Whistleblowers and Stereotyped Cultural Norms
posted by Miriam Cherry
I’m a little slow to weigh in on this issue, but I just received the latest edition of the ABA Journal. This month, they have a story, “Culture Clash,” by John Gibeaut describing how Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower provisions are causing trouble for foreign cross-listed companies. Ideoblog and Conglomerate have already provided some commentary about the article, which begins as follows:
Americans like to elevate whistleblowers to near folk-hero status, from Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to Sherron Watkins, who exposed the Enron Corp. financial scandal that in 2002 moved Congress to pass the fraud-busting Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Indeed, Watkins shared Time magazine’s Person of the Year honors in 2002 with World Com Inc. whistleblower Cynthia Cooper and FBI agent Collen Rowley, who accused the bureau of mishandling information on suspected hijacking plotter Zacarias Moussaoui before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Say whistleblower in Germany, however, and the term most likely conjures up memories of the Gestapo, Adolf Hitler’s secret police. In France, the term evokes images of the Vichy regime’s collaboration with the Nazis and of neighbors ratting out one another.
I think that the beginning of the article relies on some flawed cultural stereotypes of both Europeans and Americans. Be that as it may, I would question the author’s proposition that American whistleblowers enjoy some sort of elevated status. About a year and a half ago, I wrote an article about (American) whistleblowers and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In the article, I argue that whistleblowers are not being given enough protection. Not under state employment law, and not under Sarbanes-Oxley either. Studies – cited in my article – show in graphic detail that American whistleblowers end up unemployed, broke, divorced, and depressed.
May 31, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Posted in: Civil Rights, Corporate Law, Employment Law, Securities
Print This Post
Responses (3)
Eh Nonymous - June 1, 2006 at 9:33 am
The biggest problem is that no amount of protection that could be given to whistleblowers would be enough.
They don’t all wind up whacked, like Mafia stoolies often have. They don’t all wind up raped and beaten, as have too many women who challenged violently sexist organizations from within.
But even if there’s an anti-retaliation statute, and even if it has teeth, how far can that go? Retaliation includes disciplinary and hiring/firing/promotion practices. It can’t protect people’s feelings. It can’t require that co-workers don’t treat the ‘blower as a pariah. It won’t get them invited back to cocktail parties.
It won’t repair lost marriages, when the spouse can’t take the harassing anonymous phone calls anymore.
It won’t provide the full-time FBI protection that would be needed for the most risky revelations.
What might help would be a whistleblower reward fund. Make the right call, retire. Then let your snubbing co-workers go whistle.
blah - June 1, 2006 at 2:17 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
Perhaps most crucial – their claims must be investigated regardless of the alleged consequences of such an investigation.
They might not end up depressed if they are vindicated – and yes, some damages if their claims are proved would help.
curious - June 2, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Last I heard, Watkins was still unemployed, and while she’s doing well on the talk circuit, potential employers avoid her like the plague once the talk is over. So much for elevated status.
Leave a Reply