protect you from harassment and overt retaliation, there is the more subtle kind of recrimination that might come the way of whistleblowers. Whereas it might seem that a person who would report such activities holds high moral standards and would be an employee to be coveted , business today does not necessarily see it that way. A reputation as a whistleblower is not lauded in all circles. Thus whistleblowers do so at their peril, based on personal value systems that will guide them to do what they believe is right. There is a certain comfort in staying true to yourself and your own values.

^[1] Melanson, Rosella [accessed 23 October 2002] Whistleblowing: breaking the silence of the lambs (column first published in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal , May, 2001). http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/rosellam/whistleblowing.html

^[2] Government of the United Kingdom [accessed 10 July 2003] Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80023-a.htm#1

^[3] Melanson, R