Make a case supporting or disputing the claim that whistle blowing is morally wrong because it violates a duty of loyalty to the employer.

The concept of whistle blowing is quite complex. Whistle blowing doesn't involve just making public a negative aspect of one's workplace, the whistle blower, I will argue, has a primary concern for the wellbeing of the public. In the following essay I will provide an outline of the concept of whistle blowing thus giving us a framework to discuss whether whistle blowing is morally wrong, particularly in relation to duty and the concept of loyalty.

A whistle blower is not someone who makes public a negative aspect of their workplace, although that may be an aspect of what a whistle blower does. A whistle blower pursues changes in their workplace that will prevent some future public harm from occurring (Grace and Cohen 2005, p. 164). You may notice that I've used the term workplace here. It is conceptually possible that a whistle blower may not be an employee of the particular organisation that they are blowing the whistle upon. However, because the question that this essay is based upon is aimed at employee/employer realtions I have limited the definition, in this case, to whistle blowing in the workplace. It may be argued that this definition of whistle blowing is too loose, that is, it provides too much scope to include actions that may not be actual cases of whistle blowing. Let's have a closer look at the definition and see if it needs to be narrowed.

From just a cursory glance at the above definition of whistle blowing it is apparent that the whistle blower acts with the aversion of public harm as their motive. The whistle blower does not, however, act with the intention of increasing the public good. It may be in the public's interest to know what Kentucky Fried Chicken's secret herbs and spices are but it is not a public harm (unless, of course, there is some harmful property to KFC's recipe) to not know this information. It may be beneficial for the public to know certain aspects of a company's procedures, for example trade secrets kept by companies such as KFC, but unless the information given by the whistle blower is intended to avert public harm then the act is not whistle blowing. A whistle blower also does not act for some personal reason, be it personal gain or perhaps even revenge. Grace and Cohen (2005, pp. 173-174) provide the example of Orlando Helicopter Airways whereby an employee provided a memo to the financier of a particular contract outlining engineering safety breaches.

Prima facie, this may seem like a legitimate case of whistle blowing but a number of relevant facts are provided for us to narrow our definition based upon this case. The employee had the potential to gain a large financial reward for providing this acusation. The employee was in a large amount of debt so also had motive for seeking a large financial reward. Having motive, while possibly relevant to a broad definition of whistle blowing, is still slightly ambiguous. It is possible that people in debt may also, and unrelatedly, be found in the position of a whistle blower. What is of primary concern, however, are two factors. Firstly, the quantity and quality of information that the whistle blower provides. It is fairly worthless for a potential whistle blower to not have all the relevant information before going public. This was apparently the case with the Orlando Helicopter Airways employee as after extensive investigation the company was found to not be in breach of any of the employees allegations. Secondly, the employee needs to address their concerns internally before going public. Not only does this give the employee an opportunity to gather all relavant facts pertaining to the matter but it also sheds light on the issue giving the company opportunity to rectify any potential problem from within.

Perhaps then, if we are going to refine our definition, we should include these relevant facts. Whistle blowing is, therefore, the pursuit of changes in the workplace that will prevent some future public harm from occurring while also providing relevant information that the public has a right to know, not trade secrets such as KFC's recipes, and having exhausted all relevant internal processes to rectify the issue. If these conditions are met then we can safely assume that the act is whistle blowing.

But this doesn't shed light on whether the act of whistle blowing is morally right or wrong or whether it violates a duty of loyalty. It may be argued that whistle blowing, as defined above, is in the public interest but may, at the same time, violate some sort of duty that the employee has with the employer. Surely whistle blowing cannot be a morally right act if it violates a moral position such as a duty of loyalty. Bowie (in Duska, p. 313) claims that the employee does 'have a duty of loyalty to [their] employer...that prohibits [them] from reporting [their] employer or company'. If Bowie's position holds, and there are no further duties to be considered, then whistle blowing would be consistent with the position that whistle blowing is a morally wrong act. But there are two aspects of this position that need to be discussed before this position can be accepted.

