IMPORTANT: The legal definition of "whistleblower"

[TahitiNut]

whis·tle·blow·er (`hwi-səl-'blō-ər)
n.

An employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation compare qui tam action whis·tle·blow·ing (-ing)

Disclaimer: IANAL

It's very important that illusions regarding whistle-blowers and their (so-called) 'remedies' by statute be dispelled. A person who reports wrongdoing to the press is not regarded as a whistleblower! A person who reports wrongdoing internally is not regarded as a whistleblower! In order to receive 'remedies,' a real whistleblower must prove retaliation. (Try proving you were black-balled!) There are no presumptive remedies. In reality, whistleblowers are left to twist in the wind.

The press exploits this failure of the law. Whomever 'leaked' Plame's identity exploited the press's self-absorbed and socially illicit claim of privilege. Legislators, as creatures of corruptions big and small, have no interest in providing real and substantive protections for whistleblowers.

If whistleblowers had real and substantive protections, then the entire specious argument in favor of shield laws would evaporate.

The real problem we have in our nation is that we reward corruption and punish whistleblowers. Too many powerful interests rely on intimidations and coercion -- they don't want protections for whistleblowers.

[dbonds]

1. Wilson is the Whistleblower, The retaliation was outing his wife.

It was not only retaliation but criminal in its own right. The 'source' is not the protected on, they are the ciminal.

[Neerav B. Trivedi]

2. And the criminal is.......

Karl Rove.

[TahitiNut]

5. You seem to miss the point(s).

It is OBVIOUS that Wilson is a whistle-blower, in both the legal and common sense. That's not at issue.

What's at issue is the rationalization for "shield laws" (and the allegedly ethical posture of corporate reporters) ... that only under assurance of anonymity can they (expose wrongdoing in the public interest through) exercise of Freedom of the Press. The connection of consequentiality is made between an anonymous source's fear of (illicit!) retaliation and the public interest.

The sole legitimate argument for granting a special privilege or entitlement under law is the overriding public interest.

That's what makes this so interesting. The press (in the person of Novak) has, in fact, assisted in a retaliation for whistle-blowing - the very 'evil' they insist is the primary motivation for whistle-blowers needing an assurance of anonymity - by virtue of a legislated privilege granted to (corporate) reporters. (How conveeeenient we now hear of such legislation being introduced, huh?)

Holy Ouroboros, Batman!!


What we have is a societal problem of retaliation against whistle-blowers. Rather than directly immunize whistle-blowers against retaliation without additional and unreasonable burden when the whistle-blower has, in fact, acted in the public interest and exposed what (s)he convincingly believes is wrongdoing ... our legislators have deliberately left such people open to life-long retaliation by (1) narrowly defining the class of whistle-blowers, and (2) imposing an unreasonable burden of proof on the whistle-blower of what constitutes retaliation.

We see an example of how unreasonable the burden of proof is in the present example -- see how easily Joe Wilson and his wife have gotten any remedy for retaliation? (Not.)

So, we see further corruption of the corporate press and our legislature -- not by instituting REAL protections for whistle-blowers -- but by PROTECTING THE RETALIATORS and corruptly attempting to empower these corporate whores with greater privilege ... privileges not afforded to honest, ordinary citizens.

So Joe Wilson and his wife get hung out to dry and the only "winners" are the whore media exploiters and those who coerce employees through retaliation.

So, I say again ...
Holy Ouroboros, Batman!!


For those who have both the patience and the intellect to follow the occasional DU discussion of deontological vs. teleological (e.g. utilitarian or consequentialist) ethical systems, this is a fascinating example of consequentialist ethics gone clusterfuckola.

[sweetheart]

3. Do you think employee means contractor?

If the contract janitor sees criminal wrongdoing and reports it, does
he have whistleblowing status? It seems that is a loophole, so you
simply hire contractors to do all the dirty shit, and they have no
protections at all, you can black ball them, and they have no remedy
whatsoever. Its no wonder that all the corporations are outsourcing all
"employee" jobs to contractors in india.

[TahitiNut]

6. (Disclaimer: IANAL) Such "arm's length" separatism in business ...

... is contrary to centuries of business strategies (well-exemplified by Ford) of "vertical integration." The notion is that bringing any supplier or service function in-house has the immediate advantage of saving those costs attributable to profits -- and the longer term advantage of having a service or supply function especially attuned to those unique requirements of one's own business.

Ford, of course, exemplified this in owning and operating its own mining, shipping, and foundry functions rather than pay another company's profits. Even today, companies show their penchant for such strategies by having wholly-owned credit functions (Ford Credit, GMAC, etc.). General Electric is a fairly good example of an "in-house" corporation ... but they're rather unusual in that they actually emphasize Management as a skill set on top of base skills, and a skill set that requires substantial training and experience - both of which the corporation ensures that all managers receive.

This philosophy has softened somewhat in recent years, somewhat possibly due in part to highly leveraged ownership and cross-linked boards of directors ... but more insidiously due to fancy "shell" operating attitudes. Enron, of course, is an exemplar of the latter.

I have little doubt that the contractor facade makes it far more difficult to obtain 'whistle-blower protections,' such as they are. I see companies that out-source many of such functions (e.g. custodial, MIS, secretarial, canteen, HR) as exceedingly exploitative of "cracks in the system" of all kinds: tax, regulatory, OSHA, I/P, etc.

Am I making any sense?

[sweetheart]

7. I believe it explains why IT is so commonly outsourced

Surely you yourself have been party to seeing massive outsourceing of
inhouse IT. What i've seen is just nonsensical. Huge departments cut
loose and shoved across an imaginary employment boundary to a company
like EDS or AndersenAccenture. What i've observed was costing more, not
less, but if you factor in the ability to stop whistle blowing from the
staff who have god-powers to see the data of the company, it makes
perfect sense.

The new maxim is to outsource everything but your core strength. How
banks have decided that their core strengths are not information
management, i've not understood... perhaps the boardrooms think its
loan sharking. Imagine, if you are an IT outsource DBA in india, and
you observe huge graft in an american companies database. You report
it to your boss and are fired.

Certianly outsourcing accounting to a big 4 is also to preserve the
option to perform fraud without a wistle blower. Based on the
definition you posted, it seems simple, just have no formal employees,
and nobody can ever blow the whistle.

[Just Me]

4. I've always been an advocate for strengthening whistle-blower laws.

I certainly agree with everything you post.

[TahitiNut]

8. I sure wish folks were more interested in sorting out this hypocrisy.

The fact that this thread dropped like a stone is very disappointing to me -- especially coupled with the persistent failure of so many to see how hypocritically exploitative the corporate media has become with regards to those who expose wrong-doing.

The media attempt to claim a privilege based upon the well-grounded FEAR that whistle-blowers have in acting in the public interest. Thus, the corporate media are exploiting a form of terrorism: retaliation.

They are doing so after cooperating with those who've retaliated! Under the rationale of 'protecting' they are, in fact, joining in the ATTACK!

That's hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Instead, we should hear a clarion call for aggressive legal protections (in effect, entitlements) for whistle-blowers in order to actually remove the motivation for anonymity where the public interest is, in fact, served.

[Ysolde]

10. I'm sorry I didn't see your post 2 days ago...

Things zip by here and I can't always be on so I miss things.

I totally agree about the ridiculous hypocrisy of the media. And, it's so funny but they've done a darn good job of convincing otherwise thoughtful folks that they are being abused by the prosecutor. It doesn't take long to explain it so that these folk see the light, but it's really shameful at the way this whole thing is being spun.

[TahitiNut]

9. Quiche.

:kick: