Deciding To Blow The Whistle

Your decisions about whether and how to blow the whistle may be among the most significant professional and personal choices you make; you should understand the implications and potential pitfalls of your choices. Through assisting whistleblowers over the years, GAP has learned much about what kinds of strategies and cases are most likely to be successful and which are a recipe for frustration or failure. If you decide to speak out even after learning about the risks, we want you to do it in a smart and strategic manner, one that will serve your own as well as the public's interests. Please keep in mind that the suggestions provided here are not a substitute for seeking assistance from an attorney; for help in locating and selecting an attorney, see the final section.

Beyond these general criteria, your decision about whether to blow the whistle is intensely personal. It means making a choice between conflicting social values-between being a good "team player" at work, for example, and "standing up for what's right." Our culture frowns on prying "busybodies," but we also disapprove of the "see no evil, hear no evil" attitude of those who don't want to get involved. The decision also raises conflicting and deeply personal issues of loyalty and livelihood, such as the right to privacy versus the public's right to know. Loyalty to family is as much an instinct as a duty: we don't bite the hand that feeds our family by turning on our employers. We may feel a similar loyalty to our colleagues at work. At the same time, few would disagree that we have a duty of loyalty to the public trust, the law and our communities as well-one that would lead us to speak out against wrongdoing.

Determining how to act on these conflicting values is not easy, and it is a choice that only you can make. Equally important, your decision about whether to blow the whistle should be fully informed by an understanding of the potential risks and rewards of your actions.

GAP's experience shows that when individuals act strategically with the truth on their side, they can make a difference. Whistleblowers are the Achilles heel of organizational misconduct,, if they bear witness when I counts. Used astutely, truth is still the most powerful political weapon in our society, capable of defeating money and entrenched political machines. Armed with the truth, whistleblowing Davids repeatedly have exposed and defeated Goliaths who put goals of economic or political power above the public interest.

Over the years, GAP has seen many examples of the public importance of whistleblowing. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and corporate inspectors exposed the use of shoddy materials and falsified data-and forced the cancellation or restart of nuclear power plants that were "accidents waiting to happen." Federal meat inspectors blew the whistle on tons of "USDA-approved" meat and poultry that was contaminated with feces and other filth-and stopped the meat from reaching consumers' dinner tables. Government scientists revealed massive fraud and abuse in the Star Wars missile defense system-and sparked the cancellation of "Brilliant Pebbles," planned as the program's next generation. Workers at the Hanford nuclear weapons facility saved citizens in the Pacific Northwest from possible exposure to millions of gallons of liquid radioactive wastes in the water supply-by exposing and blocking operation of a dangerous plutonium reprocessing plant.

If the rewards and public benefits of whistleblowing can be substantial, so too are the costs. Time and again, GAP has seen whistleblowers pay an enormous professional and personal price for their actions-often one they did not anticipate. Because we want you to be prepared, we do not mince words in describing the risks of your decision.

You almost surely will suffer some level of harassment or retribution for living the values of a public servant. Academic studies confirm that over 90 percent of whistleblowers report subsequent retaliation. You may not believe your employer is your adversary, but the record shows that employers often do not want to be told what is wrong with their operations. Frequently they greet the bad news by trying to silence the messenger-to avoid any bad publicity, cost overruns, liability, or simply to prolong the benefits of the misconduct. It is not uncommon for whistleblowers to be harassed, socially ostracized, demoted or even fired.

You must also take a realistic and pragmatic view of the law, and the degree to which you will be legally protected from recriminations for speaking the truth. In theory, for example, federal government whistleblowers have the benefit of a government agency-the Office of Special Counsel-that exists to protect their constitutional rights and the civil service "merit system." All too often, however, federal workers who try to defend their whistleblowing rights before administrative judges find that these rights exist on paper only. Whistleblowers in the private sector face an even weaker patchwork of legal defenses.

Besides the obvious risks of potential job loss and inadequate legal protection, there is also an emotional and mental price to pay for whistleblowing. Lifetime friends may turn against you, and people with whom you work may treat you as an outcast-even if you believe your actions are in their interest.