This week’s topic is obvious. It must be the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that whistleblowing on the job is not a constitutional right. Employees can’t assert First Amendment protections for their actions.
Interestingly, the Court said that First Amendment rights already exist for employees making public comments when off the job. In those circumstances, they are acting as Joe and Jane Q. citizens and are entitled to the full compliment of constitutional goodies.
That’s some intriguing legal hair-splitting. I’m no lawyer, but I’ve had my share of presenting arguments. Sometimes in my articles I even argue with myself. Strange, eh? Strange as the High Court’s ruling. As others smarter than I immediately understood and expressed, the apparent essence of the ruling is to encourage employees to air dirty laundry in public and not first with their supervisors.
Existing whistleblowing protection laws are adequate, the Court said. One such mechanism involves reporting suspected waste, fraud, or abuse to your agency’s Inspector General’s office. Such cases are to be received, logged in, assigned, investigated, and concluded with a finding of fault or not, with the employee off the hook. Is that how it works in your agency? Is this a satisfactory and effective means in theory or practice?
Whistleblower is a 13-letter word, which, in addition to being unlucky, makes it three times as offensive as a four-letter word in a bureaucratic and organizational setting. Nobody likes people who carp and gripe and complain and moan and criticize and oppose day after day after day. Are these your typical whistleblowers? Is there a “typical” whistleblower? How would he or she look, talk, think, dress, walk, eat?
There’s a lot of talking going on, but not by whistleblowers. I doubt they’ll say much between now and forever. It’s never been easy for a reasoned, reasonable person to speak out, especially with the stigma many attach to “talking outside the office.” Many insiders, no matter how disillusioned they may become, would never consider “ratting” on their business, buddies, or livelihoods.
Thus, we are left only with the portrait of a disgruntled employee when we regard those who step forward and speak out. Besides, what is whistleblowing? Is it a female revealing sexist workplace practices? I don’t think so. Relatively new gender discrimination rules offer safe harbor for those accusers.
Under what circumstances should an executive branch employee not follow acceptable procedures and head to the nearest Inspector General’s office to present her or his case? Please tell the “Forum.”
How do you define a whistleblower? What does she look like? Why does he do what he does? Does this ever result in an overall gain for either the employee or the citizenry at large?
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M. Ed.
Approximately 450 words.
© June 2, 2006