Friday, June 17, 2016

Whistleblower Opponents: Proof (Part 2)

Whistleblower Opponents:         Proof (Part 2)

After the whistleblower makes her disclosure, the wrongdoing company typically retaliates in various ways.  Ostracism is a common technique, but there are many other tactics, these taken from accounts over the past few months[1]:

-          Lack of deserved promotions and raises (Plummer)
-          Demotions (Gutierrez-Canepa)
-          Cutbacks in hours (Grimes)
-          Forced leaves (Montgomery-Ford)
-          Unwanted relocations (Rhoades)
-          Increased scrutiny (Hames)
-          Physical threats (Bettencourt)
-          A dead rat on the whistleblower’s dashboard (Crystal)

-          And finally the whistleblower is terminated.

Termination may spark legal action if other acts of retaliation did not.  The whistleblower alleges a that her disclosures led to retaliation.  The company asserts that her termination had nothing to do with any protected disclosures.  Shrugging off any connection between the termination and her disclosures, the company attacks the whistleblower with a range of personal criticisms.  
Examples from recent whistleblower stories:

-          Poor performance (Barlyn, Blackburn, Jackson, Klym, Rookaird, Scotten)
-          Insubordination (Barlyn, Grimes, Hames, King, Plummer, Smith)
-          Discourtesy & disrespect (Pedowitz, Plummer, Scotten, Smith)
-          Failure to be a team player (Gordon)
-          Conduct unbecoming position (Grimaldi, Klym)
-          Unfit for position (Staub)
-          Mental health problems (Honl)
-          Disgruntled employee making a frivolous claim (Blackburn, Callender, Vande Hey, Honl)
-          Disclosure of confidential information (King, Ladd, Owens)
-          Misconduct (Glisson, Patton)

In some cases, the allegations are backed up with threats of lawsuits (Blackburn, Honl, Owens).

Even if these criticisms are acknowledged as legal tactics and part of the game, they are painful to the whistleblowers.  When I began my whistleblowing project, I considered myself a pretty good guy and a loyal employee.  I had been touted as having turned around HomeFirst (formerly named EHC LifeBuilders) from disaster five years earlier; I had voluntarily taken an 18% pay cut in that turnaround; I had donated more than $1,000 a year to the company over the preceding five years; and my work had been praised by Board members.  HomeFirst was to be a capstone on my 36-year career in finance that included 16 years as the top finance person in one publicly owned company and four nonprofits.

After I disclosed HomeFirst’s suspected violations, like other whistleblowers, I was accused of poor performance, insubordination, refusal to act in a professional and courteous manner, and failure to act as a CFO should when confronting the problems I identified at HomeFirst.  When I continued to press my complaints after I was fired, HomeFirst accused me of being obsessive, bizarre, and defamatory.  It alleged that I possessed confidential information to which I had no right and I had illegally accessed the company’s computer systems after my termination.  If I did not stop complaining, they said, they would sue me.

The company’s strategy of declining to address what the whistleblower seeks to prove – a connection between whistleblowing and retaliation – tempts the whistleblower to try to disprove the company’s contentions.  That task is difficult, though, because no whistleblower is an angel.

As corporate wrongs emerge from the cultures that encourage them, the whistleblower may naturally become disgruntled.  Where superiors and peers persist in doing wrong, the whistleblower may be properly insubordinate, disrespectful, and unfit for her position.  The longer the employee witnesses wrongdoing before making her disclosures, the more likely she is to resent her company, her superiors, and her colleagues.

Staying with the organization to help it correct its wrongs exposes the whistleblower to more risks and to weaken her ability to prove her case.


No comments:

Post a Comment