Firstly, are there any other duties that bind the employee? There may be cases where there is a conflict of duty that the employee faces when making decisions such as whether or not to report their employer. Grace and Cohen (2005, p. 168) use the example of the Institution of Engineers Australia (IEAust) to illustrate such conflict. In IEAust's Code of Ethics it is explicitly stated that the welfare of the public overrides the engineers responsibility to their profession. It is, therefore, conceptually possible that in such a case whistle blowing would not violate any duty that the employee had to the employer or the company.

Secondly, is the business, company or corporation the kind of entity that is able to be the object of loyalty? This is the argument that Duska presents and one that needs to be presented here. According to Duska, companies are not the kind of things that can be objects of loyalty (p. 313). Loyalty is the kind of thing that is experienced in a relationship but not every relationship demands loyalty. I exist in a kind of relationship with the other students in my class but this relationship does not demand that I have a duty of loyalty to my fellow students. Similarly, Duska (p. 315) argues that '[w]hat binds people together in a business is not sufficient to require [a duty of] loyalty'. For a business to not only exist but to continue to exist it needs to make a profit, this is business' primary goal (Oxendine & Puryear 1971, p. 136). The relationship that people have with one another in a business is based on fulfilling this end, namely realising a profit. If the employee no longer produces a profit or if a cheaper and equivalent employee can be found then for the business to continue to fulfill its primary goal the employee may need to be disposed of (Duska 1993, p. 315). If the company has no duty of loyalty to the employee then it can not be expected that the employee have a duty of loyalty to the company.

The reason that Bowie claims that the employee does have a duty of loyalty to the company is because he views the relationships within the company as valuable enough to demand loyalty. Bowie's position is that the members of the company all work together to achieve a set goal and that this goal is valuable (Duska 1993, p. 316). Duska argues that this is a dangerous position to hold as the goal, while certainly being valuable to the company, i.e. realising a profit, the same goal may not be valuable to the employees or the public as a whole. Further, people do not choose to be a participant in business, it is a requirement that 'permeates everyone's lives', therefore lessening the obligation, if any existed, that the individual had to be loyal to the company (Duska 1993, p. 316).

But this needn't be the case in all examples of business relationships. Some businesses, such as not-for-profit organisations and charitable corporations, do not actively seek to make the highest possible profit or, sometimes, any profit at all. Their main goal is to seek the highest good for the community (Oxendine & Puryear 1971, p. 137). It is permissible to conceive of a group of employees in such an organisation as having a duty of loyalty to the company as having a duty of loyalty to the company involves having a duty of loyalty to the community.

In looking at whether whistle blowing violates a duty of loyalty to the employer it is important to look at who the employer is as some employers may not be the kind of entities that are capable of receiving a duty of loyalty. Whistle blowing, in most cases, would not be a violation of a duty of loyalty because such a duty either doesn't exist or is overridden by the greater good that will come from the outcome of the act of whistle blowing. On the other hand, if the employer is the kind of entity that is capable of receiving a duty of loyalty then whistle blowing may be permissibly seen as a violation of that duty. Perhaps it is best to call such a duty to an eligible employer a prima facie duty, that is a duty that is not absolute, one that can be superseded if a higher duty exists such as the whistle blowers objective, to prevent public harm from occurring.

1631 Words.

References

Bowie, N, Business Ethics, cited in Duska, R 1993, 'Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty' in Beauchamp, T & Bowie, N (eds), Ethical Theory and Business, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p. 313

Duska, R 1993, 'Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty' in Beauchamp, T & Bowie, N (eds), Ethical Theory and Business, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp. 312-316.

Grace, D and Cohen, S 2005, Business Ethics: Problems and Cases, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

Oxendine, J & Puryear, A 1971, 'Profit Motivation and Management Assistance in Community Economic Development', Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 136-144.