Thanks to a lobbying firm working with the US chamber of commerce, NY rep. Michael Gromm is threatening to remove the protection as a whistleblowers that was implimented with the Dodd-Frank act.
Grimm introduced the Whistleblower Improvement Act of 2011 (H.R. 2483) in July, but despite its deceptive name, this bill does absolutely nothing to improve whistleblower protections. It's easy to confuse Grimm's bill with the separate Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which deserves full Congressional support. Grimm's bill, in contrast, guts the whistleblower provisions included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation and puts whistleblowers at grave risk. Our Congress recognized after the financial collapse of 2008 that direct measures and incentives must be taken to ensure the amininity of those who come forward to disclose illigal corporate practices. This bill also acts to prevent retribution being administered to those who speak out, often violating confidentiality agreements, against their employers.
The idea behind the Dodd-Frank whistleblower program was to create protections in the spirit of the highly effective False Claims Act. The new protections aim to deter companies from retaliating against whistleblowers and provide resources and incentives for potential lamplighters, which would, in turn, increase the number of reports to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Ultimately, this will help stop corporate fraud, waste, abuse - and maybe even prevent the next Bernie Madoff.
It's my contention that by taking these appropriate measures through the legistlative process, that our society will be more adaquetly prepared to respond to corporate abuses moving forward. The Bernie Madoffs of the world will always be present, but couldn't we choose to hold them accountable for their actions? Shouldn't there be a means for employees to step in when their company is causing damage to the nations economy for their own financial gain? Failing al any, or all of this, can we at the very least agree that it's practical for our system to promote the betterment of the community vs. that of the individual? These questions are being presented through an ethical rubric that at it's center ask the critical question that's associate with a whistleblower, or anyone else who's ever dared to speak out against wrong-doing: which is, What is our duty to our fellow man?These people are under no legal obligation to address these matters, often times it results in loss of employment, career changes being forced, and obstatrizing one from their field. Through Philosophy we ask many of the big questions, many that are decidingly difficult to write about, or fit into one paper, but regardless of where we go in life, or where the path leads any one person, this question will always prevade, what is our duty to others?
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=6721:new-bill-to-weaken-protections-incentives-for-whistleblowers-sneaks-through-committee
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Whistle-Blowing in the NFL
As per recent classroom discussion relating to the matter of "whistle-blowers" in business and in our society, I've taken a moment to discuss this matter, in how it's applicable, not only in the business world, but in professional sports as well.
Jeremy Shockey was the whistle-blower in the NFL’s investigation into the New Orleans Saints pay-for-performance system that resulted in a slew of sanctions Wednesday, according to former NFL defensive lineman Warren Sapp.Shockey, a tight end, played for the Saints from 2008 to '10. In announcing its punishments, the NFL said the Saints, under former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, had an active bounty program from 2009 to '11. The determination led to a one-year suspension of Saints head coach Sean Payton, a suspension of indefinite length against Williams, who was recently hired by the St. Louis rams, and other suspensions and loss of draft picks.
The 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act specifically addresses whistle-blower retaliation:
“No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this act or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this act." Through an ethical rubric, those who "whistle-blow" against their employers must consider any alligances toward them, as well as the potential consequences of being "outed" within any industry. The resulting action taken by Mr. Sapp in this instance, while not condoned by the league, will unquestionably result in limited employment opportunities for Mr. Shockey moving forward in his career. This instance occurs in all industries, and typically results in an employee being obstratrized within their field. The final outcome to result from this case is still unclear, but we can still take a moment to ask, the "what if's." What is Mr. Shockey hadn't reported the crimes? what if he'd simply turned away? would it still be business as usual? What is anyones ethical obligation to others? do the needs of the people, ie: the "greater good" outweigh those of the individual? All questions that can be asked from this example, and should be asked, by those considering if the consequences of their actions, are really worth the benifits.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Warren-Sapp-Jeremy-Shockey-Bountygate-New-Orleans-Saints-snitch-032112
Jeremy Shockey was the whistle-blower in the NFL’s investigation into the New Orleans Saints pay-for-performance system that resulted in a slew of sanctions Wednesday, according to former NFL defensive lineman Warren Sapp.Shockey, a tight end, played for the Saints from 2008 to '10. In announcing its punishments, the NFL said the Saints, under former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, had an active bounty program from 2009 to '11. The determination led to a one-year suspension of Saints head coach Sean Payton, a suspension of indefinite length against Williams, who was recently hired by the St. Louis rams, and other suspensions and loss of draft picks.
