Whistle Blowers : Saints or Sinner?
CASE ONE
WHISTLE BLOWERS : SAINTS OR SINNER? 1) Do you believe that whistle-blowing is good for organizations and its members, or is it, as David Stetler believes, often a means to extort large financial gains from companies?
Is having a strong ethics whether they are ethical or unethical practices make it easier for a person to take action than for that person to process the making of decisions and choices for today ‘s ethically working environment?
I feel that in this case of Douglas Durand former up of sales for tap, it was has good ethics and intuition to correct the wrongdoing of the organization while using the precise process of decision making and chose to go through court system to punish the company for what they may have been doing towards the insurance company.
My reasoning is that Durand is innocent from unethical practices from extorting financial gains from TAP. According to Senator Charles Grassley, "having informants report on company wrongdoings is the best way to prevent illegal activity. There can never be enough bureaucrats to discourage fraudulent use of taxpayer 's money but knowing colleagues might squeal can be deterrent".
The reason was for his innocence is there were 500 boxes of evidence and the case settled. In addition, it cost TAP over 1 billion dollars of legal fees to clear them of all wrongdoing. David Stetler 's job as a defense attorney is to defend whether the defendant is right or wrong.
In this case, it clearly shows bi tis lesson that “whistle blowing” is good for organization and those who are unethical to “whistle blow” to extort money are most likely behaving with the same attitude as organizations who commit unethical practices or crime.
2) When frivolous lawsuits occur, how might these cases affect future whistle blowers who have a valid legal claim against their company? Would they be more or less likely to come forward? How might their claims be evaluated? What should companies and the government do
WHISTLE BLOWERS : SAINTS OR SINNER? 1) Do you believe that whistle-blowing is good for organizations and its members, or is it, as David Stetler believes, often a means to extort large financial gains from companies?
Is having a strong ethics whether they are ethical or unethical practices make it easier for a person to take action than for that person to process the making of decisions and choices for today ‘s ethically working environment?
I feel that in this case of Douglas Durand former up of sales for tap, it was has good ethics and intuition to correct the wrongdoing of the organization while using the precise process of decision making and chose to go through court system to punish the company for what they may have been doing towards the insurance company.
My reasoning is that Durand is innocent from unethical practices from extorting financial gains from TAP. According to Senator Charles Grassley, "having informants report on company wrongdoings is the best way to prevent illegal activity. There can never be enough bureaucrats to discourage fraudulent use of taxpayer 's money but knowing colleagues might squeal can be deterrent".
The reason was for his innocence is there were 500 boxes of evidence and the case settled. In addition, it cost TAP over 1 billion dollars of legal fees to clear them of all wrongdoing. David Stetler 's job as a defense attorney is to defend whether the defendant is right or wrong.
In this case, it clearly shows bi tis lesson that “whistle blowing” is good for organization and those who are unethical to “whistle blow” to extort money are most likely behaving with the same attitude as organizations who commit unethical practices or crime.
2) When frivolous lawsuits occur, how might these cases affect future whistle blowers who have a valid legal claim against their company? Would they be more or less likely to come forward? How might their claims be evaluated? What should companies and the government do
Cited: Judge, Stephen P. Robbins and Timothy A. (2007). Organizational Behavior, Twelfth Edition. Prentice Hall.