Reference no: EM132289282
This is a discussion
Whistle-blowing
Personally, I think I would only consider being a whistleblower if I had nothing to lose. In the example of Sherry Hunt vs CitiBank, she truly had a "near-perfect case", from both the Department of Justice perspective and a personal perspective. She had spent her entire professional life working with home loans, so she knew with certainty that what CitiBank was doing was illegal. When she refused to forge reports, they took away her responsibilities and her team, forcing her to quit. So at the time that she blew the whistle, she had absolutely nothing to lose. She did, however, have a lot to gain, in the form of $30 million dollars and the sweet taste of revenge against her former employer.
Most whistleblowing cases, however, are not so cut and dry. People like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who think they are doing the public a favor by exposing government secrets, are essentially no longer welcome in our country. And at the end of the day, people are forced to wonder, are we better off not knowing those government secrets? According to our book, "The SEC received over 4,000 complaints in 2016 and has paid a total of 34 awards since 2011. Clearly, the vast majority of tips received result in no awards being made". Personally, that is not a percentage that I am willing to bet on.
Ultimately, I agree with you that the risks of whistleblowing outweigh the rewards. Unless I am lucky enough to be like Sherry Hunt, and know that I have a slam-dunk case, I'd rather keep my job, career, and personal life stable, and my mouth shut.
“Does It Pay to Blow the Whistle?” Taking Sides, by Gina Vega, 15th ed., McGraw Hill Education, 2018, pp. 93–103.