The 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act specifically addresses whistle-blower retaliation:
“No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this act or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this act." Through an ethical rubric, those who "whistle-blow" against their employers must consider any alligances toward them, as well as the potential consequences of being "outed" within any industry. The resulting action taken by Mr. Sapp in this instance, while not condoned by the league, will unquestionably result in limited employment opportunities for Mr. Shockey moving forward in his career. This instance occurs in all industries, and typically results in an employee being obstratrized within their field. The final outcome to result from this case is still unclear, but we can still take a moment to ask, the "what if's." What is Mr. Shockey hadn't reported the crimes? what if he'd simply turned away? would it still be business as usual? What is anyones ethical obligation to others? do the needs of the people, ie: the "greater good" outweigh those of the individual? All questions that can be asked from this example, and should be asked, by those considering if the consequences of their actions, are really worth the benifits.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Warren-Sapp-Jeremy-Shockey-Bountygate-New-Orleans-Saints-snitch-032112
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Rand vs. Aristotole.
Recently, in Modesto, CA a 41 year
old high school business teacher left his wife and 3 children to pursue
marriage and a life with an 18 year old student. As we're currently studying
Aristotle and have previously discussed Ayn Rand, this story seems to offer a
stark contrast to the two approaches one can take in their philosophies of
life. Rand would suggest that one has no obligation to others in any fashion
and that reason is the only virtue that is relevant and that any relationship
must be based on mutual advantage between two people. Given that standard, I'm
uncertain if, of how these two people could be offering each other anything at
such different stages in life. Aristotle states that happiness is sought by out
actions, and by living within the "Golden Mean". This adult man
made the choice to leave his wife and 3 children, one of which is a 17 yr old
former classmate of his now fiancé and lover, was he really practicing balance
in that moment of choice? The couple claims their actions are the result of
"true love" but as Rand would tell us, "love" is irrelevant
and immaterial, it is a perversion of reason. Aristotle would tell us that “Happiness
depends upon ourselves" and that "love is 2 souls inhabiting one
body". Perhaps they are in love, and by Rands position society has no
place in judging them, but can an 18 year old girl really make that choice with
clarity? Is a 41 year old parent and husband really serving his family and self
by avoiding responsibility in the pursuit of self-wanting?
http://bossip.com/550488/no-shame-41-year-old-cali-teacher-resigns-and-leaves-his-wife-kids-to-move-into-an-apartment-with-18-year-old-student/
old high school business teacher left his wife and 3 children to pursue
marriage and a life with an 18 year old student. As we're currently studying
Aristotle and have previously discussed Ayn Rand, this story seems to offer a
stark contrast to the two approaches one can take in their philosophies of
life. Rand would suggest that one has no obligation to others in any fashion
and that reason is the only virtue that is relevant and that any relationship
must be based on mutual advantage between two people. Given that standard, I'm
uncertain if, of how these two people could be offering each other anything at
such different stages in life. Aristotle states that happiness is sought by out
actions, and by living within the "Golden Mean". This adult man
made the choice to leave his wife and 3 children, one of which is a 17 yr old
former classmate of his now fiancé and lover, was he really practicing balance
in that moment of choice? The couple claims their actions are the result of
"true love" but as Rand would tell us, "love" is irrelevant
and immaterial, it is a perversion of reason. Aristotle would tell us that “Happiness
depends upon ourselves" and that "love is 2 souls inhabiting one
body". Perhaps they are in love, and by Rands position society has no
place in judging them, but can an 18 year old girl really make that choice with
clarity? Is a 41 year old parent and husband really serving his family and self
by avoiding responsibility in the pursuit of self-wanting?
http://bossip.com/550488/no-shame-41-year-old-cali-teacher-resigns-and-leaves-his-wife-kids-to-move-into-an-apartment-with-18-year-old-student/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)